2.

President’s Announcements.

a.  Presentation of  “Certificates of Honor” to former BIC President Rodrigo Santos and Vice-President Bobbie Sue Hood

President Hirsch said it was his pleasure to present two Certificates of Honor to two former members who served well on the Commission.   President Hirsch stated the first certificate was for Bobbie Sue Hood in recognition of her outstanding and dedicated service as an architect on the Building Inspection Commission having served as founding President from January 1995 to February 1999, Commissioner from March 1999 to February 2000, and as Vice-President from March 2000 to January 2005.  President Hirsch said Bobbie Sue Hood’s many years of untiring service and commitment to serve the City and County of San Francisco and the general public was gratefully appreciated.

 

Bobbie Sue Hood thanked President Hirsch and said it was a great honor to serve those 10 years as it gave her an opportunity to find out what a fabulous group of employees serve the Department and the City and also to serve with her other fellow Commissioners, who were wonderful.   Bobbie Sue Hood thanked the Commission.

 

President Hirsch said the second Certificate was for Rodrigo Santos in recognition of his outstanding and dedicated service as a structural engineer on the Building Inspection Commission having served as Commissioner from January 2000 to February 2004, and as President from March 2004 to January 2005.   President Hirsch said Rodrigo Santos’ many years of generous personal involvement and service was a tremendous contribution to the Department of Building Inspection and the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco.  President Hirsch stated that Rodrigo Santos’ willingness to go the extra mile and his superior service was gratefully appreciated.

 

Mr. Rodrigo Santos joked that he did not know if he had room for another award on his wall.   President Hirsch said to make sure that it is structurally sound.  Mr. Santos replied absolutely and proceeded to thank the Commissioners and everyone present from the Department of Building Inspection for his wonderful award.  Mr. Santos gave the following speech:

 

               “The only honor that is greater than being recognized by my former peers and the new faces at the DBI and BIC is the opportunity to have worked with so many of them in the service of this beautiful city.  As I look out over the new faces, I have to say how impressed I am with today’s Building Inspection Commission and especially its new President, Ephraim Hirsch.  As both a former President of the BIC and a one-time occupant of its Structural Engineering Seat, I could not think of a better individual to helm this body.  I am very impressed with the selection process of the new Director of the Department of Building Inspection, both Amy Lee and James Hutchinson brought a wealth of experience to this post and personally I would have hated to choose between them.  Amy Lee has already proven to be an adept and impressive Director, and those in the building community are more than elated that James Hutchinson still serves this city in a vital leadership position within this Department.  The more than capable new leadership of the DBI and BIC would no doubt face new challenges in the changing times, however as they rise up to meet these challenges, the DBI and BIC must continue to work on the issues of the past. This city with its neighborhoods and communities require a BIC and a DBI that work together towards the goal of simplifying the permit application process, and this was my most important goal as President of the Commission and I hope that this torch would be passed on and carried. A more efficient permit process may sound like more bureaucratic paper pushing, but it is a lot more than that and by using the tools of the 21^st Century towards simplifying this permit process, you are freeing the builders, architects and engineers of this city to concentrate on their primary goal and that is to build and maintain safer and stronger structures that will prevail in an enduring San Francisco skyline. 

 

Accepting this award brings a sense of closure to my years on the Commission, and I consider those to be my best years as a citizen and servant of this city and I want to thank everyone for that.”

 

President Hirsch thanked Rodrigo Santos and called for public comment. 

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association congratulated Bobbie Sue Hood and Rodrigo Santos.   Mr. O’Donoghue stated when Bobbie Sue Hood was brought on the Commission that it was for a reason.  Mr. O’Donoghue said it should be clearly understood that Ms. Hood came from the AIA, American Institute of Architects, an organization that did not support the Commission yet she was selected and put forward by the Residential Builders, even though she represented a group that opposed this Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated similarly that at the time the structural engineer, Pat Buscovich, came out of an organization downtown that also opposed the Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the point that he was making was that in the selection process the individuals were selected not from the clinical perspective, not from a political bias or personal involvement, but from objective criteria.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Bobbie Sue Hood had already established herself as an activist in the community, she was an informed architect and debater, and she had made many appearances before the Planning Commission, and did not hesitate to take on Sue Bierman at the time on issues. 

 

Mr. O’Donoghue said similarly the Department approached Rodrigo Santos to join the Commission when there was a vacancy because he represented the interests downtown and others in the construction industry, and he was also a professional.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Department looked at objective criteria and on that basis Bobbie Sue Hood and Rodrigo Santos distinguished themselves because while on the Commission they were acting, working Commissioners.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Ms. Hood and Mr. Santos did not hesitate to go out and look at project sites, they were informed about the permit process, did not have to be educated by staff since they were working in the field, and they knew the problems in the permit process.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that as a result, this was one of the reasons there is a Department today that is functioning and healthy despite the adverse criticisms over the years from the Chronicle and other political groups.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this was the criterion by which Mr. Santos and Ms. Hood were selected and they served with honor and distinction at a period when they were bombarded with negative criticisms from the Chronicle each week and they did not bend under that pressure.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that hopefully this Commission could learn from them, including the present administration, and if politics was allowed to enter the departments as it has, then the selections will not be matching up to the par and ability of the Commission, especially Bobbie Sue Hood who was an advocate for independence and did not hesitate to speak out on unpopular issues.

 

3.

 

 

Acting Director Amy Lee said that the Commission had asked for a schedule of the budget hearings that the Department was going to have and she would be leaving at 10:00 a.m. to attend the second hearing – actually the first major hearing for the budget.   Ms. Lee stated that there was an Interim Budget Hearing on June 16^th that was for interim positions, and since most of DBI’s positions are budgeted at 1.0, the Department was asked to attend this hearing.  Ms. Lee said this morning from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. would be the first major budget hearing and the departments would be by major service areas so she did not know exactly where she would be at that time and sometimes the supervisors do tend to skip around.  Ms. Lee stated there would be a Saturday Public Hearing for the budget and said she thought most of it was for the general public to make any input if in terms of the budget, Ms. Lee said that from the period between June 20^th to June 27^th the Department does a lot of internal negotiations with the budget analyst and finally on June 27^th, there would be another hearing which would be a final budget hearing and by that time DBI’s budget would be closed.

 

President Hirsch asked if there was any feedback yet.   Ms. Lee said yes as usual the first set of cuts were substantial, so the Department was working closely with the budget analyst to provide documentation, but for the most part she was disagreeing with the recommended cuts.  Ms. Lee stated that she had spoken with most of the members of the Board of Supervisors to explain the Department’s position so they will be working on this but for the first set of cuts, there were over several million dollars worth of cuts, in particular the clerical staff positions.  President Hirsch asked what were some of the major cuts.  Ms. Lee said that they were engineering, building inspection, and clerical positions, so the Board did not seem to understand that DBI was trying to transition some positions from temporary to permanent staffing.  Ms. Lee stated that in addition most of the justification was because there was a past vacancy to a position the Board felt it was unnecessary so she explained to the Board why that was not a good analysis.  Ms. Lee said that hopefully by June 27^th the Department would be able to move forward and try to retain the budget as much as possible.  President Hirsch asked if there were any other items aside from staffing.  Ms. Lee said that some of the vehicles were questioned but she explained, especially for the PUC projects that those cars would be off site, Mr. Lee stated that the Board wanted to raise the safety issues and the Department explained some of the new programs that it would probably be embarking on.

 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought the car issue was resolved and the Department was supposed to get 20 new cars.   Ms. Lee stated those were for this past budget year, but she was talking about the new fiscal year, 2005/2006.   Commissioner Guinnane asked how many positions the Board of Supervisors were looking at cutting.  Ms. Lee said during the first round of cuts, the Board tries to cut as much as they can and then they work down a little bit so the numbers become more realistic as the week goes on.  Ms. Lee stated that it is expected that both sides will negotiate even though the Board cuts a substantial amount initially.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the actual staffing DBI had in place versus what was funded for 2004/2005 year, which has not been filled was being carried over to 2005/2006.  Ms. Lee stated the Department was filling those already so that was not an issue at all; it is just the new future positions that she had raised at the last meeting.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the new future positions included the 16 positions that were to be assigned to the Hunters Point Shipyard.  Ms. Lee said yes they were.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what were some of the other positions.  Ms. Lee stated that some of the engineering positions, additional clerical positions, especially plan check and the microfilm, and the public services division but said it is a little preliminary to be concerned at this point. 

 

Commissioner Guinnane said that at the last meeting he had asked for an organizational chart for all of the divisions showing the actual staffing, and asked if anyone had worked on that.   Ms. Lee stated that the Department was working on it and would probably report on it in the coming months.  Commissioner Guinnane said if the Board of Supervisors is talking about cutting engineering positions, the Department has a huge problem there right now and that section should be fully staffed and probably overstaffed by 20 percent.  Ms. Lee stated the Department would make the argument and provide information through next Monday and give the Board a lot of justifications, charts, staffing ratios and activity, revenue, and so on.  Secretary Aherne said because of the Budget Hearing this morning, the BIC Meeting was going to be preempted and would not be shown live, but the hearing would be aired later that evening.

 

President Hirsch called for public comment on item 3a. 

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association stated that regarding the budget one of the criticisms of former Director Frank Chiu, though he did an excellent job, was that he truly never understood what created this process; that DBI is an independent body not receiving one single red nickel from the General Fund.   Mr. O’Donoghue said therefore when Mr. Chiu went before the Board of Supervisors, he should not have gone “with cap in hand” like any other department such as:  Juvenile Hall, the Probation Department, or Social Services, because DBI did not receive any money from the General Fund.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Department should present itself as an independent body, much like the airport, and say it has this amount of money that is coming from fees and that DBI is entitled as a matter of legal right to those positions.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that advocacy has never been advocated to the Board of Supervisors and other departments rely on unions, SEIU for instance 790, Local 250 are known for their advocacy, even Local 61 Engineers & Architects do the same thing.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that they put pressure on the supervisors because they are all competing for the same dollar of the General Fund.  Mr. O’Donoghue said what the Department needs to do once and for all is to ask the City Attorney’s Office, in a written request, to be treated differently when it comes to the budget, from other departments.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he believed the answer would be yes because fees from the industry is what is sustaining this Department, so this position is a matter of right.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that if positions are cut and there is a slow down, the RBA will advocate going to the outside to get the jobs done as is happening in Sonoma and other areas, and the loser will be the unions and the employees.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the RBA would ask for sub-contracting to be done en masse because the industry could not be expected to undergo the delays that are happening in Planning and in the Bureau of Building Inspection.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that as the deluge of permits come in and projects come on board the Department will not have the capability to address those issues, it will not have the staff to do plan check, and people will not be trained because the Department is losing experienced people.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commissioners and the Department need to take a stronger advocacy role on this issue.

 

 

b.

Update on request for follow-up on 601 Dolores Street Emergency Shelter.

 

 

Acting Director Amy Lee said that Mrs. Carmen Castillo raised this item and Ms. Lee gave the Commission a status update.   Ms. Lee stated that on May 24, 2005 a Director’s Order of Abatement was issued and on June 7, 2005 the Department also sent an additional letter to the church denying a request to extend the use of the building as a homeless shelter.  Ms. Lee said that the Department received a letter from the site development coordinator on June 10, 2005 requesting an extension from the Order of Abatement; nevertheless the Department has scheduled a UMB Hearing that is a separate committee on July 29, 2005.  Commissioner Guinnane said he visited the site and did not see any problems at the time but the issue with the UMB, they are out of compliance by two years and he asked what was the cut off because he thought it was a 10 year statute to be in compliance.  Ms. Lee said it is a 13-year statute and Commissioner Guinnane asked when that term was up.   Ms. Lee replied that it was up this past February. Commissioner Guinnane stated he did not know how many other buildings were like this but he inquired why this was able to go on so long without holding a Director’s Hearing sooner.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it is almost July and the 13 years was up in February and someone did not complain how much longer would this have gone on. 

 

Ms. Lee stated the Department was a little short staffed with the UMB (Unreinforced Masonry Building) Project and given the fact that it would be somewhat difficult for the applicant to comply, especially in the areas of churches and hospitals, it has been a lower priority for the Department.   Deputy City Attorney, Judy Boyajian, said some of the churches and other assembly groups have been able to get extensions of time and said she did not know if this particular property had gotten one.  Vice-President Hanrahan asked how the facility would request an extension and Ms. Boyajian said she thought they would ask the Director for an extension.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if they had requested any extensions and Ms. Lee said she was not sure but she would look through the files.  President Hirsch said he also drove by the property a few weeks ago, and contrary to what Commissioner Guinnane said there was quite a mob of people outside and probably not the most reputable sort.  Commissioner Guinnane stated he and Vice-President Hanrahan announced the time they were meeting at the building, so that is a possibility of why there were not a lot of people hanging out.  Commissioner Guinnane said that they met with Ms. Castillo and knocked on the two side doors but they did not see anything.  Vice-President Hanrahan stated that she did not observe anything but the Commission is not in the business of policing trash either, but the goal is to make sure properties conform to building code.

 

President Hirsch asked if business would continue as usual there until July 29^th.   Ms. Lee said if there was going to be a continuous use of the homeless shelter, the Department would send out an inspector again, but they do have until July 29^th.  Commissioner Guinnane inquired what would happen at the end of July 29^th, and Ms. Lee said it would depend on what happens at the UMB Hearing. Vice-President Hanrahan said they might ask for additional time, since they seem to have obtained an engineer to see if they could get a building permit.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that it would not be shut down in the near future due to the appeals process.  Vice-President Hanrahan said that if they were issued a building permit then their temporary homeless shelter would have to be suspended for some period of time since it is an unreinforced masonry building.  Vice-President Hanrahan stated that she believed in providing more access for homeless people to have temporary shelter, but she believes the Department is looking at an issue of liability in case of an earthquake. Vice-President Hanrahan suggested the shelter should actually be shut down now in the interest of public safety because they would not be able to operate it if they get the permits for retrofit.  Ms. Lee said the Department issued a June 7^th letter this month denying their request, so they should be shut down.  Vice-President Hanrahan stated that she advocates for other parts of our governmental institutions to find more safe beds and said she was not interested in limiting the number of people who are able to have safe shelter, but said she thought it would be wrong for the Building Inspection Department to let this building continue to exist as a temporary shelter.  Ms. Lee said that the Department had not done so, and Chief Building Inspector Carla Johnson directly sent the June 7^th letter to the Director of Dolores Street.  Vice-President Hanrahan asked even if there was an Unreinforced Masonry Meeting held if the permit would not be extended, and Ms. Lee said yes that is a separate issue.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how many individuals were staying there and Ms. Lee said she was not sure and did not have that information.  

4.

Discussion and possible action to reactivate the work under the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS).  [Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector of Technical Services]

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector with DBI’s Technical Services Division said that he was asked by Acting Director Lee to discuss the issues of the CAPSS Program, (Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety), with the thought that the Commission might reconsider its previous suspension in 2003 to reactivate the program and complete the seismic safety analysis.   Mr. Kornfield gave a brief history of the CAPSS Program and said it was started in 1998 when the idea first came up when the SEONC Structural Association of Northern California Blue Ribbon Committee recommended that DBI look at some of the more basic issues in design for seismic safety as part of its code revision package.  Mr. Kornfield said that as a result of that, they began a long process, which came before the Commission resulting in the first piece of the CAPSS work being approved by the Commission in the year 2000 to do a Phase 1 study of the scope of what should be the appropriate seismic safety program.

 

Mr. Kornfield stated that this was started and finished in 2000 and based on that the Commission approved a seismic safety study that was essentially a 2 ½- year study.   Mr. Kornfield said that the Commission determined in April of 2003 that the work did not meet their standards in various ways; There were questions as to whether it was even necessary to do the work, there were questions about financial accountability and project management, and based on that the Commission suspended the work.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the contractor, The Applied Technology Council, was unable to complete the portion of the work they were working on at that time which was a draft report about what the impacts would be of a major earthquake.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Department was left with a draft report from 2003, which was not finalized. 

 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he remembered very clearly that the issue with Phase 2 was to come up with a magic dollar amount to finish the printing, and said he tried to put a $25,000 cap on it and could not figure out why it could not be printed for $25,000 and that was actually a high number.   Commissioner Guinnane asked if the work was done, what prevented it from being printed and distributed.  Mr. Kornfield said it actually was not just a printing issue; the work was not done.  Mr. Kornfield stated the CAPSS Report was the result of work done by a contract team that had an oversight body, a Public Participation body, as well as a Technical Advisory body from SEONC.  Mr. Kornfield said that these bodies were still in the process of reviewing the final report and said he thought the fact that these bodies did not finish their review processes and it was unable to go back to the contractor to make more computer runs for their model that did not allow them simply to print the report; it was not in a position where he or other people involved in the project thought was ready to print and distribute.  Mr. Kornfield stated that they thought the report needed more input and some revisions, so it was not simply a printing issue but a funding issue.  Commissioner Guinnane said that at that time, he believed there was $440,000 expensed and he might be wrong but the numbers are stuck in his mind very clearly regarding the CAPSS issue.  Commissioner Guinnane stated he and the other Commissioners were never told that the report was not complete, as far as he knew it was strictly down to printing, and he asked what the magic number was to finish off Phase 2 if it was not $25,000 over the $440,000.  President Hirsch asked if Mr. Kornfield had finished his presentation and Mr. Kornfield replied that he would answer questions any time.

 

Mr. Kornfield stated that the question was what does it take to finish off this impact study and at this point he thought it was not just a question of dollars, it was reconstituting a committee that reviews this material and putting together a project team with a contractor to make the necessary changes that the project team thinks are necessary.   Mr. Kornfield said that he thought the Department was well served by the draft report which was used by the city’s OES to make some projections on damaged buildings and so on, but it is not a final report and there were some significant issues that were not finally addressed.  President Hirsch said that he obviously was not on the Commission at the time but he said he reviewed the minutes and asked if he was correct in stating that the printing was not part of the contract.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the city had agreed to use its printing services through the city’s print shop, so it was not a question of those dollars coming out of the contract funds.  Mr. Kornfield said that the printing did not occur because DBI would not spend $25,000 in printing a document if it was only a draft rather than the finished product.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that his recollection was that the strongest issue was printing, and there were some outstanding issues that William Wong was working on, apparently some of the invoices were very vague describing what was done for that dollar amount.  President Hirsch said that the city should probably answer the question about the printing, rather than the CAPSS people.  Commissioner Ting asked about the original contract, how much was spent, and what was the estimated cost to complete Phase 2 of the study.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the balance was approximately $200,000 and he guessed it would probably cost around $300,000 but he would have to discuss this at length with the contractor.

 

Commissioner Fillon asked if it cost $300,000 more or $300,000 total to finish and Mr. Kornfield said he would guess to finish that Phase 2 part is around $300,000.   Commissioner Ting said there was about $100,000 that Mr. Kornfield needed to identify for additional funding which he believed Mr. Kornfield said there was potential funding in DBI’s Strong Motion Instrumentation Fund.  Mr. Kornfield stated that was correct as the Department has a special fund for earthquake studies only and currently it has a substantial balance that would serve the Department well.  Commissioner Ting asked if $119,000 had already been approved for this study or for any use or expenditure, and Mr. Kornfield said the funds are for any use done by the Department, at the discretion of the Director and he believes the Board of Supervisors simply has to give authorization.  Ms. Lee stated that this was correct and said she had not asked for authorization since the Department did not have any proposals yet.  Mr. Kornfield said that

his recommendation of staff for the Department is that the Commission consider lifting its suspension and allow the program to reach its conclusion, both on Phase 2 and to be able to bring the Commission a proposal for the third phase, which would be the implementation and demonstration project phase of this.

 

Commissioner Ting asked if the printing issue could be addressed when Mr. Kornfield comes back to the Commission and Mr. Kornfield said yes that he would talk about the scope of services, the cost, and the time frame with the contractor.   Commissioner Fillon stated that before the Commission votes to reactivate the CAPSS project he would like to see an actual proposal since the costs are going to be more, but it is undefined.  Commissioner Fillon said that he did not think it was very wise to reactivate an open-ended contract.  Mr. Kornfield said the contract would be a contract modification of the existing contract and modifications are usually approved at the Director’s discretion.  Commissioner Fillon asked how the rest of the Commission felt about this situation. 

 

President Hirsch said that he thought it was essential that the project move forward and he would be in favor of reactivating the program with the stipulation that the final signing of the dollar amount come back to the Commission.   President Hirsch stated that in the interest of time the Commission should reactivate the program but give the Director the opportunity to come back for a final approval on the dollar amount.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what was the urgency of this particular item and President Hirsch said every day is a day closer to the next earthquake.  Commissioner Guinnane said that one of the former Commissioners made a very strong statement that all the information that was being provided in the CAPSS documents was already available in the public library.  President Hirsch stated that was like saying all the information in a work of literature is available in Webster’s dictionary, and with all due respect to Bobbie Sue Hood he completely disagreed with her statement.  President Hirsch said there are other building types at risk that are suspected quite strongly in the engineering community that are risky structures or assemblies and the Department needs to identify those and then develop a program to mitigate that hazard.

 

Vice-President Hanrahan said that she was a bit shocked because she could not imagine proposing spending $300,000 without more detail, and if the contractor was interested in the work then there should be a more detailed plan in terms of the expenses, a timeline, and outline.   Vice-President Hanrahan stated that it would be irresponsible for the Commission to reactivate the program without that kind of documentation.  Mr. Kornfield said that there was actually a complete list of services, a timeline, and talk about reactivating the work to complete what has already been started.  Vice-President Hanrahan stated that in order for her to do her job more effectively, she wished Mr. Kornfield would have provided the Commission with that documentation, because the information she had was inefficient to make an informed decision.  Commissioner Romero said that he was more inclined to agree with President Hirsch and said he was not shocked because unfortunately the city engages in these types of contracts for not just $300,000 but sometimes $3 million, where there is no clear indication of what they are doing with the money.  Commissioner Romero stated that he does not agree with it wholeheartedly and agrees with Commissioner Hanrahan that there should be a more fleshed out budget and contract, but said he thought it was important to keep the CAPSS program going. 

 

Mr. Kornfield said that he was looking for authorization from the Commission, to be able to restart the CAPSS Program, negotiate with the contractor, and figure out exactly what the time frame and scope should be.   Commissioner Fillon asked if the Commission could get a price tag on that a.s.a.p. before the contractor bills the Department.  Mr. Kornfield said yes as soon as it occurs.  Commissioner Fillon stated that the Department should get something signed so there would be a stopgap and not an open-ended leakage of funds.  Ms. Lee said that she could come before the Commission before the Department signs the contract and Laurence Kornfield could work on any kind of revision.  Commissioner Fillon stated that as part of the historical record there was never any question that this was a valuable project, but said he thought it was always an issue of money.  Commissioner Fillon said that as a result of the money that has been siphoned away from this Department, it shows that it would not hurt to spend the money on this project.  Commissioner Fillon stated that CAPSS is a worthwhile project but he would like to see what it is going to cost and not find out after the fact that the Department has this huge bill.

 

President Hirsch said that he did not think authorization was being asked to sign a contract at this point; it simply would authorize Mr. Kornfield to go forward with discussing what it would take in time, dollars, and scope, to complete Phase 2 and a presentation for Phase 3.   President Hirsch said that at that point, the Director would bring information to the Commission and the Commission would pass on the okay to sign a contract.  Commissioner Fillon stated under item 4 it only states that this is action to reactivate the work, so it was not clear to him that this was to begin negotiation for finishing the work.  Mr. Kornfield said that could be clarified in any way, yet he was thinking that he needed authorization to do any further work necessary to negotiate the contract. 

 

President Hirsch called for public comment.

 

Mr. Sigmund Freeman introduced himself as a former Commissioner and said that he served several years back when the CAPSS Program was being developed.   Mr. Freeman stated that he thought it was necessary to reactivate the program, but the prime purpose, originally, was that after the earthquake there needed to be a post-earthquake coordinator or method of how to repair buildings, and there was not a good one.  Mr. Freeman said that things were done makeshift after the last earthquake and it is very important that people know what they have to do and if guidelines are too strict then you lose all your buildings, people walk away from them and if you let them fix everything up by just patching it there is another danger.  Mr. Freeman said a very important part was to establish an ordinance and a guideline on what is needed for post-earthquake repair.  Mr. Freeman stated that the issue of how the Department could encourage people to fix up their buildings was addressed, but said he had some problems with the way that portion of the project was run.  Mr. Freeman said that putting out the existing draft now would be worse than having nothing at all because it was so flawed and could be misused, so it definitely needed a lot of editing and a peer review consensus because it could be used in a negative way.    Mr. Freeman stated that a lot of time was wasted on Phase 2 and they could have gone directly to Phase 3. Mr. Freeman suggested that the Commission approve the CAPSS Project, but said there should be an outside review, possibly a Code Advisory Board, to see how the next phase of the contract should go.  Mr. Freeman stated that there was a really great project going and there were a lot of volunteer groups spending a lot of hours, and structural engineers finally getting some great meetings going and getting somewhere and then the previous Commission cut it all off, so the project should be approved. 

 

Mr. Andy Merovich said he was a licensed structural engineer in California and was the President of the Structural Engineers Association of California.   Mr. Merovich stated he was speaking on behalf of SEONC and for over 75 years, their members have worked to protect public safety by using their knowledge and experience to improve building codes.  Mr. Merovich said he knew that chances are there will be a significant earthquake in the next 30 years that is going to affect San Francisco.  Mr. Merovich said that there was going to be billions of dollars of damage; economic loss to residential and commercial structures, and thousands of people would be left homeless by this event.  Mr. Merovich said that as engineers they know that certain types of buildings are vulnerable and he thought that the public at large was not really aware of this potential disaster that we all face.  Mr. Merovich stated that one of the wonderful aspects of the CAPSS Program was that it combines not only the best of our technologies to understand what the risks to communities are, but it also involves them directly in the process of developing programs and policies that are affordable and can protect lives and property.  Mr. Merovich said for these reasons SEONC strongly supports the reactivation of this program and policies that will help protect San Francisco and the community in the future.

 

Ms. Ann Marie Conroy stated she was the Director of Emergency Services & Homeland Security and said she attended the meeting to support the completion of the CAPSS Report and to move to the next phases of the program.   Ms. Conroy said that her Department would like to see the Department of Building Inspection and all city departments that are charged with these different responsibilities of mitigation and planning for a major earthquake all come together to look at mitigation planning and how best to do that.  Ms. Conroy stated that there was a large UMB bond issue many years ago, which was something that was really not tapped into by San Franciscans although many UMB owners have done retrofits on their own; her Department would like to see a program in the future once all this planning and study has been completed to look at a type of program, whether it is a no cost loan program or low cost interest program to be able to retrofit areas in the Sunset, Richmond, and Excelsior areas where the CAPSS Report shows that there would be major displacement of housing units.  Ms. Conroy stated that 57,000 households would be displaced and it is the job of the Office of Emergency Services to figure out how to house these people on an emergency basis and the city’s responsibility to figure out how they would help people after a catastrophic event.  Ms. Conroy said that the Association of Bay Area Government has to finish their mitigation plan for the Bay Area based on new shake maps and a geological survey that has an even more devastating impact looking at a Loma Prieta size earthquake moved closer to San Francisco.  Ms. Conroy stated she is fighting the complacency that San Franciscans feel after the Loma Prieta quake, and if you move that earthquake 40 miles closer to San Francisco, that is the type of devastation you would have that is evidenced in this CAPSS report.  Ms. Conroy said that the report was actually about 90 percent done and needs to be completed to help San Franciscans understand what they need to do to retrofit their homes and other buildings in the area because an earthquake is coming.  Ms. Conroy stated that we do not know about terrorism, but Mother Nature guarantees that we will have an earthquake.

 

Mr. Bruce Bonacker said that he was asked by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), San Francisco Chapter to come and speak today.   Mr. Bonacker stated that he also speaks for the San Francisco Architectural Heritage, The National Association of the remodeling Industry, and the San Francisco Neighborhood Network.  Mr. Bonacker said that all of those organizations are in concurrence and they do not often run in concurrence, but they are all in agreement that the CAPSS Program needs to be completed and there is an opportunity to find out how to minimize the amount of damage that occurs when we have an earthquake and to find out how to best minimize the period of time for repair.  Mr. Bonacker stated that he thought the earthquake in Kobe could give us a great deal of knowledge as to how long it takes if you are not prepared to get your economy back up running, get social services back running, and get the people housed let alone anything else.  Mr. Bonacker said that these things are extremely important in terms of minimizing the degree to which the culture and society in San Francisco can continue on in a way that has some semblance to what we have now once we have a devastating earthquake.  Mr. Bonacker stated that the degree to which we are able to minimize the damage and have it repaired quickly is extremely important, and in the interest of cultural continuity preservation of San Francisco’s historic buildings is very important and that is why San Francisco architectural heritage is part of his message. 

 

Ms. Simin Naaseh introduced herself as a structural engineer licensed in California and said she is the outgoing president of the Structural Engineers Association.   Ms. Naaseh stated that she came before the Commission to urge them on behalf of the structural engineering community to give serious consideration to reactivating the CAPSS Program.  Ms. Naaseh said that this is a very important program for the city since we live in one of the most violently active seismic zones in the world and cannot ignore the risk of earthquakes.  Ms. Naaseh stated that the vulnerability of our building stock is known and cannot be ignored.  Ms. Naaseh said that our only option is to take responsible action on this issue and this city has gone through a major earthquake nearly a hundred years ago, so we know what it takes to recover from an event like that.  Ms. Naaseh stated that we know the devastation and that it is going to be far greater now that our city is more densely populated, now that our building stock is aging, a lot of them dating back to Pre-World War II.  Ms. Naaseh said that putting a halt on the CAPSS Program is really not an option because we are dealing with a known risk.

 

Mr. John Paxton said he was a representative of SPUR, a self-employed real estate consultant, and a volunteer on the Blue Ribbon Committee, overseeing CAPSS.   Mr. Paxton stated that in his capacity with SPUR, he was asked a year ago to put together a report on the status of where San Francisco stands on earthquake preparedness and his conclusion then as a result of the CAPSS Project having been terminated by this Commission, was that we were seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of the citizens of this city.  Mr. Paxton said that he strongly encourages the Commission to resurrect the CAPSS Program and to give it the tools it needs to finish the project, because there is no American city that is more vulnerable to a catastrophic natural disaster than San Francisco.  Mr. Paxton also gave the following examples as support of reactivating the CAPSS Program:

• San Francisco has an older building stock than any other city west of the Mississippi.
• The 1906 earthquake and the fire that followed remain the most catastrophic natural disaster in the Western hemisphere.
• One percent of the city’s population was killed and over half of the population was left without shelter.
• The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was a relatively small earthquake, its epicenter was far from population centers and far from San Francisco yet it shook the city and wreaked havoc over the entire Bay Area; it was a wake up call which fell silent on the ears of our civic leaders.
• Major earthquakes will hit San Francisco in the future, yet the city has failed to take significant steps to mitigate that effect.
• It is likely that a major earthquake will destroy 80,000 or more housing units in San Francisco.

 

Mr. Paxton said 5 years ago that DBI initiated CAPSS and said he was a volunteer member of its committee; the paid volunteer members of the CAPSS team were a dedicated group who crafted a program that started to achieve worldwide attention for its proactive planning.   Mr. Paxton stated that all those who were associated with CAPSS know that the study alone never saved a single life or prevented property damage, yet the prior members of this Commission irresponsibly yielded to political pressure and terminated the project when they were so close to achieving its important purpose.  Mr. Paxton said that two precious years have passed and San Francisco is no closer to taking pre-emptive steps to mitigate the effects of future earthquakes.  Mr. Paxton stated that Jim Chapel and the SPUR organization are strongly in favor of this program; the Mayor is in favor of CAPSS, as well as most of the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Paxton said he strongly encourages the Commission’s action to get the CAPSS Program going again.

 

Commissioner Ting asked Mr. Paxton where he got the figure of 80,000 housing units being destroyed.   Mr. Paxton said ABAG has certain scenarios in terms of loss; there are about 350,000 housing units in San Francisco and they do not know what is going to happen under a future earthquake.  Mr. Paxton stated the majority of San Francisco’s building stock was built before 1940; the city has a very old, tenuous housing stock and 90 percent of the buildings are residential.  Mr. Paxton said they now know more than they knew then and between the USGS shake projections, ABAG’s shake projections and what the contractor on the CAPSS study came up with, a scenario in the event of an 80,000 housing unit loss was within the likelihood for a large earthquake.  Mr. Paxton stated that if members of the Commission have not read the preliminary draft report, he encouraged them to do so; the report has a long ways to go, it was partially done, and it needs more work.  Mr. Paxton said the vulnerability study was an essential step from which they could have moved forward and crafted the response that was needed, so this has certainly been distributed though many felt it was a mistake to distribute it when it was not completed.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he did not intend to cast aspersions on anyone but said he was going to be like Diogenes the cynic to say the former Commission was irresponsible, was irresponsible because it acted in a prudent manner.   Mr. O’Donoghue stated that in 1987 approximately 80 years after the Mexican earthquake, no one spoke out except the Residential Builders about the impact of an earthquake in this city.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that liquefaction was a buzz word and the RBA were the ones that put it forward; after the 1989 earthquake it was the Residential Builders who moved forward with emergency legislation and got the Marina rebuilt in a rapid manner.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that none of these groups were around until 1998 and then it was because the Bureau of Building Inspection was flush with money at the time.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there was a question of the tax dollars paying for this study because it was a public policy issue rather than DBI money.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that it was $2 to $3 million and due respects to President Hirsch but the issue was $25,000 for printing because he was present and listened as they said the printing could be done; that was all that was needed to be done because there were a lot of questions about the first phase of the study.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that none of the public knew what was being done regarding the project, and everyone knows the danger of an earthquake but the older realtors and other groups after 1989 discussed public policy questions such as; would homeowners be forced to do X plus Y in terms of reinforced buildings.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that a lot of the information that was in Phase 1 was available at the Planning Department in booklets printed each year, so the question really was, was this pork barrel expenditures – that was one of the impressions and ironies that precipitated this whole discussion because it suddenly came before the public.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Residential Builders knew nothing about the $2 or $3 million so before the Commission proceeds with any contract work the BIC should make sure there is input from the Board of Realtors, the RBA, social service workers, and the community at large.  Mr. O’Donoghue said he believed there was no nexus and that the money for the CAPSS Study should come from the General Fund and might not be an appropriate expenditure for DBI.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Laurence Kornfield is a dedicated professional and a good technician so it is good that he is in charge, but he needs direction from the Commission in terms of how to proceed and give him the proper instructions but not the signed contracts coming back to the Acting Director because there is more to this than actually meets the eye.

 

President Hirsch asked if there was any further public comment or any comment from the Commission.   Commissioner Guinnane asked a question of Ann Marie Conroy.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was watching TV about 6 months ago and the Federal Government gave San Francisco either $30 or $60 million for Homeland Security and at the sub-committee meeting Fiona Ma was trying to revive the CAPSS Program and take that money out of Homeland Security.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if that was ever resolved and said he was trying to figure out how Ms. Ma could tie CAPSS into Homeland Security.

 

Ms. Ann Marie Conroy said that San Francisco was the recipient of about $83 million of Federal Homeland Security through 2003, 2004, and 2005; the original grants/money was for strict terrorism funding.   Ms. Conroy stated that fortunately the issues are moving into more of an all hazards approach that if you are prepared for terrorism, you are prepared for an earthquake or vice versa so the Federal government has started to take a more all-hazards approach to the ability to spend those dollars, but were not quite there yet.  Ms. Conroy said that part of the job at OES-Homeland Security is to be looking at the city’s mitigation plans and something that is pure mitigation or earthquake planning may or may not qualify, but said she would look into it.  Ms. Conroy stated that her office is very dedicated to getting the CAPSS Report done and particularly getting to the final phase of it and how to get people to retrofit their homes as well as building owners.  Ms. Conroy said that she talked about the UMB program that Supervisor Shay had passed many years ago but not many people took advantage of it, yet San Franciscans were willing to put forth $3 to $4 million dollars of bonded indebtedness to be able to retrofit buildings.  Ms. Conroy stated that there were lots of different things that they could do but she would really like to capitalize on the fact that this is the upcoming hundredth anniversary of the Great Quake and fire and they will have a one-time opportunity of San Franciscans being so heightened to the earthquake that they could capitalize on this so that is why she would like this portion of the CAPSS Report to move forward so the city can get to that phase.  Ms. Conroy said that she would be happy to work with the Commission in trying to identify any dollars that are out there, whether it be from the state or Federal government, to help get through the 3^rd phase of the CAPSS Report.

 

Commissioner Ting made a motion seconded by Commissioner Romero to lift the suspension on the CAPSS Program, subject to bringing forward any contract or budget which would be approved by the Commission, and that budget would include printing costs so the Department would not move forward with any allocation of funding until the Commission approved it.  

 

President Hirsch called the question.   There were six ayes and one nay, with Commissioner Guinnane dissenting. 

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 033-05 

 

President Hirsch said that the next meeting would be July 18^th because of the 4^th of July holiday so he asked if Mr. Kornfield would be ready to present to Acting Director Lee so she could present the Commission with a budget.  Mr. Kornfield said that this might be too soon as he had to coordinate this with the contractor since his entire contract team has dispersed, and he has to put together a new team so it might take a little longer.  President Hirsch announced that the suspension was lifted and instructed the Department to proceed with the CAPSS Project.

 

5.

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

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that DBI has an excellent staff from the inspectors through to the plan checkers and the clerical people on the first floor.   Mr. Karnilowitz said that the staff is very knowledgeable, competent, and accommodating including the staff that works at the Central Permit Cashiers counters because they regularly face the public.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that what occasionally happens is that general contractors come to the office to get a building permit and along with that they want to get a plumbing permit; however you cannot get just a plumbing permit with a building permit, you also have to take out an electrical permit.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that he has seen customers get very upset about this and said it is very hard on people working at the cashier’s counter to explain this to some customers.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated he was hoping the Department could look into putting up some sort of notice stating what the policy is for pulling a building permit where plumbing and electrical permits are required as well.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that this was not a big deal, but it is upsetting especially when the Department has a wonderful staff and they try to work hard, but the public comes in and a lot of times contractors are from out of town so they are not familiar with the permit policy in San Francisco.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that he did not know about other jurisdictions, but permits are issued differently in San Francisco so it might be a lot easier if notices were posted at both counters or if the public could be issued a handout or pamphlet.

 

Mr. Charles Marstellar said he was representing himself and that he wanted to alert the Commission about something it was probably not aware of:   Section 1304 of the Subdivision Ordinance expressly prohibits governmental issuance of any permits prior to the recordation of a subdivision application.  Mr. Marstellar stated he thought this law dates to California State Law in the 19^th century, but Supervisor Daly, for instance, has written Director Amy Lee regarding a case where DBI issued a building permit prior to completion of the subdivision, and said he understood that Mr. Daly’s office was advised that this was not unusual as the Central Permit Bureau routinely issues permits prior to subdivision.  Mr. Marstellar said that his view was that given the law, it certainly leaves the city open to an unnecessary legal challenge and he read what the provision said:  “It is unlawful for anyone to sell or lease contract to sell or lease any subdivision or part thereof until final map or parcel map thereof is essentially recorded.  All Department officials and public employees of the city vested with the duty or authority to approve or issue permits shall conform to this law and neither approve or issue any permit or license for use, construction or purpose in conflict with the provisions of this code.”  Mr. Marstellar stated that this law essentially empowers the Director of DPW to be the enforcement authority and this involves criminal sanctions and $2,000 a day fines and imprisonment not to exceed six months.  Mr. Marstellar said that the Director was also charged with the responsibility of essentially nullifying and voiding all permits, including CU’s, zoning variances, and building permits.  Mr. Marstellar stated that as a citizen if he specifically knew about a project he would have the right to go to court and sue the city and the developer, the project sponsor, to essentially seek either injunction and/or writ to order DPW to act.  Mr. Marstellar said that was not good and he just wanted to call this to the Commission’s attention.

 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Marstellar was telling the Commission that if a person built a new building and they were applying for a condo process and it was not fully approved through the City and County of San Francisco, but they rented it before it was approved was that illegal.   Mr. Marstellar said no it would be illegal for the person to sell or lease or seek permits for any project that has not been subdivided, and he understood this was called Blue Sky.  Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Marstellar when he said subdivide if he meant when there was a pending application for subdivision and Mr. Marstellar said this was right; the person has to put the subdivision through first before they can sell the property, lease the property, or approach the city for permits to do anything as far as development.  President Hirsch said that he presumed that subdivision in this case means condominiums in San Francisco.  Mr. Marstellar responded no, subdivision was any modification at all to a block and President Hirsch agreed but asked in practical terms if such things occurred in San Francisco. Mr. Marstellar said that he understood it was routine that these permits are pursued concurrent with the subdivision application, so the Commission would either have to amend the law, follow the law, or run the risk of having the city sued and it had not happened yet, but said it was likely to occur in the future.  President Hirsch asked if Mr. Marstellar was speaking of state law and Mr. Marstellar replied yes he thought it was rooted in state law, and it was in San Francisco’s subdivision code as well, 1304 of the SMA, Structural Map Amendment.

 

Vice-President Hanrahan asked if Mr. Marstellar could give her a few examples of other types of subdivisions that occur that would be problematic.   Mr. Marstellar said there was a case called St. Mark’s Tower and that case was a substantial reconfiguration of the lot lines within a block on Franklin at O’Farrell and there is a case now that Mr. Daly is referencing where there was a lot line merger but still triggering a subdivision application that has not been recorded and they are proceeding with development.  Mr. Marstellar stated that if a lawsuit was filed against that developer as well as against the city, for either an injunctive or writ action, that would entail a lot of uncertainty for that developer and his financing authorities, so he was warning that this is a sloppy area that needs to be addressed and tightened up.  Commissioner Ting asked if the St. Mark’s Tower was the 4,000 - meter project and Mr. Marstellar replied that it was assisted living. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Marstellar wanted to share the address with the Commission so they could look into it and Mr. Marstellar said it was 724 Van Ness Avenue, but it was not his purpose to engender a lawsuit; it is just that he noticed a major glaring deficiency in the administration of the law.  President Hirsch asked if it was Mr. Marstellar’s suggestion that DBI approach the Board of Supervisors to amend the law or that DBI takes care not to issue permits on lot lines or subdivisions that have not yet been recorded.  Mr. Marstellar said technically the Commission is liable along with all city officers for any actions that occur and these are misdemeanors of criminal law, he believes upon conviction, but stated he was not a lawyer.  Mr. Marstellar stated two judges heard the St. Mark’s Tower lawsuit and they allowed the case to move forward, but the result was the city entailed the cost and the case was rendered moot because of other reasons.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said Ann Marie Conroy mentioned that the hundredth earthquake anniversary was forthcoming and the Commission just heard the case of why they should proceed with the CAPSS Study without examining where the money is coming from.  Mr. O’Donoghue inquired if the money would be coming from fees, because it is the RBA’s position that it should come from the General Fund.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated their concern, as was demonstrated prior to 1989 and subsequent with their activity where they put out money to get legislation passed in order to have the rebuilding of the Marina occur, so they are deeply concerned about the safety of citizens of this city.  Mr. O’Donoghue said however the Commission seems to be forgetting a clear and present danger right now of buildings that are in jeopardy, not from an earthquake but due to faulty foundations.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated he was referring to the James Li case, which had previously been brought to the Commission, and he also mentioned Julie Lee and her engineer being under indictment at the State, local, and Federal levels.  Mr. O’Donoghue said it took the activity of Commissioner Guinnane to prompt Acting Director Lee to try to get this building safe, and as he has said before the buildings that James Li has engineered are believed to have totally inadequate foundations.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated the building’s new structures from vertical loads are sitting on old foundations and the slightest rattle and they will come down.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the question is who is responsible and stated that the Commission does not have immunity either, and they need to calendar these items.

 

6.

Review of Communication Items.   At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.

• E-mail listing topics of Brown Bag Lunch Talks 2005.
• E-mail regarding Ron Hamburger, Structural Engineer who will be speaking at DBI on Wednesday July 6, 2005 from 1:30 to 3:00 PM on the subject of New Structural Design Approaches, including Performance Based Design.
• Department announcement regarding hiring a 1071 Information Systems Manager.
• Copy of memorandum dated June 7, 2005 from Acting Director Amy Lee to Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector of Technical Services regarding the Scrap house Project
• e.Copy of letter received from the public commending DBI employees and the response sent by the Acting Directors.

President Hirsch asked if there was any comment from any of the Commissioners on these communication items and there was none.  President Hirsch called for public comment. 

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said he had a comment on item 6d regarding the Scrap house project, and said he thought that a presentation by Mr. Laurence Kornfield would be very much in order.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated it was an excellent project that would educate the public as to what is possible, what they are not doing, and also the problems that Mr. Kornfield encountered as he tried to develop this concept.  Mr. O’Donoghue said he thought it was very important to show that the project was successful because of Mr. Kornfield’s broad knowledge, understanding, and relationship with all members of the community, especially those in the building and architectural engineering fields.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Commission should have a Special Meeting on this and possibly invite the Department of Environment to show what is possible as well as the challenges that can ensue.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that if a person tries something new in this city that it just will not get through the Planning Department because someone will question it. 

 

7.

Review and approval of the minutes of the March 7, 2005 meeting.

 

Commissioner Fillon made a motion seconded by President Hirsch to approve the meeting minutes from the March 7, 2005 meeting.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 034-0

 

8.

Review and approval of the minutes of the April 4, 2005 meeting.

 

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion seconded by Commissioner Lee to approve the meeting minutes from the April 4, 2005 meeting.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 035-05

 

9.

Review and approval of the minutes of the April 18, 2005 meeting.

 

President Hirsch made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fillon to approve the meeting minutes from the April 4, 2005 meeting.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

10.

Review Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

 

Commissioner Guinnane said that there was a sub-committee in place with a mandate of four months to come up with names for a permanent director, and he would like to know from the secretary the minimum amount of time needed to set a meeting so the three members can meet and come up with some guidelines to put in place to begin the director search.  Secretary Ann Aherne said she could set up a meeting and she could mail the notices the following day, because the public needs three days’ notice.  Secretary Aherne stated that the sub-committee could have a meeting as soon as Friday or the following week depending on the Commissioner’s availability.  Secretary Aherne mentioned that she had talked to the Planning Department secretary to get some information as to what they were doing to search for a Director of Planning.  Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Guinnane discussed coordinating their schedules and agreed to contact Commissioner Romero.  Commissioner Guinnane said that almost a month had gone of the four they were supposed to begin the director search, so he was just concerned and wanted to do his due diligence.

 

Vice-President Hanrahan said she would like to have a copy of the letter from Melina Fulbright, The Director of the 601 Dolores Street property, because that letter was not included in the packet for item 3b.  Secretary Aherne stated she would ask Acting Director Lee for a copy of the letter.  Commissioner Guinnane stated he was not sure if the Commission had seen a copy of the letter involving James Li regarding Eric McFarland, apparently there was some issue so Commissioner Guinnane said he would read the letter into the record: 

 

      “In response to your letter of June 14, 2005 requesting clarification of James Li’s permit     application I am not aware of any refusal on DBI’s part in signing off any over-the-counter      permits by Mr. Li.  The original e-mail sent by Larry Badiner of the Planning Department  was sent to my office staff for informational purposes only and no action was taken on DBI’s part regarding Mr. Li’s permits.  If Mr. Li submits permits that would normally be issued over-the-counter; it would be approved accordingly.  If however the application needed additional time to be reviewed, then it would be taken in.”

 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know what the issue was, and asked if there was a problem with permits not being approved or is there some kind of a hold for this particular engineer.  Acting Deputy Director Tom Hui stated that as far as the Department knows, Larry Badiner from the Planning Department, sent DBI the above letter for informational purposes only, and for Acting Director Lee to forward to the staff.  Mr. Hui said that the Planning Department has a process similar to other applicants when they question whether or not they want to rely on the individual plan checker or engineer at the counter.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Commission could have more clarification on this letter.

 

Commissioner Ting asked if the Department could follow up on the whole issue of permits prior to the recording of the subdivision.  Commissioner Guinnane suggested that this item be addressed under 724 Van Ness Avenue since that seems to be the property Mr. Marstellar was referring to with some kind of a lot line adjustment.  Commissioner Ting said that it seemed like something where the Department and the Commission should be following the law.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he believed it was true that if a person builds a brand new building and are getting it approved on condos that they are not supposed to rent it until it is finally approved.  President Hirsch asked if the person could solicit and Commissioner Guinnane said no they could not do anything.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the person could not solicit because they would not have the white slip from the state, and the issue is they could not even have the unit occupied until the actual subdivision is approved in its 100% entirety. 

 

Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that she thought Mr. Marstellar was saying that the Department cannot even issue a building permit.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that the only problem is how can one get a subdivision approved without the final CFC (Certificate of Final Completion) of the building.  Ms. Boyajian said that the state law has been changed recently to require the Department to change the process; and San Francisco used to have subdivisions at the back end instead of at the front end.  Ms. Boyajian stated that she thought DPW might be revising that process, but said she would follow-up on it and report back at the next meeting.  Commissioner Guinnane asked Ms. Boyajian to also follow up on a referral for 323 – 26^th Avenue, regarding the Board of Permit Appeals.  Ms. Boyajian said that she ordered the administrative records from the Board of Permit Appeals and she would be reviewing it as soon as possible.  Acting Director Lee stated she had sent a letter to the City Attorney’s Office for review. 

Commissioner Ting said that he wanted to make a quick announcement that he and Commissioner Fillon were going to be reviewing applicants for unfilled positions on the CAC, AAC, and UMB.

Commissioner Ting mentioned that he thought Mr. O’Donoghue’s statement about highlighting Mr. Kornfield’s presentation of the Scrap house was a good idea.  President Hirsch said he would like to put that on the agenda for the next meeting and he thought Mr. Kornfield would be amenable to it.

 

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

 

President Hirsch said that the next meeting would be on July 18^th, and Vice-President Hanrahan said she would be out of town for that meeting.  Commissioner Guinnane said at the last two meetings he had asked for seven or eight items to go on the calendar and he cannot seem to get them on the agenda, so he would repeat the items again.  President Hirsch stated one reason they are not on the calendar is he has a pack of drawings to review, and Commissioner Guinnane said that was just referring to the James Li issue but he had other items.  Commissioner Guinnane stated one issue that he thought was very serious was 2508 – 19^th Avenue, and said he did not believe this should wait until July 18^th.  Commissioner Guinnane said apparently that is a problem where the house on 19^th Avenue that initially when he drove by, he called the city to file a complaint that the contractor was undermining the property.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that the job was shut down and two days later it was restarted again.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there was a drawing submitted to the Department and he cannot figure out how it was approved because the contractor went under the adjoining property almost 8 feet.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he did not know that soldier beams would work in lieu of underpinning and he does not think the building code allowed that.  Commissioner Guinnane explained there was a contractor brought in when the job was stopped a second time, there was some back fill put in, and said he thought that it was a very serious hazard just waiting to happen.  Commissioner Guinnane stated if you look at the job site itself, the steel beams have deflected and said he is concerned that the sand is drawing out and the corner building could be lost, which is a 3-story corner house. 

 

The second item Commissioner Guinnane requested was on the accountability of plan checkers and engineers; Number 3 was the James Li engineering drawings; Number 4 was the car shop bills for the last 4 years; Number 5 was the Department numbers of employees and an organizational chart showing each department to see how it is staffed and where the problems are and where DBI should staff at 100% and maybe staff at 20 over 100 where there are backlog problems and the Department has identified that plan checking , engineering, and in the 3-R section are backlogged areas; Number 6 was setting up a meeting of the sub-committee to search for the new Director and Number 7 was the issue of hiring building inspectors and what happened with the 57 applicants and only 3 being picked  as he could not understand how an individual who is currently a building inspector and more than qualified did not even get an interview.

 

Vice-President Hanrahan asked if there needed to be a Special Meeting before the 18^th or if Commissioner Guinnane would just like action from the Department on the building that is in question.  President Hirsch asked if he was referring to 2508 – 19^th Avenue and Commissioner Guinnane stated yes he was very concerned about this and thought there should be an emergency order issued, and the Department should take steps to secure this home.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the building could fall or drop and said it had been brought up at the last two meetings and nothing has been done about it.  Commissioner Guinnane stated he would like to see the actual drawings that were submitted by the contractor, to the Department and how a drawing like that was approved.  President Hirsch asked if an engineer signed it and Commissioner Guinnane responded yes it was signed by an engineer.

 

Acting Deputy Director Tom Hui thanked Commissioner Guinnane for going out to the site and said the way he saw it as a structural engineer, he reviewed the drawings himself and he knew of the urgency.  Mr. Hui stated that Senior Building Inspector Ed Sweeney and Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson visited the site also and they posted a second Notice of Violation (NOV) on the project.  Mr. Hui said that when he visited the site on June 14^th with Mr. Sweeney the urgency was not there at the time because there was an emergency back fill of the soil against both sides of the property.  Mr. Hui stated that as a city agency DBI could not design a project for the project sponsor or the contractor and they issued the NOV to the contractor or the owner to fix the problem, and the way he understood it was that they already hired a geochemical engineer for the job to try to determine how to fix the problem.  Mr. Hui said that he looked at the drawings with some of his senior staff and it appeared that the contractor knew how to do the construction procedure-wise, and he could give a copy to the Commission later.  Mr. Hui stated that there was a construction sequence of post beams installed, the soldier beam first, then they hand-dug the soil with the legging against both sides, but the contractor was inexperienced and took the easy way out by excavating the site 4 or 6 feet down from the existing grade.  Mr. Hui said that is why it created lots of sliding or curl of the sand as those are typically sand dunes in the Sunset District and to answer the question of whether or not it is urgent right now to back fill the soil against the property, he did not see that it was.

 

Commissioner Guinnane said the back fill was a temporary solution to keep the house from collapsing that night but it was not put in for this to go on for another 2 or 3 months.  Mr. Hui stated the DBI had already given violation notices to the contractor and the owner and said he was not sure what other kind of tool the Department could use.  Commissioner Guinnane said he would not be worried about the contractor, but he would be worried about the adjoining house because if it was his house next door and it was going to collapse, that is where the issue would be.  The Commission along with Acting Deputy Director Hui continued to discuss the property at 2508 – 19^th Avenue and these are some of the points that were addressed:

 

• (Guinnane)  How is a 6’ by 6’ soldier beam every 8 feet going to hold a 3-story house, and the contractor lost all the sand under the building, dug it all out, put the soldier beams in and then back filled it under later on and that is not the proper way to do it.
• (Hui)  The contractor should not have excavated the site before he did the soldier beams and actually on the drawings they said with any soil loss they should grout it to stabilize the sand.
• (Guinnane)  None of that was done and the contractor lost all of the sand.
• (Hui)  This is due to the contractor being inexperienced and inspectors occasionally went out to make sure both sides of the building would be stable but now they may need to ask advice from the City Attorney on how to force them to speed up the process.
• (Hanrahan)  Asked what does DBI do in this process if there is an imminent hazard; what is the city’s obligation to make sure the building does not come down.
• (Hui)  That is why they had the contractor to back fill the soil.
• (Hanrahan)  There is a non-compliant contractor doing what he is not supposed to be doing and there is a hazard; what is the city’s obligation in that regard.
• (Guinnane)  The Director has the ability to issue an emergency order to bring in another contractor to underpin the property and then bill the original contractor for it.
• (Guinnane)  Suggested that President Hirsch go look at the property since he is an engineer, and Commissioner Guinnane said he called this in twice and if he had not done so the house would have been gone.
• (Hanrahan)  Everyone does not have to agree on this particular issue, but if there is a problem the Department should get another contractor out there to fix it and force the original contractor to pay for it.
• (Guinnane)  The contractor was brought in to do the back fill, the machine sat there for 10 days, there was an agreement to submit drawings and start underpinning the following day, but everything came to a stand still and no one put pressure on him to resolve the issue.
• (Lee)  Asked if the Department has heard from the adjoining property owner of the house that there is a problem, not the contractor’s property owner, but the adjacent owner.
• (Hanrahan)  The Department knows there is a problem so there is no need to hear it from the property owner.
• (Guinnane)  The property owner may not know there is a danger.
• (Hirsch)  Asked Mr. Hui to go through the sequence of events.

   

Acting Deputy Director Tom Hui gave the following sequence of events:  Mr. Hui said he went by the inspection site on June 14^th with Senior Building Inspector Ed Sweeney and

Commissioner Guinnane, and on the right-hand side of the building he did not see any cracks, but on the left-hand side he thinks from his engineering judgment there are cracks not from the settlement but from the old stucco.  Mr. Hui stated that if staff goes to an owner and tells them their building is dangerous and they need to do something about it, this of course invites them to file a lawsuit.  Mr. Hui said right now staff has pressured the contractor and owner or the developer to do something about the problem at 2508-19^th Avenue.  Mr. Hui stated that they have issued a number of Notices of Violation, and he may now refer the case to the City Attorney’s office to push them.  Mr. Hui said Commissioner Guinnane wants to do emergency underpinning of the building, but that is usually the last recourse because the money comes out of DBI funds and is later charged back to the project. 

 

Issues Discussed re: 2508-19^th Avenue (Continued)

 

• (Hirsch)  Civil Code of the State of California requires that anybody making an excavation has the duty to underpin down the first 10 feet, to underpin the adjacent property, so the contractor that created the excavation has the duty under the law to underpin the houses next door.
• (Guinnane)  To clarify I think this issue is turned around some, because the California Law is very clear and if the contractor is going to go below the adjacent property he is required to give the owner a 30-day notice and then it is up to that owner to underpin their own building up to 9 feet below.  If the contractor goes below 9 or 10 feet then he bears the cost.
• (Hirsch)  Agreed that Commissioner Guinnane’s statement was correct.
• (Guinnane)  In this case even if the adjacent owner was notified, the contractor has caused this problem so he is clearly responsible for remedying it. 
• (Hanrahan)  More information is going to lead the Commission to find out who pays the bill; it is not going to fix the problem.
• (Ting)  Asked if it was common or fairly uncommon for the Department to issue an emergency order to underpin a building and bill the contractor for the work.
• (Guinnane)  The Department does not do this often, but the option is in place for hazardous situations like this.
• (Hanrahan)  The contractor has been given ample opportunity and has shown that he cannot respond in an appropriate manner.
• (Lee)  The Department has to be careful not to jump the gun, because they cannot rescue every contractor.
• (Hanrahan)  If there is a 3-story building with a number of people in it, the Department has an obligation to take care of the situation.
• (Hirsch)  The Department needs to hear from the owner of the 3-story building because he had the obligation to underpin it.
• (Judy Boyajian)  DBI cannot go on the owner’s property without his permission, so an issue to consider is whether or not the Department would be trespassing if they do not have his approval.  Tom Hui and I will discuss this with Acting Director Lee and will get moving on this right away.
• (Guinnane)  This is my most important item and it should be addressed and looked at today so a decision can be made.

 

Commissioner Guinnane requested that the Department look into the issue of the story count, as well as the height issue for 2121 Castenada Street.  Vice-President Hanrahan thanked Commissioner Guinnane for bringing up the item on 2508-19^th Avenue, and said that as a person who sits on the Landlord’s seat, if she owned the property she would really appreciate him bringing this up, because she might not know about this and feels it is important that it is dealt with immediately.

 

11.

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

 

President Hirsch called for public comment. 

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association addressed Vice-President Hanrahan and said if he was the property owner and he was not sure whether or not it was in jeopardy, but contrary to what the City Attorney said the city does have the right under the emergency law to have a contractor come in and shore up the property and inform the property owner that his building could be ready to fall down.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated the Department may be trespassing but someone could die out there as well, and regarding Commissioner Lee’s concerns for the property owner, the Department will do an assessment of the emergency prior to issuing the Emergency Order.  Mr. O’Donoghue said he has heard from a contractor who is experienced in demolition and excavation that, this property is Russian roulette ready to topple over right now; this is not about property rights, it is about safety protection which this Commission is obligated to fulfill.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated on the issue of politics people always hear that this Commission is corrupt, and the Department is corrupt because of politics, yet the fact is one cannot advance an agenda on any item in this country, this city, or out in the world without engaging in a political process.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Supreme Court, the U.S. Government, and even this Commission were all created because of politics, but the question should really be once the political process creates an institution, does politics then impact the proper running under objective standards of a department.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated even though politics created this Department, objectivity is used in running it and this consists of the industry working together with everyone in the community.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department of Building Inspection is one of the most integrated departments in the entire city due to its surpluses and efficiency.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that politics has played a role in this administration because of Mayor Newsom hiring the brightest and the best and we have seen the city fall asunder from murderous shootings, muggings, and the budget deficits.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the fact is that politics has played a role and the function of the Commissioners is not just to fill a seat but also to fill a need.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that with all due respect to the new Commissioners and those absent is that they are more inclined to fill a seat rather than a need, and the Commission does not need to rubber stamp something because of politics because they will hear a lot more of this in the future, in writing and also on TV.

 

12.

   Adjournment.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 a.m. 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 037-05

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________
Sonya Harris

Assistant Secretary

 

 

Edited by,

 

 

______________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary