Building Inspection Commission
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)
REGULAR MEETING
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400
April 19, 2004
Adopted May 17, 2004
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by President Santos.
1. | Call to Order and Roll Call – Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified. |
||
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTS: Rodrigo Santos, President Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President Alfonso Fillon, Commissioner Esther Marks, Commissioner Denise D’Anne, excused Matt Brown, Commissioner Roy Guinnane, Commissioner |
|||
Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary |
|||
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES: |
|||
Frank Y. Chiu, Director Amy Lee, Assistant Director Ken Harrington, Special Assistant to the Director Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director William Wong, Deputy Director Wing Lau,Chief Building Inspector Hanson Tom,Permit Services Program Manager Sonya Harris, Secretary |
|||
2. |
President’s Announcements. President Santos had no announcements. |
||
3. |
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 at this time. |
||
4. |
Presentation and discussion regarding Advisor to the Mayor, Rudy Nothenberg and his assignment to review DBI operations as requested by the Mayor. |
||
|
Mr. Rudy Nothenberg thanked the Commission for asking him to appear and thanked the President and the Commissioners for the cooperation that had been shown to him so far. Mr. Nothenberg said that several members of DBI staff have made themselves available to answer his questions and stated that from the Director on down, have all been cordial. 1. Mr. Nothenberg said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with, and it is human nature for people or clients or representatives of clients to want to move their permits through quickly as that is what they are paid to do and if they can get an edge, they are going to get an edge. Mr. Nothenberg said that is not the problem; the problem is within the Department. Mr. Nothenberg stated that if the Department wanted to end favoritism once and for all, the Department could do that today; the Management of the Department could begin doing that today by just making it explicit to every Inspector in the field, to every Permit Checker and every Manager that old friendships, old associations, and old customs are simply no longer the way in which this Department is going to be run; it’s going to be clean. Mr. Nothenberg said that the Commission should say that, make Frank say that and permeate that through the Department and if there is anything that is out there that is unfair; it will stop. Mr. Nothenberg stated that maybe there is and maybe there isn’t; he doesn’t know, but said that he thought that there was nobody who was making any money out of this and said maybe it is a culture issue. Mr. Nothenberg said it is within the Department’s and the Commission’s hands today to solve and it did not need him looking into it. |
||
5. |
Presentation and discussion regarding how the Planning Department expended DBI funds in the amount of $2.4M in fiscal years 2003-2004. Mr. Amit Ghosh introduced himself as a member of the Planning Department and stated that Diane Lim, Chief of Administration was also present with him today. Mr. Ghosh said that he thought that it would be good if Diane first talked about the fiscal arrangements that were made with the Building Department to support the Planning Department and said that then he would go into the work program of the city-wide policy planning division which was helped with the money that was transferred. Ms. Diane Lim said that she wanted to give some history regarding the Planning Department’s operating budget and stated that the budget was about $13.2M and last fiscal year the department submitted a balanced budget and at the end of the budget process, which deals with this transfer, Planning’s budget is $13.2 with the submittal of a request for a $4M General Fund contribution which has always been the history of the department’s budget. Ms. Lim stated that Planning has always had about a 30% General Fund contribution. Ms. Lim said that at the end of the budget process the General Fund contribution was removed and replacing the General Fund contribution was the $2.3M revenue transfer from Building Inspections. Ms. Lim said that the $2.3M was designated for the funding of twenty-two planner positions for long-range planning. Ms. Lim said that funding was for staffing particularly to complete the citywide action plan and Amit Ghosh; the Long-Range Planning Director would discuss the status of this project. Mr. Ghosh said that he was in charge of long-range planning in the policy division and stated that the department is organized in a way where neighborhood planning deals with applications for permits to make changes to buildings and for new construction and changes in land use. Mr. Ghosh stated that the policies that guide those permits and the rules that apply are set forth in the general plan and its different elements, and in the Planning Code that needs to be consistent with the general plan. Mr. Ghosh said that the job in the citywide policy division is to set those rules and rules in the general plan and then follow through from those broad policies in specific plans, in area plans and in specific Code provisions that then apply to specific instances of change in land use or alteration to building structures. Mr. Ghosh said that as Diane reported Planning has an ongoing work program that requires about thirty people, but historically over the last few years there have been around twenty. Mr. Ghosh stated that there are still vacancies and although this year’s budget has an allotment for about twenty-four positions, including management and secretarial staff, they will be lucky to fill about twenty planners and two support staff. Mr. Ghosh stated that what happened last year was that he had prepared, and this is important to note, that the Planning program was prepared independent of where the funds would come from because at the time it was anticipated that it would come from the General Fund. Mr. Ghosh stated that the budget was what it was and through Diane’s work and the work of Director Gerald Green along with the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office it was figured that money was available from the monies that DBI had earned through building permit processing and that would perhaps be used for supporting the work of long-range policy planning so that was done. Mr. Ghosh said that he wanted to very briefly review the broad general activities that the citywide planning policy undertakes and they are in three major broad sections. Mr. Ghosh said that one deals with the Citywide Action Plan and Community Planning and this is a short term policy framework that allows planning to figure out exactly how in the next five to ten years planning would be balancing the need for jobs and housing as it relates to land use. Mr. Ghosh said this would include what kinds of new policies and regulations would be required in order to prepare the ground for the actual projects that can be accommodated. Mr. Ghosh stated that San Francisco is a mature City and there is a lot of contention over how land or a specific piece of land gets used so the approach was to gain as much community acceptance as possible through a broad policy framework that allocated the focus on a citywide basis on what land would be used where and how. Mr. Ghosh reported that within that piece planning isolated areas called better neighborhood programs that focused on transit notes and isolated the downtown area which is called the Downtown Neighborhood initiative because that is where including the industrial areas in and around downtown where planning has pursued city policy to locate as much of the work force housing as possible in the future. Mr. Ghosh said that in a mature City where there are residentially designated areas there are established communities and established neighborhoods where it is very difficult to bring in new housing and new change without a lot of debate and concern. Mr. Ghosh said that in order to meet the challenges to be faced in the future there is a proactive strategy to identify surplus, underutilized, industrial areas and identify areas in and around downtown that can be better used for housing and community buildings and then go forth with rules and regulations that would then allow certainty in the process of building applications. Mr. Ghosh reported that this was the overall kind of strategy and within that framework said that he had a brief summary of the work program that he would leave with the BIC Secretary that is the data work with an example on one sheet that shows very advanced GIS bases information that was developed so that the policies and the designation of land use can be informed with what the consequences of what the different fissions might be. Vice-President Hood asked what GIS stood for. Mr. Ghosh answered that it was Geographical Information Systems; a digital map on which information can be hanged so that any piece of the map can be attached to anything that planning may or may not know. Mr. Ghosh stated that information attached to land becomes intelligently accessible and intelligently assessed. Mr. Ghosh said that with that as a background this is just a picture of one screen of an Internet program where one could feed in information about land use policy, about forecasts of population, about forecast of employment or traffic congestion and about City support and infrastructure; put all of that information together and churn it through the different policy avenues and get what different scenarios might result in the near and long term future so this is a very useful tool that planning has developed with the help of DBI’s money. Mr. Ghosh said that within the downtown initiatives and better neighborhood’s program there are specific plans that if he had a little more time could show the Commission exactly how the strategy is to improve the certainty and minimize the risk in the development process because these plans include something which is known as the program EIR that then looks at the entire development program as a whole so that when specific projects come to be put on the ground there is a lot of agreement, consent and knowledge about exactly what the consequences will be. Mr. Ghosh stated that the hope is that most of these projects that require environmental review individually and take at least between twelve to twenty-four months could happen almost like regular permits in no longer than ninety days. Mr. Ghosh said as examples of those he had the Trans-Bay Terminal specific plan, the Rincon Hills specific plan and said that he would pass these around to the Commissioners. Mr. Ghosh said that he could not leave the copies with the Commission or the Department as he had very few copies and it was very expensive to reproduce. Mr. Ghosh said that learning from the better neighborhood projects last year planning also figured out with DBI’s money ways to improve and slim down the community plan development process. Mr. Ghosh stated that an example of that is the Glen Park Plan that has been developed and stated that he had just gotten an endorsement by the Commission last Thursday. Mr. Ghosh said that he was happy to report that this was very well received because there was a lot of dialogue about contentious issues in the communities and people come around and sit at the table, look at the information and are then given the information that helps them to decide what kind of future to accept in their neighborhoods. Mr. Ghosh said that there is a profile of the neighborhood that is decided upon so that people who want to make change and provide that change like builders and developers and private and even public enterprise have a blueprint that is agreed upon by the neighborhood. Mr. Ghosh referred to an example of that which was done over a period of about a week where planners were actually living in the neighborhood at the Glen Park School with the community coming in every evening and working with the planners to look at the issues and then leaving it up to the consultants and the experts to put together a plan that they then vented out and discussed and revised. Mr. Ghosh said that he had that product that was developed over an eight-month period last year and again this staff was funded through DBI’s efforts. Mr. Ghosh said that with the eastern neighborhoods, he believed that planning has sent all of the Commissioners the zoning proposals that had been developed. Mr. Ghosh said that this report sorted out all of the industrial lands into what is surplus and out of a total of sixteen hundred acres of industrial land about twelve hundred acres are being opened up for community building and housing and the rest is being maintained for development of what is called production, distribution and repair, mostly in the central waterfront and the area where Goodman’s used to be between the two freeways. Mr. Ghosh said that he had the results of that larger study and the policy plans he did not bring because the Commissioners had copies of that, but said he had the zoning that has been worked out and is awaiting the completion of the environmental review for which unfortunately they do not have any money. Mr. Ghosh reported that the famous housing element was something that was prepared and got caught in the perfect storm of controversy because again planning did not have the wherewithal when it did get started a couple of years ago to really inform folks about exactly what was going to happen to their neighborhoods. Mr. Ghosh said that this gives planning a very hard learned lesson on exactly how to put more effort into the front end of the dialogue so that there is less information about what the actual results would finally be that happened on the ground. Mr. Ghosh said that he had given DBI a quick overview of the two major pieces and what is behind producing all of this is a lot of data analysis and research that goes into the formulation of these policies and that staffing was also funded to the tune of about twenty-two people for $2.3M that was received from DBI revenues. Mr. Ghosh said he would be happy to answer any questions. President Santos thanked Mr. Ghosh for his presentation and said that he had a quick pragmatic question for Mr. Ghosh. President Santos asked Mr. Ghosh is Planning was going to need $2.4M from DBI every year. Mr. Ghosh said that he did not believe that the money had to come from DBI every year, but to do the work that they do it requires a contingent of about thirty people and they manage to get twenty to twenty-five every year. Mr. Ghosh stated that this comes down to about a $3M budget for which last year they had an allocation of $0 General Funds. Mr. Ghosh said that this is when he believed the folks that deal with budgets looked at where there were surplus revenues and found DBI. President Ghosh asked if there was anything within the Department of City Planning where they could generate additional revenues that could be used for this purpose. Mr. Ghosh said that this is exactly what he has been asking, but again historically Planning has been done through General Funds and the thinking has been that since it is kind of the stewardship of the commons so to speak that general tax dollars should pay for that money and not any specific revenue sources that might have some enterprise driven goals, however, State and local laws allow it and said that Planning Department Management has been looking at this very seriously over the past few years to see how planning permits and revenue earned from planning permits could be graduated so that is can also support the basic planning that needs to be done in order for local jurisdictions to enable permit processing. Mr. Ghosh stated that the police powers are based on formulating a general plan and therefore if permits are given out for which people pay, then the law states that monies can be realized from planning fees to support general planning. Mr. Ghosh said that Planning has been looking into this with the City Attorney’s Office and said that Diane could give some details about where Planning is with that. President Santos said that he would just make one suggestion, two words, “Discretionary Review”, because it is a horrific drain on the Department of City Planning. President Santos said that it would be important to reassess and reevaluate the cost that is incurred by City Planning to go through that process because it is literally a drain. President Santos said that in watching that every Thursday, he can see that there are three Planners sitting there waiting for their turn and many public speakers and said that he was sure that what the City charges for that does not even one-tenth of what is spent. Mr. Ghosh said that he thought that the Planning Department charged a few hundred dollars and the costs are in the thousands. Commissioner Brown said that it was suggested that there be some sort of reevaluation of the fee structure at the Planning Department so that it could accommodate these kinds of programs and said that Mr. Ghosh mentioned that there was a hesitancy at the Planning Department because these are considered to be public funds. Commissioner Brown said that right now they are coming from a fee structure driven system so it is a little bit ironic that the Department of Building Inspection is going to have to restructure their funds to accommodate a fee structure system in another department where they’re not willing to adjust the fee structure. Commissioner Brown said that the funds that are coming to accommodate this particular program are from a Special Fund Department so they are fee driven funds and being used to General Fund kind of work so it is difficult for this Commission to continue to approve taking $2.4M from DBI’s funds every year when it is a fee driven Department if in fact the Planning Department is not even willing to look at its own fee structure. Mr. Ghosh said that he did not mean to make the Commission believe that it is a hesitancy in the Planning Department to do that as the Planning Department has been trying over the past few years to try to assess the amount of costs and recover the costs through its fee funded requirements, but the issue is when there are no fees for things such as general planning then there are no fees charges. Mr. Ghosh said that there is no one identified who would be paying for this through General Funds, but the laws now allow through this specific planning that Planning has started to cover for plans and this is what they are aggressively pursuing. Mr. Ghosh said that he did agree that it was the Planning Department’s responsibility exactly how to fund Planning and it is the City’s responsibility how to figure out policies that then go towards the stewardship of the commons. Vice-President Hood said that to follow up with Commissioner Brown’s comments, it seemed to her that the Commission was talking about $3M and Planning’s budget was $13M. Vice-President Hood asked if the $3M was part of the $13M or in addition. Mr. Ghosh answered that it was part of the $13M. Vice-President Hood stated that this amounted to over 25% of Planning’s budget coming from the Building Inspection Department and in a gross sort of conceptual frame work that would mean that Planning would have to increase the fees for Planning review by some 27% in order to meet that gap. Vice-President Hood asked if the Planning fees were increased by 27% would that be out of line from what they charge in similar cities where there is as much democratic participation as there is in San Francisco, as is evidenced by people filing DRs and hiring attorneys at $500 per hour. Vice-President Hood said that she noticed that there were some ten consultants that worked on the trans bay project. Mr. Ghosh stated that the consultants were through the Redevelopment Agency, but staff was from the Planning Department. Vice-President Hood said that she was wondering what Mr. Ghosh thought the prospect of getting that kind of fee increase would be based on comparisons with other cities and his own long experience with the Planning Department. Mr. Ghosh stated that he was convinced that it was very good, but there are two issues that are involved whether Planning should be increasing the amount of expenditure and time that is spent on Discretionary Reviews (DRs) within the Planning Department or whether that very deserved public service should be handled some other way. Mr. Ghosh stated that if it is handled within the Planning Department then there should be some way to pay for it, as it cannot be a constant drain. Mr. Ghosh said that initially DRs were supposed to be a very extraordinary power that the Planning Commission had only to be exercised only in very extraordinary circumstances and not as a plural right. Vice-President Hood said that she couldn’t agree more as she found that this DR issue has been very much misapplied according to the language of the Charter. Vice-President Hood said that there should be a way to have a more equitable assignment to increase all of the permit fees for all projects or else increasing the cost to the people who call for the DRs. Mr. Ghosh said that people are willing to pay for service and if there is at the end of the deal, certainty provided or a minimization of risk, then the folks that build in the very difficult circumstances in San Francisco are willing to get that certainty and pay for it up front. Commissioner Guinnane said that last year he met with Planning Director Gerald Green and members of DBI and the money that was given to Planning, the $2.4M, was a one-time thing, but now it seems to be ongoing. Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know why Planning was different than DBI, but Planning had to look at its fee structure and waste. Commissioner Guinnane stated that it was misrepresented to DBI and the BIC that Planning was getting x amount of money and there was no talk about cutting back money from the General Fund to Planning; that was never disclosed at all. Commissioner Guinnane thought that the $2.4M was in excess of Planning’s budget and was going to be used for Planning to look at up zoning on Third Street, Geary Blvd., and Portola Drive. Commissioner Guinnane stated that Planning had to be like every other department and DBI could not subsidize Planning every year, and were not going to do it this year. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would strongly oppose giving any money to Planning this year as DBI has slots to be filled and Planning should look at its own structure. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he understood that the DR fee was $146 and the cost to the department is at least $2,500. Commissioner Guinnane said that people are really upset with Planning and they don’t mind paying, but it is the wait, the wait that is the whole issue. Commissioner Guinnane said that people call him about their plans taking so long and it is that the plans are stuck in Planning for six or eight months and it’s not the Building Department. Mr. Ghosh said that when Planning prepared their work program that was supported by this one time transfer it was independent of where the funds were coming from; Mr. Ghosh said that from his perspective he prepared a city wide program that would be robust and would be able to meet the city’s needs. Mr. Ghosh stated that historically the General Fund funded this, but it just so happened that in that particular year there was no means of supporting this program through the General Fund. Mr. Ghosh said that Commissioner Guinnane was right in saying that it was a one-time deal, but it is being looked at this year as to how best to support the Planning Department. Mr. Ghosh said that he did not believe that any decision had been made, and said that Diane and Constelino Hogan were present to speak to what arrangements are being made as this is outside his expertise. Commissioner Guinnane asked how much money Planning was looking for in 2005. Mr. Ghosh said that it was about $3.2M for policy planning. Commissioner Guinnane asked how much would be coming from DBI. Mr. Ghosh said he had no idea. Assistant Director Lee said that last year DBI gave Planning $2.3M for this purpose and an additional $250,000 for Code Enforcement so the total was $2.55. Commissioner Guinnane asked why DBI was giving Planning $250,000 for Code Enforcement because DBI does the Code Enforcement. Ms. Lee said that this was something that was decided and agreed upon so she was just giving the BIC some history. Ms. Lee stated that last month there was a supplemental appropriation’s request submitted to the Board requesting $1.2M of DBI’s capital funds to pay for expenses occurred in Planning for 1997, 1998 and 1999. Ms. Lee said that this was brought to the attention of the Commissioners. Ms. Lee said that she wanted to give the Commission a better understanding of what was going on with this particular issue and said that this past couple of weeks DBI has been meeting with the Mayor’s Office and have been directed to cut all new budget requests for new positions for the next fiscal year. Ms. Lee reported that DBI was given direction to cut and eliminate existing positions so these are additional factors for the Commission to consider. Ms. Lee stated that for next fiscal year 2004/2005 there were funds put into DBI’s baseline budget for Planning, another $2.3M as well as another $250,000. Ms. Lee said that DBI subsequently after discussion before the Commission removed these amounts from DBI’s baseline and asked the Controller’s Office to remove it as well and they have done so, but the conversation is still out there in terms of next fiscal year. President Santos asked Ms. Lee, that as a member of the Litigation Committee when funds are transferred to DBI as a settlement some of it has to go to Planning and asked if that was a significant amount. Ms. Lee said that usually that amount reported is usually what is owed to DBI because of the Building Codes and then a separate amount is reported for Planning purposes and usually there are very nominal fees for Planning as well as for the Business and Professional Codes. Ms. Lee reported that most of the money goes to DBI, Fire or the Health Department. President Santos said that Ms. Lee was painting a very bleak picture. Ms. Lee said that DBI would not be able to hire any new positions for next fiscal year and the Department has been requested to cut 20% of all administrative costs and have submitted that proposal last week. Ms. Lee said according to a discussion with the Mayor’s Budget Analyst she had deleted some of the existing positions, but after discussions with Ms. Lee and Ms. Madison the analyst reinstituted some of them, but asked that the Department cut existing vacant and also existing positions that would reduce DBI’s administrative costs. President Santos asked what options DBI has when asked to give $2.4M to Planning. Ms. Lee said that she echoes Mr. Nothenberg’s frustration about the management of this City and said that this is the fourth year of a deficit problem and 911 did not just happen last week and everyone knew that the dot.coms were going down. Ms. Lee stated that certainly there are issues that can be done city wide and it is frustrating that DBI, as much as it is said that DBI is excellently managed because of the surplus, she personally would not want that much of a surplus. Ms. Lee stated that DBI had wanted to spend some of the money for the purposes of the Departments, but as DBI’s budget is submitted to the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors all of DBI’s requests are reduced. Ms. Lee said that it is frustrating that DBI is criticized for the surplus and can’t spend the surplus, so she did not have the answers, but once again it might be important to talk very frankly with the Mayor’s Budget Office. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that the BIC should have a meeting with the Mayor because in reading the SPUR and American Institute of Architects report it quotes that there are only eighteen district Building Inspectors and even fewer Plumbing and Building Inspectors to address the scores of projects city wide plus two Building Inspectors for special projects. Vice-President Hood said that the report goes on to say that this results in a limited amount of time for Inspectors to review projects under construction; delays in obtaining required inspections are a continual source of frustration for owners and contracts alike. Vice-President Hood stated that the outrageous thing here is that DBI is being criticized by the Mayor’s Office and evaluated by Mr. Nothenberg on innuendo, but here are the stated facts that DBI is being prevented from responding to these issues by the Mayor’s Office. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that the Department should point out that it is being asked to reduce spending on things that the fees are collected for as required by State law and to transfer that money to pay for things that the fees are not collected for. Vice-President Hood said that there was a ruling from the City Attorney’s Office saying that long-range planning was related to building permit fees and said that she thought that was a stretch, but it is very clear that by not being able to fill these vacant positions, the Department is not providing the service to the public that they paid for and were intended for. Vice-President Hood stated that the Commission and the Department need to make that clear to the Mayor, that the Department cannot be criticized for poor service while the requests for spending the money in the right way and was legally collected and then illegally give it to other people to make up for deficits in other city departments who have not saved for a rainy day. Ms. Lee said that she agreed wholeheartedly and said that she has been in a very difficult situation. Vice-President Hood said that she knew that Ms. Lee has done a very good job in representing the Department and Commission’s interest, but thought that this Commission needed to made a special effort to meet with the Mayor and explain the bind that the Department is in here. Vice-President Hood said that she knew that the City had to make up the $300M deficit that exists in other departments, but asked why should the people who paid the money and then the money is taken away and they are still paying interest rates on construction projects or their houses; it is because the fees are not going for the purpose for which they were paid. Commissioner Guinnane said that the opinion that was rendered last year by the City Attorney was very, very stretched and now DBI is going to have problems with filling positions and hanging onto its money. Commissioner Guinnane stated that this Commission should get an outside opinion, other than the City Attorney. Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know how the Commission was going to do that, but said it was a disgrace what is happening with being unable to fill positions and cars breaking down and by closing these positions off it just gives money to these other departments to waste. Commissioner Marks said that she thought that it would be a more productive route, since there are four Commissioners who are Mayoral appointees, to get three of these Commissioners to meet with the Mayor and go over the additional staff that the Department needs and the use of DBI revenues to fill those jobs. Commissioner Marks said that she did not think that it was a productive route to look at the money being used to give to City Planning for long range planning. Commissioner Fillon said that he whole heartedly supported long range planning because he is a planner himself and worked with Redevelopment so he totally agreed with long range planning for sustainable growth; however, he said that what really disturbed him was that right now in Planning for a DR project there is a six and one-half week wait just to get a planner assigned to a contract. Commissioner Fillon stated that he would have felt much better today if Mr. Ghosh had come to DBI and informed the Commission how Planning was using the money to improve the permitting process and the project evaluation process, but even though the many specific plans and studies that are before the Commission today are great, but there is no balance. Commissioner Fillon said that there is a crisis right now with DR because the backlog is incredible and said that a great disservice was being done to the people of San Francisco. Commissioner Fillon said that if DBI has to give this money to Planning, for God’s sake, put it to good use and stop the hole in the dam. Mr. Ghosh said that was exactly what he was trying to do and Planning is trying to strike at the root of the problem. Mr. Ghosh said that in looking at why there are so many DRs and why there is so much contention it is because Planning has not done these neighborhood plans because those give an out from this project by project scrutiny. Commissioner Fillon said that these plans take several years to put together and there are projects that need to be dealt with in a couple of months. Commissioner Fillon said that the problem was in the process itself by having enough Planners to do the projects themselves and do the intake and evaluation. Commissioner Fillon said that he did not think that Planning was dealing with the problem by spending money on these specific neighborhood plans. Commissioner Marks said that she wanted to remind the Commission that Mr. Ghosh’s job for being here was to explain how the money that DBI is contributing to Planning is being used and the Commission has absolutely no right in beating him up as this is a whole other issue. Commissioner Marks said that Mr. Ghosh was just supposed to explain how the funds are being used for long range planning and for the Commission to bring up all of these other things is totally inappropriate. Commissioner Fillon said that he was just saying that he was a little disappointed. Commissioner Marks stated that no one could be disappointed in Mr. Ghosh’s presentation. Mr. Ghosh said that he understood and stated that since he is dealing with long range planning he has to focus on the problem that Commissioner Fillon is addressing which is this confused, Byzantine permit process that Planning. Mr. Ghosh said that from the kind of work that he does he believes that Planning has taken this on directly and in reading the SPUR report it says so again and outlines exactly how if DBI can sustain patience for a couple of years and get the communities to agree to a certain process then it becomes a self recovering process. Mr. Ghosh stated that folks would see the results and are willing to pay for it and that is the scheme that has been worked out on a citywide action plan. Mr. Ghosh said that at this point, even though the Commissioners are impatient and don’t really see what the connection is, this is exactly what long range planning will help DBI do in terms of resolving the problems DBI is facing today. Vice-President Hood said that she did not think that the problems that the Planning Department is experiencing are related with respect to Discretionary Review to the quality of the plans for the neighborhoods. Vice-President Hood stated that she has been getting permits in the City since 1978 and during that time she has heard many Discretionary Reviews both by sitting in the audience or with projects that she was working. Vice-President Hood said that what she found over and over again was that it was not the big projects, but it is the neighbor who lives next door who thinks that the project next door is going to block the sun in their kitchen between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. from November to March. Vice-President Hood said that it is usually for very petty things and those things are not covered by this as it is more of a question of making a policy to only take Discretionary Reviews on projects that follow the ordinance. Mr. Ghosh said that this was the premise of this enterprise that Planning will not have case-by-case conditional review or DR; the whole preamble that these specific plans are based is on that conjecture. Mr. Ghosh said that he believed that Planning had used the money to serve DBI in the best way possible. Vice-President Hood said that she applauded the long-range plan and said that it was long overdue and has been neglected, but said what she was concerned about was the fact, that through no fault of Mr. Ghosh’s, DBI is being asked to spend funds that have been collected for one purpose on another purpose. Vice-President Hood said that the Planning Department is not collecting the amount of fees that it needs to cover this same process. Ms. Diane Lim said that she wanted to speak a little bit about the fee analysis and the fee increase proposal. Ms Lim stated that Planning has been working with the Controller’s Office and the Mayor’s Finance Office for the past year and has been looking at different alternatives in increasing Planning’s fees, perhaps time and materials, or surcharges to capture all of the costs for DRs long-range planning. Ms. Lim said that in Planning’s budget for next year they have submitted a balanced budget without any funding requests to any other departments and there is a $3.2M request for General Fund contribution and are concurrently working on a fee package that they hope to get through by the end of this month. Ms. Lim said that this would be going before the Board of Supervisor’s Finance Committee and Planning did not know what the outcome would be, but in next year’s budget there is no request for funding through DBI. President Santos thanked staff from Planning for coming before the Commission and said that they should raise their fees. Mr. Ritchie Hart said that he could not help hearing Mr. Ghosh’s report on the Planning Department and said that he wanted to make a quick comparison between Planning and the Department of Building Inspection. Mr. Hart said that the Building Commission and the Department of Building Inspection are a very efficiently run Department that is being investigated by a Special Monitor yet, here is the Department of City Planning who are constantly short of money and no investigation is made. Mr. Hart stated that he thought that the Mayor should sit down and bring Mr. Rudy Nothenberg to Planning and investigate that department. Mr. Hart said that he was not saying there was any wrongdoing there, but there is no long-range planning, financial long-range planning, as the Planning Department has no idea how to spend a dollar or no idea how to save for a rainy day. Mr. Hart said that DBI has a surplus every year and it is simple, the Department is run properly with good leadership. Mr. Hart said that Mr. Ghosh as a long term planner does not bring enough leadership because he talks about the better neighborhoods and Mr. Hart stated that he has been involved in a project in Potrero Hill that he has been trying to get through the Planning process for four years and maybe he’ll get it through in two or three more years. Mr. Hart said that this is a disgrace and Planning should have proper leadership and accountability for the taxpayer’s money. Mr. Hart said that one department should not be allowed to take money from another’s; it is a disgrace because DBI needs the money to keep working. Mr. Hart asked what would happen if DBI was short of money next year. Mr. Hart said that last October the Planning Commission approved the EIR on option B, but Mr. Ghosh has done interim controls and interim policies and spent thousands of dollars on stupidity. Mr. Hart said that the Planning Department has to cut the red tape and focus on the ball. Mr. Hart stated that there is a housing crisis in San Francisco not because of the Building Department, but because of Planning. Mr. Hart thanked the Commission. Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that when the money was given last year it was with the understanding that the money would be spent to address the urgency of the immediate problems which was to decrease the delay times. Mr. O’Donoghue said that what happened with that money is that the delay times have increased even though DBI has subsidized that department. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the money was never intended for long-range planning because he shares with John Maynard Keans that in the long-range we are all dead. Mr. O’Donoghue said that certainly what is happening is that those permit applicants, like Ritchie Hart, will probably be dead before he gets his application out and he is a young man. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there is utter chaos and it is like there is a need for a Jonathan Swift to satirize and write a play that on the one hand the Mayor is asking DBI to cut back 20% of its employees, which is illegal by the way because he cannot ask a self-sufficient department to cut back 20% since there is no impact on the General Fund, and the response to what Commissioner Guinnane mentioned about how to retain counsel is that DBI has an excellent General Counsel, Ken Harrington and then go to the outside and sue the City to prohibit them from taking the money if that is what they want to do. Mr. O’Donoghue said that Commissioner Marks was probably right that the Commission should not get into the dialogue of Discretionary Review because everyone knows the abuse is going on, but the fact is that the Planning Department appears continuously every week now before the Board of Supervisors which is sitting as a defacto Planning Commission and they are not getting reimbursed. Mr. O’Donoghue said that in order to educate new Commissioners or new Supervisors like Supervisor Alioto-Pier, who knows nothing about Planning and is totally ignorant because she has not lived in this City, and she is being educated or educating Supervisor McGoldrick and Planning is not getting reimbursed. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Planning is now paying for that lack of knowledge on behalf of Supervisors so for that reason the Department should go on the record that DBI is not giving anymore money to the Planning Department unless DBI knows specifically what purpose it is going to be used for and secondly, if they try to take it away DBI can litigate the issue and if DBI doesn’t the RBA will from the private sector. Mr. O’Donoghue said that fiscal responsibility has to be brought to the Board of Supervisors themselves that they can’t sit week after week and expect the good staff of Planning to go over there and sit there and not get reimbursed. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Planning has to have the gumption to tell the Board President that they have to pay for Planning’s time because if they want to play they have to pay. Mr. Sean Keighran said that it is too bad that the Special Monitor Rudy Nothenberg has left the Chambers because if there ever was a department or a segment of a department that needed a Special Monitor, long-range planning is the one. Mr. Keighran stated that he listened to the propaganda put to the BIC by Amit Ghosh and said he wanted to share his experience this year with long-range planning. Mr. Keighran stated that long-range planning took on the task of rezoning the Potrero Showplace Square Area and led neighbors to believe that they could participate and in fact they were able to participate. Mr. Keighran stated that this program was financed for three long years for meetings with neighbors and planners. Mr. Keighran said that the planners and the neighbors together formed three plans, yet every time a plan was given to Amit Ghosh he would deliberately and specifically change the plan; his agenda was always put forward over the neighbor’s agenda. Mr. Keighran said that the second problem he had with Mr. Ghosh’s report was that it was completely outdated; this report was stating that there was a severe shortage of PDR space. Mr. Keighran said that he did not have any problem driving around, he was not finding empty space, but was finding empty buildings around San Francisco. Mr. Keighran asked why policies were being created based upon reports with data from 2000 and 2001; it is stupid. Mr. Keighran said that finally, it was no just he who had the problem, and said that he would encourage everyone to watch the Planning Commission hearings. Mr. Keighran stated that he believed that it was February 12, 2004, but was not certain, where many, many citizens came forward and were very critical of this report and this work. Mr. Keighran said that the Planning Commissioners themselves found major flaws in the report and last, but not least, if DBI money went to fund these twenty-two employees, one of the twenty-two employees came up during public comment after the hearing was over and was verbally abusive, borderline threatening and certainly disrespectful to the Commission. Mr. Keighran said that this is where DBI money went and said that he would certainly hope and certainly encourage the BIC not to throw good money after bad. Mr. Keighran thanked the Commission.
|
||
6. |
CLOSED SESSION: pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and the San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.11. |
||
|
a. Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session. There was no public comment. |
||
|
b. Possible action to convene to Closed Session. President Fillon made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hood to go into Closed Session on this item. The motion carried unanimously. |
||
|
c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL |
||
|
d. Reconvene in Open Session to vote whether to disclose any or all discussions held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.12(a).
|
||
7. |
Discussion and possible action proposed by Supervisor Aaron Peskin regarding File 031991. Ordinance amending Section 3407 et seq., Section 110 Table 1-A and Section 110 Table 1-P of the San Francisco Building Code to regulate work that disturbs or removes lead-based paint in the interior of pre-1979 buildings that are in Group E3, R1 or R-3 occupancy classification. Director Chiu reported that this ordinance would amend the existing Building Code 3407 and said that a few years ago the City passed an exterior work practice ordinance and this would piggy back on the existing ordinance by regulating the interior work which would have some impact on lead based paint. Director Chiu said that this ordinance would cover all existing buildings R-1 and R3 including E-3, which are childcare facilities, which were built prior to 1979. Director Chiu stated that a $5.00 surcharge fee would be charged for all buildings that are included in this ordinance. Director Chiu said that he wanted to let the Commission know that if a building was an R-3 building and was owner occupied the law would exempt that work, but if it were a single-family or two-family building, but contains a rental unit then this ordinance would apply. Director Chiu said that the additional surcharge fee $5.00 for all building permit fees for R-1 or R-3 occupancy this Code also amends the R-1 apartment and hotel licensing fees and there is a table for the increases in these charges. Director Chiu asked Louise Kimbell to come forward to address the Commission. Ms. Louise Kimbell said that this is an amendment to an existing legislation, the existing being work practices on exterior buildings that covered all occupancy groups. Ms. Kimbell stated that this is for interiors only and is for E-3, licensed daycare; R-1’s which apartments and only the residential hotels, the tourist hotels are exempt; and R-3 occupancy which is one and two family dwellings and single-family or two-family dwellings that are owner occupied will be excepted from this legislation unless the work practice from the interior migrates to the outside. Ms. Kimbell said that this is complaint driven like the exterior so there are many things that are very similar. Ms. Kimbell stated that the complaints come from various sources. Ms. Kimbell said that the revenue that is being asked for is the revenue to pay for the positions that are being asked for to do the implementation. Ms. Kimbell said that if a painter is painting an interior and it is not being contained properly then the Department would receive a complaint and go out and see whether or not that worker is doing it per the performance standards that are in the legislation. Ms. Kimbell said that this also covers a contractor who might be doing a remodel. Ms. Kimbell said that proposed revenue to cover this legislation would come from two sources; the $5.00 surcharge would bring in the fees to cover the enforcement against the R-3 and E-3 occupancies. Ms. Kimbell said that MIS ran many reports to gather this information and about 18,000 permits per year were found in the R-3’s. Ms. Kimbell said that this is only to be implemented on buildings that were constructed prior to 1979 so it was determined that about 13,000 permits would be taken out from the Department. Ms. Kimbell said that with the $5.00 surcharge that amounted to approximately $65,000. Ms. Kimbell reported that on the apartment, hotel license fees, excluding tourist hotels, it was found that with approximately 200 residential hotels there would be about $3,000 collected, but for the apartment license fees with 20,000 buildings in San Francisco that are apartments there would be about $500,000 coming in. Ms. Kimbell stated that the total revenue base would be $568,800.16. Ms. Kimbell said that on expenditures there would be an increase of 2.5 Housing Inspectors and a .5 temporary position. Ms. Kimbell said that the .5 temporary position is to pay for an Inspector who is currently retired who would cover when someone is on vacation so the Department does not lose the ability to respond within the 48 hours that is mandated in the legislation. Ms. Kimbell said that the expenditures would cover a Chief Clerk Position and that would be .5, not full time; a Senior Clerk Typist position that already exists, but that person would now be spending ½ of their time on the interior legislation. Ms. Kimbell said that it would include a 33 1/3% time to an Industrial Hygienist who is already on salary who has been hired to explain the more medical side of the legislation. Ms. Kimbell said that this Industrial Hygienist examines various reports that come into the Department and also responds to customers who call in about elevated blood lead level of their children and referrals to the Health Department. Ms. Kimbell said that the non-labor items are $25,000 for City Attorney costs, about $20,000 for reproduction costs. Ms. Kimbell stated that in the legislation DBI is required to provide the public with documentation forms to notify DBI as well as signs to hang for adjacent property notification and notification forms for residential tenants. Ms. Kimbell said that there are training costs associated with this as well as rents costs for the additional staffing so with the help of the Manager from Admin it was found that the total expenditures would come to $568,842 which is just a little bit in excess of the anticipated revenues. Commissioner Guinnane asked how many positions were being filled and if there was a Chief’s position. Ms. Kimbell said that it would be one Chief, 2.5 new Housing Inspectors. Commissioner Fillon asked if the revenue was going to pay for these positions and said that he thought that the revenue was way over stated as he did not see people reporting this unless they get caught because most of the work is interior work. Director Chiu explained that regardless of what the valuation of any work done under this ordinance there will be a $5.00 surcharge that would come under this ordinance. Director Chiu said that there is a slight increase in the existing annual fees for apartments and hotels to cover these costs. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the salaries are for the added employees. Assistant Director Lee said that the salaries were budgeted at the fifth step, which would be the highest that these employees could be paid. Ms. Lee said that the 2.5 positions for the 6270 Housing Inspectors would be $251,000; an upgrade for an existing Senior to Chief would be less than $50,000. Ms. Lee stated that there would be a Senior, which would be $83,000, and the Chief is $110,000. Commissioner Fillon asked if these positions would be dedicated to this program only. Ms. Lee said that was correct. Ms. Lee said that the revenue income is $568,000 and the total expenditures are also $568,000 of which $493,000 is the labor and the differential of the additional $75,000 is non-labor. Commissioner Guinnane stated that there is a division that is already set up for this. Ms. Lee said that the Department did not. Commissioner Guinnane asked about the outside lead program. Ms. Lee said that there was an exterior division. Commissioner Guinnane asked who ran that division. Ms. Kimbell stated that she did. Commissioner Guinnane asked how many employees were involved in that operation. Ms. Kimbell reported that there were two Inspectors currently as well as the retired individual who comes in when they are on vacation. Commissioner Guinnane asked about Senior Clerks that are Hygienists or whatever. Ms. Kimbell said that the Industrial Hygienist is there currently and she is there currently as the Senior Housing Inspector, the Senior Clerk Typist is currently there and that is why there is a percentage of time. Ms. Kimbell stated that because the interior will be added to the same section then obviously those people will put more time overall for both interior and exterior, but there is a percentage being designated specifically for the interior. Commissioner Guinnane asked how many employees would be in the division totally. Director Chiu said that it was being proposed right now. Commissioner Guinnane said that it was very few employees and could not see the need for a Chief in that department. Director Chiu said that right now there is five or six and hopefully there will be three or four more employees. Commissioner Guinnane said that there would not be a Chief needed for eight people. Vice-President Hood asked how many Housing Inspectors were in the Department. Director Chiu said that there were about thirty. Vice-President Hood said that this is a housing issue. Ms. Kimbell stated that the interior is not a housing issue and the exterior covers all occupancy groups, but the interior does have a preponderance of complaints possibly from the Housing Inspection section, but the R-3 complaints are now being handled by the Building Inspectors so this is a hybrid. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that the Commission should look at the numbers before moving forward because he could not see putting in a Chief for eight employees. Ms. Lee stated that the Director had come before the Commission previously to discuss this issue and explained the need for a new Chief. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the $568,000 and the way the revenue covers all of the income it is a real problem for him. Secretary Aherne stated that she wanted to remind the Commissioners that Neil Gendel came before the Commission two meetings ago and it was voted on to go ahead with the interior lead legislation, but today the only thing added was the fee schedule. Vice-President Hood made a motion, seconded by President Santos, to approve the legislation. The motion carried by a vote of five to one with Commissioner Guinnane dissenting. |
||
8. |
Review 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. |
||
|
Vice-President Hood said that one thing that she wanted to discuss was how the Commission was going to approach the Mayor about how the Department was going to fill vacant positions, getting the cars and using the money that has been allocated for permit processing. Vice-President Hood asked if the President could write a letter to the Mayor and said that she would be happy to work on it. Commissioner Guinnane said now there is a Monitor in place and why not use him to go to the Mayor’s Office. Commissioner Marks said that she did not think it was the role of the Monitor to be an advocate for the Department. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission should be its own advocate and said that the Commission is in danger of being in violation of the law and being sued individually as well as a group. Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that on the process regarding the budget he thought that the Commission should actively and vigorously get involved by sending a letter. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that it makes no sense for a revenue-generating Department to be bringing in as it has good revenue and to cut it back because it might be cut back 20% and revenue might be reduced by 30%. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he did not think that the Mayor’s Office was informed as to the separateness and the independence of this Department from the General Fund. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he did not think that Mr. Nothenberg should be referred to as a Monitor as he does not want it, and that is a term used by the Chronicle. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he thought the Commission should send a letter to the Mayor because there are bureaucrats over in the Mayor’s Office and the Mayor cannot go into the minutia of every detail so it is up to the Commission to show that this can’t be done legally. Mr. O’Donoghue said that if it could be done legally it couldn’t be done practically because it will make the Department more inefficient as there will be delays, and revenues would come in more slowly. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he did not think that the Mayor would have a problem with this because he is a businessman. Commissioner Marks said that it was brought up that the AIA; SPUR report was going to be agendized for the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Marks stated that she would like an update of the Controller’s recommendations to be included on the same agenda. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission needed to get moving on this Mayor’s letter very quickly so that the Commission could report on one of SPUR’s concerns, which is the lack of Building Inspectors. Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that now that Rudy is looking at a specific section of this Department that needs review and said that this Commission has done an outstanding job, each and every Commissioner. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he had disagreements over the years with Commissioner Marks, but would say one thing about the process and this is that Commissioner Marks never lied; it would be disagreements on policy. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that out in the systems there are power groups whether it be the newspapers especially, that are now making half-truths, untruths and lies a new value system. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the newspapers have no problem coming out with sensational headlines, but the net affect is that it is a character assassination and it impacts good people, and good Commissioners so everyone gets totally caught up in this rhetoric and then the Mayor is uttering their utterances. Mr. O’Donoghue said that whether it was through malice or through vengeance or through just a misoverstatement based on bad advice the net result was that it brought defamation and it libeled this Department. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there is a feeling out there in the community that somehow or other in order to get a permit through a citizen had to hire someone or pay someone under the table to get service. Mr. O’Donoghue said that this should be cleared up and said that this Commission should schedule a meeting in which they invite the Chronicle because as it now stands there are people who can do things with impunity whether that is the Independent, Examiner or Chronicle. Mr. O’Donoghue said that if they won’t appear to try and justify and bring some objectivity and honesty to the system then the BIC and the DBI are encouraging a change in values and disrespect for the law. Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is one thing to go out to the Bay View and to holler at the people out there to abide by the law and the people who are making these demands are themselves breaking the law. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commission should schedule, first amendment rights not withstanding they are not being forced to come and testify, but they have a moral obligation and a duty to do so. Mr. O’Donoghue said that right now you turn on Channel 23 and the same Chronicle reporters are making utterances and it is bad enough reading their verbal pollution, but it is another thing to have to hear it when you turn on the TV since they are so willing to talk on TV behind closed doors surely they will be willing to come before public and justify their decision. |
||
9. |
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. |
||
10. |
Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. |
||
|
|
Respectfully submitted, |
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS |
|
Vice President Hood said she thought the Commission should have a meeting with the Mayor regarding filling vacant positions at DBI, getting cars, and using the money that has been allocated for permit processing. She also wanted to write a letter to the Mayor. – Vice President Hood |
Pages 4, 11,12 |
Commissioner Marks would like an update of the Controller’s recommendations. – Commissioner Marks |
Page 12 |