Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

 

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

 

Wednesday, January 17, 2001 at 1:00 p.m.

Adopted February 21, 2001

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

 

MINUTES

The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:20 p.m. by President Fillon.

Alfonso Fillon, President Denise D’Anne, Commissioner

Debra Walker, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner

Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Esther Marks, Commissioner

Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President, excused

Ann Aherne, Commissioner Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director

Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director

William Wong, Deputy Director

Tuti Suardana, Secretary

1. President’s Announcements.

President Fillon said that he had no announcements, but stated that he would like to welcome newly appointed Commissioner Denise D’Anne who had been sworn in earlier today by President Ammiano of the Board of Supervisors. President Fillon asked Commissioner D’Anne if she had anything to say to the Commission.

Commissioner D’Anne apologized for not being able to stand to address the Commission and read the following statement: (emphasis by Commissioner D’Anne)

"Members of the Commission, Building Inspection Staff and Members of the General Public, I want to thank you for welcoming me today to membership on the Building Inspection Commission. I look forward to working closely with each of you on the important issues that are regularly brought for amicable resolution by this Commission.

I would also like to thank President of the Board of Supervisors Tom Ammiano for appointing me to a seat on this Commission - in which position, for the duration of my tenure, I hope to fulfill and justify his high expectations of me. I would like all of you to know that - while I currently own rental property, - I was for many years a tenant in this City. And, so, I am very sensitive to the equitable handling of issues that are of concern: both to landlords and to tenants; to developers and to housing activists; to the business community as well as to neighborhood consumers - and to the many tourists to San Francisco who depend upon our provision of goods and services... and upon who we depend to keep our local economy and world-wide reputation strong.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW, AS WELL, THAT I DO NOT ASSUME THE POSITION OF BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSIONER LIGHTLY. I HAVE A VISION for - and a focus on - the service I hope to contribute during my tenure on this Commission. In this regard, I plan in the very near future to propose the following areas of concern on which I would hope we can work toward a mutually beneficial end, namely:

1. I will propose that this Commission - with the cooperation of the City’s Planning Commission - take the bull by the horns and finally settle the issue of the CONVERSION OF ILLEGAL UNITS. This will be a win-win project that will benefit landlords, tenants, developers, realtors, title companies, and city agencies [Building Inspection, Planning, Public Works, Parking & Traffic, Assessor, Tax Collector, etc.] The proposed conversion may take years to accomplish. But it will provide: stable, safe and affordable rental housing for tenants; increased property values at point of sale, increased property taxes at point of transfer, etc.

2. In tandem, I will propose that this Commission consider establishing a BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - participation on which might well include members &/or staff of the city’s Planning Commission, Public Works Department, Parking and Traffic Commission; and representatives of such groups as San Francisco Tomorrow, SPUR, etc.

3. In preparation for such proposals, I would initially propose that this commission initiate - apart from its regular monthly meetings - REGULAR MONTHLY COMMUNITY MEETINGS:

· that will rotate monthly through the neighborhood communities [Supervisorial districts] of San Francisco; and

· that will be devoted solely to hearing and acting upon citizen concerns over the Charter mandate of this Commission’s Building Inspection Department and the activities of its various staff levels.

Further, in this regard, I would suggest that the District Supervisor be formally and regularly invited to attend and participate - and that knowledgeable Building Inspection staff be available at these meetings with the Commissioners and community members for purposes of addressing specific issues of concern. I would be happy to have the first meeting in my own district neighborhood - which is just several blocks from the Building Inspection Department’s own building.

4. Finally, I will propose that this commission take under formal consideration the principles outlined in David Osborne’s Reinventing Government and Banishing Bureaucracy - and establish a COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL RESOURCES.

As a retired veteran civil servant - with 30 years of service to the City & County of San Francisco, - I can tell you that, to my amazement, I watched the growth of an unseemly and unnecessary dependence on the use of contractors. And this at great expense to the tax payers and to the detriment of veteran civil servants - many of whom are very talented but have been marginalized and denied training for jobs that they were perfectly capable of doing but were co-opted by a revolving door of contractors who temporarily supported the ephemeral agendas of various appointing officers.

While it is not our job as Building Inspection commissioners to reform the entire City government, it certainly lies within our province to clean up our own house.

I would envision a BIC Committee on Personnel Resources as a clearinghouse where the Commission could analyze and weigh in detail the need for temporary specific contractors against existing and/or trainable talent already available to the department amongst its permanent civil service staff.

These are just a few of the proposals I plan to make at our meetings over the next several months.

I hope you all share my concern that the Department of Building Inspection be efficiently run both through its "front of house" provision of services to the public and through its "behind the scenes" use of its fiscal and personnel resources.

Many thanks for your attention. I very much look forward to working with you, with other City departments and with this department’s customer base."

President Fillon thanked Commissioner D’Anne for her comments and said that he looked forward to hearing more of her ideas and once again welcomed her to the Commission.

3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]

Director Chiu welcomed Commissioner D’Anne and said that he was looking forward to working closely with the new Commissioner.

a. Report on Community Action plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS), Phase I Final Report.

Director Chiu said that he wanted to give a brief report on the Community Action Report for Seismic Safety. Director Chiu said that about 2 ½ years ago this Commission approved a budget that authorized the Department to launch Phase I to do a study as to what the Department could do to provide safety to the City and County of San Francisco. Director Chiu invited Zan Turner who was representing Laurence Kornfield, the project manager for this program, to give an update as to where the Department is to date and to give highlights of the next phase.

Zan Turner said that the first phase of the project had been set up to develop an RFP (Request for Proposal) so that the Department can go into actual programs. Ms. Turner stated that there had been several community meetings where the public was invited and some 700 people participated in trying to outline what the risks are, what the accessible level of risk is to the City for earthquakes and what can be done to mitigate that risk. Ms. Turner said that mainly they were trying to identify the types of buildings that were at risk, and the types of populations and realized that there are a lot of sociological problems that need to be addressed as well. Ms. Turner said that things couldn’t just be looked at from an engineering point of view by saying that the City must be made safer by mandating that all buildings are retrofitted. Ms. Turner said that neighborhoods have to be considered as well as affordable housing and the historical character of the City. Ms. Turner said that with all of these things in mind, and with all of the representatives of all the interested groups invited to these public workshops, the group has gone to the first steps of identifying some of those problems and laying out the Requests for Proposals for the contractor to lead the City into the next phase to actually get some of the demographic information laid into plans and to prioritize some reasonable ways to go about applying mitigation. Ms. Turner said that the Department realized that many times good ideas come up, and the citizens and the people who have to implement these ideas need to be involved. Otherwise the City can spend a lot of resources going after people who don’t follow the rules set out, instead of finding out what kind of rules and legislation people are willing to follow. Ms. Turner said that the Department does not want to spend time doing abatement when time can be spent in a much more profitable way. Ms. Turner said that the Department is looking to move forward with this and are very excited about the prospects of really identifying such issues as the soft story apartment buildings that were looked at, seeing what can be done that is reasonable to mitigate various pockets of problems that are in the City, and to identify those and then come to reasonable conclusion. Ms. Turner said this is where the Department is now; ready to go out with the Requests for Proposals and Ms. Turner said that she would entertain any questions.

Commissioner Santos asked if the Department was looking for different types of consultants, or just architectural and structural consultants to respond to this proposal. Ms. Turner said that it could be that the Department is looking for a non-profit type of set up, but it could also be a combination of groups. Ms. Turner said that the Department would want the architectural and structural involvement and in fact are looking to set up an advisory committee that would oversee the entire project. Ms. Turner said that this committee would of course include a number of disciplines in addition to structural and architectural. President Fillon asked how long this study would be going on. Ms. Turner said that this is an ongoing project over several years starting with Schedule B5, which was Phase I; this program will be extending over two years for Phase II to get all of these items identified and also looking at funding sources and innovative ways to set these programs into place.

President Fillon asked if there were any further questions. Commissioner Marks stated that Ms. Turner presented an excellent summary that gave everyone a very clear idea of the areas that were explored, as well as the areas that the program will go into. Commissioner Marks said that as a matter of information, she was curious as to why Berkeley seemed to progress very quickly into a program to give incentives to property owners. Ms. Turner stated that Berkeley is currently one of the project impact cities, as well as Seattle and Oakland; these cities were given funding by FEMA to do some of these things. Ms. Turner said that they have had some innovative projects, which San Francisco is definitely looking at, including a matter of transfer tax, and rebates for citizens that do perform certain types of retrofit. Ms. Turner said that she lives in Berkeley and the kinds of construction that exist in Berkeley are not as complex in general as they are in San Francisco; there are a lot more of the buildings that have the cripple walls, the under floor crawl space, so that simple bolting and plywood applied to the cripple walls can solve a lot more problems there than it can here. Ms. Turner said that it is easier for Berkeley to apply these things than it is for San Francisco and it will be more challenging, but it will make it a lot more interesting. Commissioner Marks asked if the three cities applied for the funding for their projects. Ms. Turner said yes, and San Francisco applied, but San Francisco was given the impression that some people felt that San Francisco was given preferential treatment after Loma Prieta and some other cities didn’t, such as Oakland, and this is perhaps why the project impact funds went in that direction. Ms. Turner thanked the Commission.

Mr. Pat Buscovich said that he was very involved with the drafting of the (CAPPSS) document in front of the Commission and stated that he was on the Board of Directors of ATC, and is on the Structural Engineers Association panel advising the City. Mr. Buscovich said that regretfully from the date of the announcement he was unable to contact ATC and speak on their behalf, but the Structural Engineers Association had asked him to come before the Commission to support this document. Mr. Buscovich stated that in 1989 there was a very big earthquake in Santa Cruz and by the time it got to San Francisco, it was a very small earthquake except in very small pockets of the City, particularly in the Marina, South of Market and the Embarcadero. Mr. Buscovich said that when the City has its big earthquake, the level of damage will extend much greater than what was experienced in those three pockets and this program is an attempt to be forward thinking to start addressing the problems and mitigating them as best the City can. Mr. Buscovich said that he strongly supports the next step in this program.

There was no further public comment on this item.

b. Report on 2254 Bush/119 Wilmot Street project.

Director Chiu said that at the last meeting a public member had asked the Commission to have staff revisit and review the project at 2254 Bush and 119 Wilmot Street. Director Chiu said that this project went to Code Enforcement and went to the Board of Permit Appeals (BPA); BPA upheld the permits and the public member asked the staff to look at the entire case history and report back. Director Chiu asked Deputy Director Wong to give his findings to the Commission on this project.

Deputy Director Wong stated that this matter was brought to the attention of the Commission by two members of the public at two Commission meetings on November 1^st and November 15^th. Deputy Director Wong said that the Commission and Director Chiu asked him to look into two issues pertaining to this property: 1) to give his opinion as to whether a Director’s hearing is needed or not and 2) to determine whether penalties and fines should be imposed. Deputy Director Wong said that in the course of his review, he reviewed the available documents; the first being the permit history that he obtained from the microfilm records, the approved plans which included the permit plans and supporting documents on this property. Deputy Director Wong said he also reviewed the records in the inspection files, the Department of City Planning variance decision dated March 25, 1999, the entire Board of Appeals documents, which contains the project sponsors package which is a 70 page document, the Appellant’s package which is a 50 page document, the Boards decision and finally Deputy Director Wong said he listened to the audio tapes of the Board hearing. Deputy Director Wong said that the Commission had a copy of the staff report, which he would review quickly and answer any questions that the Commissioners would have. Deputy Director Wong said that the property description shows that there are two buildings on one lot; the front building is known as 2254 Bush Street and is an existing two story single-family dwelling. Deputy Director Wong stated that the proposed construction is to convert it to two family dwellings by adding a third floor. Deputy Director Wong said the back building which is known as 119 Wilmot Street is an existing single story garage and the proposed construction is to convert it to single-family by adding three stories over the existing garage making it a four story building. Deputy Director Wong said that the variance was reviewed by Planning and was approved subject to eight conditions. Deputy Director Wong said that the eight conditions were listed in Exhibit B of the Commissioner’s package. Deputy Director Wong said that originally two building permits were applied for under a form 3-8 which is called an alteration permit; one for the front building and one for the back building to do the proposed construction that was described, to convert it to dwelling units and to add additional floors. Deputy Director Wong stated that after the permits were issued, construction proceeded and the Department received a complaint; the Building Inspector went to the site and issued a Notice of Violation, Exhibit D, for the back building and mainly for an area where there was demolition that exceeded what was shown on the approved plans. Deputy Director Wong said that in the course of the review of this matter, it went to a higher review level in the operations unit in the Building Department and at that time the Senior Manager determined that additional permits were required. Deputy Director Wong said that one permit was to clarify the variance conditions of City Planning and the second one was to obtain a separate demolition permit for the purpose of notifying the neighbors. Deputy Director Wong said that this was done and essentially what remains at this point is that there are four building permits, the original two, the additional one to clarify for the variance, and the demolition permit. Deputy Director Wong stated that two of the permits were appealed to the Board of Permit Appeals, the Board heard the appeals and the same concerns that were brought before the BIC were heard at those appeal hearings. Deputy Director Wong said that all of this was taken into consideration and after review and consideration the BPA felt that there was some damage done to the adjacent property and requested that the project sponsor provide some corrective action. Deputy Director Wong said that he would read Exhibit E of the package that listed the conditions of the Board of Permit Appeals. Deputy Director Wong said that there were actually two cases before the Board of Permit Appeals, one for each of the permits that were appealed. Deputy Director Wong said that the Boards decision was to grant the demolition permit with the following conditions: 1) the permit holder pay for a structural engineering study of John Rose’s foundation at 121-123 Wilmot Street and pay for any damage to said foundations, 2) that the permit holders pay for the repair of the deck on Mr. Rose’s property and 3) that the Department of Building Inspection approve the plans to repair the damage to Mr. Rose’s property before any construction began on the subject property. Deputy Director Wong said that with respect to those two issues that the Commission asked him to look into, on the first issue to determine whether a Director’s hearing was needed or not, he reviewed the Code Section 103.3.1(Exhibit C) regarding the unlawful demolition, and stated that in his opinion this did not apply because the text in the opening statement says that demolition without permit, whenever the demolition of any building or structure containing one or more residential units takes place without the issuance of a demolition permit, would not apply. Deputy Director Wong said that the Notice of Violation that was cited for 119 Wilmot Street was for a garage that did not contain any residential units; therefore this particular section would not apply to this case. Deputy Director Wong said that with respect to another Director’s hearing that would be held for normal Code Enforcement cases, he determined that no Director’s hearing would be required because this particular case was not referred to the Code Enforcement Division, but was handled in the Inspection Division where they worked directly with the project sponsor and the neighbors; they have determined administratively to apply for the additional permits to deal with the issues at hand at that particular time, a decision made by the Senior Manager. Deputy Director Wong said again the case was not referred to the Code Enforcement Division and a Director’s Hearing was not required. Deputy Director Wong said that with respect to the second issue as to whether a penalty or fine was required, he determined that the Building Inspector inadvertently omitted a penalty on the first NOV. The Building Inspector did not check off the penalty portion of the NOV and the Department collected the penalty on another NOV, (Exhibit F) and this was two times the fees because a permit was taken out, but the work exceeded what was originally approved. Deputy Director Wong said that he was also taking this opportunity to inform the project sponsor to comply with all conditions of the Board of Appeals before the Stop Order can be lifted. Deputy Director Wong said that the Stop Order is still in place at this time. Commissioner Guinnane asked what was the amount of the penalty. Deputy Director Wong said that it was based on $4,000, which was the permit portion, and two times that came out to $236.60. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the garage was only worth $4,000. Deputy Director Wong said that this was based on the Marshall & Swift tables and it was determined that $4,000 was what it would cost to demolish a one-story garage of that size. Commissioner Guinnane asked why the penalty was not nine times the permit amount. Deputy Director Wong said that it was not nine times because according to Table 1K of the Building Code, there was a permit already taken out and on any work beyond the scope of an approved permit, the Department can only charge two times the penalty; however, if there was no permit taken out and the project sponsor was cited then the Department could charge nine times penalty. Deputy Director Wong stated that this has been the general practice of the Department. Commissioner Santos asked if the neighbor had agreed to the repairs and the extent of the damage. Deputy Director Wong said that at this particular point the project sponsor and the neighbors are still working on this. Deputy Director Wong said he had a document that is Exhibit G where attorneys stated that negotiations are in place and a proposal has been made, but at this point there is no workable plan. Deputy Director Wong said it is his understanding that the project sponsor has to pay for the damages done to the adjacent property. Commissioner Santos asked if the project sponsor would have to make the repairs to the adjacent property prior to the Department lifting the ban on starting construction on 2254. Deputy Director Wong said that was his understanding according to the BPA’s decision that the project sponsor has to pay for it as well. Deputy Director Wong said that he would assume that this would mean that a building permit would have to be applied for to make the repairs. Commissioner Santos said that he was the structural engineer for 2254 Bush Street and should recuse himself from this issue. Deputy Director Wong said that he had concluded his report. President Fillon stated that according to Deputy Director Wong his report is saying that the Department has taken all action against the builder that is required. Deputy Director Wong said that he felt that at this point, notification was given to all of the neighbors concerned, it was actually done twice; the process was in place to appeal the permits and the appeal was done and there is now a decision by the BPA. Deputy Director Wong said that what needs to be done from the Department’s point of view is to go ahead and enforce those decisions and make sure that is done. Deputy Director Wong said that in talking with the Inspection group, he understands that they have a Senior Inspector on this job right now in addition to the regular District Inspector, so there is a higher level of scrutiny on this project. President Fillon asked for any questions from the Commissioners.

Patricia Vaughey stated that she had differences of opinion with Mr. Wong’s decision; number one, the violation says 2254 Bush aka Wilmot, but both buildings were demolished and this was a Notice of Violation with both numbers on there. Commissioner D’Anne asked Ms. Vaughey to spell her name. Ms. Vaughey did so and said that number two, 2254 is residential and a Director’s hearing should have been called. Ms. Vaughey said that her question to the Commission was why was a Director’s hearing not called. Ms. Vaughey said there has never been an answer to the Commission as to why one was not called. Ms. Vaughey said that the files were missing for ten months and the demolition was applied for ten months after these buildings were illegally demolished. Ms. Vaughey asked why this could even happen without a Director’s hearing or without the Director being involved. Ms. Vaughey said that her question was, number three, and referred to the written report of Deputy Director Wong which she said she had just received a copy of minutes before and was having to review it quickly, it says the Director hereby when in force is authorized to enforce all provisions of the codes and the civil penalization has not even been discussed by the Department much less the $200.00 pittance for someone coming in and demolishing these two buildings. Ms. Vaughey said that her question is why is the Department hiding all of this. Ms. Vaughey stated that this has nothing to do with Mr. Wong as he took the information directly from this, this, this and this, but it was never addressed as to why the demolition permit came out ten months after the fact. Ms. Vaughey said it was a house that was demolished. Ms. Vaughey said that this has never been discussed with anybody and it is kind of like there isn’t a house there and there never was. Ms. Vaughey said her question is why is this being overlooked and this was her question the last time, why was a Director’s hearing not called in September of 1999 or 2000 whatever year it was, 1999; why wasn’t it called, but no one has answered that question. Ms. Vaughey said that no one has answered the question why the neighbors were not responded to by this Department for over ten months; letters, questions coming in, everything, not just her, but ten or twelve people were calling. Ms. Vaughey said that there has not been one answer from one person in the hierarchy of this Department. Ms. Vaughey stated that she has serious questions as to why this happened and it couldn’t have been handled administratively because it wasn’t handled at all for ten months. Ms. Vaughey said that this was just slid through and this is not fair to the other people who come and apply for permits to this department and have to follow the codes to the "t" and if they demolish one thing or they build a kitchen illegally, they are told to tear it out and these guys get a $200.00 fine. Ms. Vaughey said that this was her question.

Commissioner Walker asked if the Commission could get some clarification as it seemed like the garage address is the 119 Wilmot, but the issue brought up by Ms. Vaughey was the Bush Street property. Commissioner Walker asked if this were a house and did it get demolished. Commissioner Walker said she was reluctant to ask someone on the project because he is a fellow Commissioner so she asked how to proceed with her question. Deputy Director Wong said that in answer to Commissioner Walker’s questions, he reviewed the plans and the plans show that the front façade of the building was to remain. Deputy Director Wong said there was some discrepancy between the architectural and the structural plans, but in reviewing the plans to what he saw in photographs, there were in general conformance with the plans that were approved by both the Department of City Planning and the Building Department. Commissioner Walker asked if she was to understand that the building wasn’t demolished and if this is what Deputy Director Wong was stating. Deputy Director Wong said that it was built in accordance with those approved plans, so he cannot say that it exceeded the scope of work or was an unlawful demolition. Deputy Director Wong stated that it was built in accordance with the plans and there is something left there. President Fillon asked if it had to be demolished first before anything could be built. Deputy Director Wong said no, not on the front building; the back building they were supposed to retain some walls as well, but that did not happen; they went and basically demolished the whole thing and that is where the problem and the complaint was. Deputy Director Wong said that in looking at the Notice of Violation it says building, singular. Commissioner Walker said, so 2254 was not demolished and asked Deputy Director Wong if that was what his position was. Deputy Director Wong said it was constructed according to the approved plans. Commissioner Walker said that Deputy Director Wong was not answering her question. Deputy Director Wong said it was not demolished because there is still some elements of the building left.

Director Chiu said that he would try to clarify the situation. Director Chiu said that a demolition permit is not required because a portion of the building still remains per the plans approved by both DCP and DBI. Commissioner Walker said that the issue that is being brought up, according to her understanding, is that indeed it wasn’t remaining and then ten months after the fact something got built. Director Chiu said that the project was stopped for ten months to resolve the issue. Commissioner Walker said she would like some clarification of what Ms. Vaughey was speaking about. Ms. Vaughey said that the building was 1320 square feet and there is 116 maximum square feet left and according to Section 103 of the Residential Building Code, if you demolish more than two-thirds of the building without a demolition permit, it is an illegal demolition. President Fillon asked Director Chiu if he was saying that by the definition of the Building Code it was not an illegal demolition. Director Chiu said that he would try to clarify what Deputy Director Wong said. Director Chiu said that there was a permit issued to alter a building, the front building, and according to Deputy Director Wong’s findings they removed essentially what was approved by City Planning and DBI, so therefore a demolition permit is not required. Director Chiu said he would try to make the explanation easier. Director Chiu said that a demolition permit is required when the entire building is torn down. Director Chiu said that someone could apply for an alteration permit to remove a portion of the building and that is what was done for the front portion of the building. Director Chiu said that for the rear building, since they demolished the entire building, they would need a demolition permit. Director Chiu said that they are two separate permits. Director Chiu said that a portion of a building could be removed by filing for an alteration permit and that is what they have done. Commissioner Walker asked if the plans that were approved included the fact that the demolition was for over two-thirds of the building. Director Chiu said that he thought that this was what Deputy Director Wong was saying; that both departments have approved the removal of those portions of the structures. Ms. Vaughey stated that Planning did not approve the demolition of a building, but they approved plans. Ms. Vaughey said that was happened was that after the fact all of sudden the structural plans showed up that said that there was some demolition, but did not state how much demolition. Ms. Vaughey said that the demolition of over two-thirds is still an illegal demolition without coming back to this Department. Ms. Vaughey asked why is this Department covering this up. President Fillon said that this issue was not an appeal so it is inappropriate for the Commission to be spending so much time on this issue. President Fillon said this was agendized, but feels that the Commission has received sufficient information at this point and any questions for staff have been responded to. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu about when the plans come out of the Planning Department what is the governing plan; is it the actual plan or the structural plan. Commissioner Guinnane said that the structural plans do not go to the Planning Department, but the regular architectural plans do and that should be the governing plan. Director Chiu said that in this particular case, he could not tell the Commission exactly what plans go through Planning and what plans Planning Department saw. Director Chiu said that perhaps Deputy Director Wong could answer that question. Director Chiu said that he would admit that this particular section (of the Code) has been bothering both the Department of Planning and the Department of Building Inspection for a number of years. Director Chiu said that the Commission, three or four years ago, formed a Committee to address those technicalities or try to define the interpretation of when there is a demolition permit required versus removal of a portion of the building with an alteration permit. Director Chiu said that at that time no consensus was reached by working with the Community as well, and said that at this time he would like to have another Committee from this Commission to revisit this issue. Director Chiu said that it is not just DBI, but the Department needs to get involved with Planning people and o the Community. Director Chiu said that at one point the Department felt that it was trying to clarify the Code and the Community, particularly from the Richmond District, are not willing to change anything in the Code. Director Chiu said that the Department is seeking help to clarify whether an alteration permit could be used to demolish a portion of a building, which has been done for years. Director Chiu said that in talking with Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian this is something that there is no consensus on, as to when a demolition permit is required. Director Chiu said that right now the only time a demolition permit is required is when someone comes in to demolish an entire building. Director Chiu said that if someone is going to retain a portion of a building, an alteration permit can be obtained as long as it is clearly demonstrated what is going to be removed and what is going to remain and if this is approved by the Planning Department and DBI, then it is considered as being built according to the approved set of plans. Director Chiu said that at this time he would be more than happy to work with the Commissioners who are interested in this particular issue to resolve or have some guidelines to resolve this particular hot issue. Director Chiu said that he has stated before that this particular section, technically speaking, does not belong to the Building Code, it is more of a planning issue about what portion could remain as to what is lawful or unlawful. Director Chiu said that the Department needs to look at the big picture and determine if this section belongs in the Building Code because the Building Code talks about how to make a building more safe and sound and feels that the Commission needs to revisit the Code.

Commissioner Marks said that she did not know whether it was Ms. Vaughey or staff that included Section 103.3 of the Building Code, but it says that demolition means the tearing down or the destruction of a building containing, etc. or any alteration which destroys or removes as those terms that are determined by the Director of the Department of Building Inspection. Commissioner Marks asked Director Chiu how he defines an alteration that destroys or removes. President Fillon said that it would be a building that retains a portion of the exterior of the building. Commissioner Walker asked by what process this is determined. Commissioner Walker said that she thought that the issue was that there was no Director’s hearing, there was no assessment of this and it just basically happened. Commissioner Santos said that it was defined graphically by a set of architectural and structural drawings; the architectural drawings had an as built set of drawings, existing conditions as is without anyone going there and touching anything and there is a demolition plan which is an architectural definition of what is taken out. Commissioner Santos said that then there is a final set of structural drawings that defines the final configuration of the structure. Commissioner Santos stated that there are three different steps, three different graphical mechanisms for anyone to look at what was there and what needs to be taken out to make it into the final product. Commissioner Santos said that the intent of the project, and this has nothing to do with the fact that he is the structural engineer on the project, was to maintain the front façade and maintain that only. Commissioner Santos said that everything else was going to be an architectural and structural modification that went through Planning where it was very finely reviewed by everyone. Commissioner Santos said that the fact that there is a penalty of only $340.00 or something, he does not understand as that sounds low, but the penalty has been the fact that the developer has not been able to work on this job for over a year and one-half and nothing has happened on the project which is a substantial penalty. Commissioner Walker said that she is more concerned that the Department has a process for assessing or evaluating the appropriateness, or not, of demolitions. Commissioner Walker said that she believed that Director Chiu was saying that there is no current, specific directive so that anyone catches it. Commissioner Walker said that it is like determining prior use of a building because once it is written down and somebody accepts it, then everybody accepts it and it may be incorrect. Commissioner Santos said that the notification process required develops a set of architectural drawings that is going to be sent to the neighbors. Commissioner Santos said that the neighbors looked at it. Commissioner Walker asked if this meant all sets. Commissioner Santos said that it does not include the structural drawings. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a demolition involved, do the neighbors get the information about what percentage of the building is going to be demolished. Commissioner Santos said that they get the information in the sense that they get an as built set of drawings and they may have the final architectural recommendations. Commissioner Santos said that the neighbors do have to do some interpolation themselves as far as what is now and what the future is going to look like. Commissioner Santos said that the neighbors are given a before and after picture and that is how people get notified. Ms. Vaughey said that this is not what happened. Commissioner Walker said she was concerned about notification to the public especially regarding demolitions. Commissioner Walker said that she agreed with Director Chiu that this is something that should be agendized and talked about to give the Department more assistance in determining this. Commissioner Walker said that whether it applies back to this project or not, this is more a legal question.

Mr. Patrick Buscovich said that he was speaking as a citizen. Mr. Buscovich said that this section of the Code is so poorly written that it is unenforceable and this is the bottom line. Mr Buscovich said that there couldn’t be something in the Code that is not legible and then seek to have the Building Department enforce it; it needs to be fixed. Mr. Buscovich said that the problem is that it was attempted to be fixed in the last Code cycle and in front of the Board of Supervisors, the neighborhood groups, one in particular, got up and said that this was an attempt to allow for additional demolition. Mr. Buscovich said that in his point of view, this is a section of the Code that is unenforceable and these problems are going to continue until the Commission addresses what is illegal and what is not. Mr. Buscovich said the Code Section could not be enforced and has to be fixed or continue to live with a Section of the Code that is not going to do what it was intended to do.

President Fillon said that this issue had gone before the Board of Permit Appeals and all of the issues that were being discussed were previously brought up at the BPA and they made a ruling. President Fillon said that unless there was something new to be discussed this should be concluded. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said she was trying to remember if this was the case that was before the Board where the appellant tried to say it was an unlawful demolition and tried to impose a penalty. Ms. Boyajian said that she told the Board that they had no jurisdiction to do that and had to wait for Department action. Ms. Boyajian said she did not believe that the Board of Appeals had ruled on the unlawful demolition aspect of this particular case. President Fillon asked if it were up to the Commission to rule if this was an unlawful demolition or not, and then someone would have to appeal that decision. Ms. Boyajian said this was right. Ms. Boyajian said she wanted to put her two cents worth in about the Code Section itself; it is very difficult to enforce and it stems from when a demolition permit is needed, but the Department has never required a demolition permit unless the entire building is being knocked down. Ms. Boyajian said that applying this Section of the Code did not change so the practice of the City is that if someone is complying with the plans and has not demolished more than what the plans allowed, than it is not unlawful even if more than two-thirds has been demolished. President Fillon said that this item has not been agendized for action and it should be set as an action item for the next meeting. President Fillon said that he would like to have another staff report at that time before any action is taken, as there are still a lot of questions on this issue.

c. Report on the possibility of redistricting inspectors and plan checkers to coincide with Board of Supervisors’ Districts.

Director Chiu said that he wanted to keep the Commission in the loop that the Department is proposing to redistrict the District Building and Housing Inspectors to coincide, or try its best to coincide, with the Board of Supervisor’s Districts. Director Chiu said that the Department wanted to work closer with each individual District to seek their priorities, goals and objectives. Director Chiu stated that his goal was that after the Department made changes and determined who was the point person for a particular district, it is his plan to meet with the individual Supervisor to go over the Department’s goals and mission to see what are the priorities within each District. Director Chiu said that he felt this would better serve the Board of Supervisors office and the Community at large. Director Chiu stated that if the Commission had ideas or suggestions for ways that the Department could take a greater role, he would appreciate hearing them.

Commissioner D’Anne asked how many current Districts are within the Department and how they are broken down. Commissioner D’Anne asked about the Building, Electrical, Plumbing and Housing Districts. Director Chiu said that currently there are 18 District Inspectors throughout the City, approximately 20 Housing Inspectors and the Department is varied depending on the workload. Director Chiu said that there are probably 16 Electrical Inspectors and 14 for Plumbing. Director Chiu said that the Department needs to do its job in trying to match the Board of Supervisor’s Districts. Director Chiu said that at this time there is not an Inspector reporting directly to each of these Districts. Director Chiu said that there would be redistricting of the Inspectors. Commissioner D’Anne said that it would seem to be a little inefficient if there are 20 inspectors, and asked about the four different types of inspectors. Commissioner D’Anne asked how many Inspectors there were for each category, Building, Housing, Plumbing and Electrical. Director Chiu said that for Building there were 18 District Inspectors, 20 for Housing, 15 or 16 for Electrical and 14 for Plumbing. Director Chiu said that the Department needs to do a better job in trying to fit Inspectors into the Board of Supervisor’s Districts. Commissioner D’Anne stated that there were 11 Supervisorial Districts and there are 18 Building Inspectors and asked Director Chiu how this would be broken down. Director Chiu said that some Districts are overlapping and in some Districts there are two Inspectors in the area, for example, South of Market is one of the busiest areas, so there is more than one Inspector in that area. Director Chiu said that he wanted to go back and work with staff to have a representative for each District to be a liaison for the Department to work with that Board of Supervisor’s Office.

Commissioner Marks said that she was concerned, even though she understood the intent, that the reality is that for example in the Tenderloin, that for the type of housing that is there and the needs of that district there needs to be more concentration of effort there rather than in St. Francis Woods. Commissioner Marks said she wanted the Department to keep site of this kind of situation and what the priority needs of different areas are. Director Chiu said that he agreed, and his intent was not to redistrict the Inspector personnel evenly throughout the Supervisorial Districts, but to have each District have a representative to work with the Board of Supervisor’s Office and the Community they serve, so they understand the real needs of the District. Director Chiu said that he was not going to just evenly redistrict the Inspectors because of the boundaries, but agrees that the workload needs to be the main determining factor. Director Chiu said that the real need for Housing Inspectors is in the Tenderloin and South of Market areas and the Department will continue to have more than two inspectors in that area. Commissioner Walker said that districting is really about organizing and keeping track of everything. Commissioner Walker stated that it has been very confusing to look at even the ones that exist now because Electrical Divisions are different than Housing or different than Building. Commissioner Walker said that moving toward kind of a unified separation does make sense organizationally for keeping track of everything. Commissioner Walker said that the Department should also keep in mind that there is a higher density of different types of housing that is in different areas such as in the North East Mission and the South of Market. Commissioner Walker said that this was just about personnel assignments within those Districts as Districts themselves are just organizational, even Supervisorial Districts. Commissioner Walker said that it gets confusing when there are 16 different overlays and Commissioner Walker said that there will be things before the Board that will affect what DBI does. Commissioner Walker said that if it is possible, making one set of districting for everything might be helpful. Director Chiu said that the goal was to try to make it more uniform and have it so that all of the Inspectors that serve in an area are knowledgeable about all of the activities and priorities in that particular area rather than having somebody that is not into the Community. Director Chiu said that it was like community policing and this is the model that he is trying to go after and make sure that staff is really knowledgeable of the area they are serving. Director Chiu said that he knows this is tricky, but this is a challenge, as he knows that different Districts have different needs. Director Chiu said that, for instance, some Districts will be interested in going after illegal units and others will not. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to report back as to how the redistricting will progress. President Fillon said that it would be good to have open communication with the different Districts. Commissioner Walker said that Supervisorial Districts are separated and are supposed to be somewhat equal as to population, but the type of population and the types of buildings is different so getting input from the SRO collaborative and those people who are concerned with especially multiunit buildings would be helpful. President Fillon said that he understood that there would be a point person for each District.

4. 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.

5. Discussion and possible action on the proposed budget of the Department of Building Inspection for fiscal year 2001-2002, including but not limited to selection of Budget Committee.

Ms. Taras Madison, Manager of Administration and Finance introduced herself. Ms. Madison stated that DBI was submitting the budget for fiscal year 2001-2002 and said that basically she had included a summary of what is being requested as well as line item expenditures on the increased expenditures that are being requested along with the division justifications. Ms. Madison said that to give a little background on fiscal year 2001-2002, the budget instructions from both the Mayor’s Office and the Controller’s Office are exactly the same as last year. Ms. Madison said that as a special fund department, DBI is to submit a budget that is within the current revenue stream, however, if the Department thinks it is going to get new revenues or increased revenues the expenditures can be increased. Ms. Madison said that this would need the approval of the Controller’s Office and over the past two fiscal years the Department has done very well with getting the approvals as the revenues have continuously gone up. Ms. Madison stated that in fiscal year 1999-2000, it was increased by about 10%; 2000-2001 about 9% and this year the Department is going to be more conservative in its estimates as everyone is concerned about the economy. Ms. Madison said that even when there was a boom in the economy, the Controller’s Office prefers to be conservative and even in good times there was always the questions about being able to get those revenues and to be on the safe side. Ms. Madison said that DBI was going to be more conservative this year. Ms. Madison said that the Department is only forecasting about a 5% increase in revenues, but said she was sure that DBI would probably exceed that. Ms. Madison said that basically the Department is going with the same strategic issues that have existed for the past two or three years and this is because these are long term things that the Department needs to do. Ms. Madison said that some of these areas are: increasing the timeliness of inspection and permit services, improving access to DBI customers for their services, continuing to improve DBI’s computer system, which is a big issue and focusing on code enforcement. Ms. Madison said in looking at the details in the budget the expenditures that are being proposed, for instance new positions or materials and supplies and even some professional services, it has a lot to do with all these items. Ms. Madison asked if the Commission would like her to go over the summary and give some highlights of what is included and give the Commissioners a chance to look at the budget. Ms. Madison said that she understood that a Budget Committee would be formed to go into more detail. Ms. Madison said that to let the entire Commission know, basically what has been done is that the revenues have been increased by 5% and expenditures have also been increased by 5% which is a lot less than what is normally done. This amounts to about $1.5M this year and the amount that is usually asked for permanent salaries has been drastically reduced; in 1999-2000 there were about 17 new positions and more were asked for; in 2000-2001 there were 20 new positions and more were requested. Ms. Madison stated that this year the Department was only asking for 14 new positions which equals about 10.5 new positions for this current fiscal year because the Controller’s Office requires that the Department budget those positions at .75; in looking at those permanent salaries, those positions are budgeted as 10 new positions as for the most part the Department cannot hire anybody until October. Ms. Madison said that this is a rule of the Controller’s Office. Ms. Madison said that there are significant increases in training and the budget has jumped to $260,000 and this has to do with the State requirement that Inspectors complete 45 units of continuing education. Ms. Madison said that next year most of the divisions have increased their training budgets for this reason. Ms. Madison said that the Department is also going to do a lot of in-house training and if, for instance, plan checkers needed training, someone would be brought in to do the training on site. Ms. Madison said that the travel budget has decreased because instead of going to seminars outside of the Bay Area, the Department would be doing the in-house training. Ms. Madison said that another area that has decreased drastically is materials and supplies because a lot of what was included in this year’s budget for materials and supplies had to do with DBI getting ready for the 1660 expansion, moving people and having to get new furniture. Ms. Madison stated that the Department also purchased a great deal of new computer equipment and as a result of all of these things this item is reduced by about half. Ms. Madison said that the budget has been balanced this year by some increases and some decreases in different areas. Ms. Madison referred to Attachment 1 in the Commissioners’ packages and said that this was a summary that explained what the increases are for each of the different attachments. Ms. Madison said that the second section was the line item discussion, that shows line item by division such as permanent salaries and what classifications were requested, how much it will cost and which division requested it. Ms. Madison said the same would show for travel and training and those other sub objects or items that are included in the budget. Ms. Madison said that finally Attachment 3 showed the divisions justifications or explanations as to why they need a 1426 clerk or why they need some new equipment. Ms. Madison asked for any questions.

Commissioner Santos asked if the overtime hours had increased or decreased. Ms. Madison said she had increased those hours by 3% to cover a COLA (cost of living adjustment). Ms. Madison said she had not increased it more and stated that the financial system is usually a little bit behind and said she was trying to get a six month number to look at to see where the Department was with overtime. Ms. Madison said she was looking to see what was spent to date, but said that for now she was increasing the temporary salaries and overtime by 3% because of a COLA. Ms. Madison said that normally the Department has to cover the COLA. Ms. Madison said that usually the Department gets a base line budget, a budget that the Controller’s Office will prepare and tell the Department what the minimum is that it can start off with. Ms. Madison said that the Department has not yet received that baseline budget, but expected to receive it today. Ms. Madison said that once that is received, that will help the Department determine overtime salaries and temporary salaries and see if those need to be adjusted. Ms. Madison said that in addition, the Department is waiting for work orders for services from other departments, such as Public Works and Rec and Park, a variety of departments, City Attorney’s Office, etc. and this accounts for a lot of the DBI budget, at least $3M. Ms. Madison said that to date the Department has not received any of these work orders so she had to estimate and in most cases she estimated an increase of 3%, particularly if the Department is only paying for a staff person and there is normally a 3% COLA. Ms. Madison said that there might be some changes when the budget gets to the Budget Committee next week as more of the information on work orders will be received. Ms. Madison said for now these are basic estimates. Ms. Madison said that what is included in the submittal to the Commission are the items that DBI actually has control over, the things that DBI knows it needs to have. Ms. Madison said that the things that the Department does not have control over have just been estimated with COLA adjustments.

Commissioner Marks said that she noticed in the training section, since Commissioner Guinnane has brought up the difference in the backgrounds of Housing Inspectors versus Building Inspectors and the fact that many of the Housing Inspectors have come from a Health Department background that the Department would try and provide additional training and she does not see any additional funds allocated for this. Ms. Madison said that these are the requests from the Divisions and if it is not included she would speak with the Division Chief and see if that is something that needs to be requested in the budget. Commissioner Marks asked about the shuttle service that was brought up at a previous meeting. Ms. Madison said that item was included and stated that it was in professional services. Ms. Madison said there was an estimate of about $67,000. Commissioner Marks said that when she went to the item about professional services she only saw monies for a hearing officer and one necessary court reporter. Director Chiu said that for that particular item, even though it was not budgeted for under the current budget, the Director said he has directed his staff to go ahead and get the service and find the money to pay for it. Director Chiu said that the shuttle service should be in operation in the next few weeks. Commissioner Walker asked if this was going to be an ongoing item in the budget so it can be paid for. Director Chiu said that he has asked his staff to make sure to include that item. Ms. Madison said that it was included in 027 on Attachment I as $66,000. Ms. Madison said that this is going to be shown in the Director’s Office. Ms. Marks said that last year it was very helpful for her to have a summary of the Department’s performance goals with each Division. Ms. Madison said that she would provide a copy of the performance measures. Ms. Madison said that they are the same as last year as the Controller’s Office has asked that the Department be consistent so that last year can be tracked as well. Ms. Madison said she would get the information to all of the Commissioners.

Commissioner D’Anne asked if the Department had explored any other way to receive furniture besides buying it. Commissioner D’Anne stated that her background is in working with the Department of Human Services where they got most of their furniture for nothing. Commissioner D’Anne said that they were able to receive high-end furniture versus what they would have normally purchased and there are groups, such as a group called MAGIC, where they matched corporations that wanted to get rid of their furniture and were willing to donate it for free except for transportation. Commissioner D’Anne said that the Department of Human Services was still doing this and getting good furniture for free from corporations and other groups that are changing their furnishings or moving. Ms. Madison said that the Department has not explored this and part of the reason is that DBI actually has cubicles that are specially manufactured cubicles that go along with the existing office furniture. Ms. Madison said that for the most part the only furniture that is brought are chairs and part of the City’s requirement is that those chairs have to be ergonomically correct. Ms. Madison said that up to this point the bulk of the furniture has been cubicles and they have been manufactured to match existing ones. Ms. Madison said that she was not sure if the Department went to an outside agency if they would be able to match the existing cubicles. Commissioner D’Anne said that the Department should check and see as the DHS received $200,000 worth of cubicles in their Department and they were far superior to what the Department had planned on buying, so they decided not to purchase any and accepted the donation. Commissioner D’Anne said that the Department could look at what was available and if it didn’t work then the Department could make the determination not to buy it. Commissioner D’Anne said that she thought this would be a great way to save money and resources. Assistant Director Amy Lee said that she did the budget for the Department last year and is very familiar with the Department of Human Services budget as she oversaw that budget when she was in the Mayor’s Office. Ms. Lee said that one reason why DHS is able to get in kind donations is because they are a social service agency. Ms. Lee said that DBI is somewhat of a for profit special fund department so the community is hesitant to provide the Department with such donations. Ms. Lee said additionally, with furniture purchases, the Department always looks to buy refurbished furniture and the furniture is never new, even though they look new, but are always reused. Ms. Lee said that it would be nice to get donations, but unfortunately DBI is not a social services agency and the community is not as kind to DBI.

Commissioner Walker said that she would like to question how much the Department was paying for cars. Ms. Madison said that the reason the cars are expensive is because now the Department is buying the CNG vehicles and they are at least $3,000-$4,000 more expensive than the regular vehicles. Ms. Madison said that originally when the Department would budget for a sedan, it would be maybe $19,000 and now it is maybe $22,000-$23,000. Commissioner Walker asked if the Department had looked into improving carpooling and said that this was brought up with last year’s budget. Commissioner Walker said that a lot of the cars sit around and are not being used all the time. Commissioner Walker said she knew it was hard to schedule stuff, but it is especially important in the energy crunch that everyone is continuing to be in, concerning gas and electricity. Director Chiu said that he was not aware that there were a lot of cars sitting around, but said that so far last year and this year staff is complaining less about not having cars. Director Chiu said that he would look into whether the Department could be more efficient Division by Division, but it is tough to have a carpool across divisions. Director Chiu said that within the Director’s Office and Administration there is a carpool, but the Department could work harder Division by Division. Director Chiu said that in response to the questions about the CNG cars being more efficient, as far as gasoline they are about the same, but they provide cleaner air, as they are natural gas. Director Chiu stated that there is a policy by the City that the Department needs to buy more and more of a percentage of the CNG cars and this is the reason they are being purchased. President Fillon said that the Commission had talked about carpooling in the past, but it is very difficult for Inspectors to share cars. Ms. Madison said that most of the vehicles are replacements for some of the older 1987 Reliant Ks and the Department is trying to get rid of some of those older cars. Ms. Madison said that some of the newer vehicles are also for new employees that have come on this year or that the Department anticipates will come on next year.

Ms. Madison said that the budget is due to the Controller’s Office and the Mayor’s Office on February 28^th, which is next month so once the Budget Committee forms and meets then there needs to be another public hearing or two if necessary, one being January 31^st and another, if needed on February 7^th. Commissioner Walker asked if the Commission was meeting on January 31^st and Ms. Madison said that it would be a special meeting. Commissioner Guinnane asked if all of the vehicles that were being brought were CNG vehicles. Ms. Madison said that they were all CNG vehicles, as the City rule now is that they all have to be CNG vehicles. Ms. Madison stated that if the Department wanted a waiver, it would have to be requested for each individual; and the Department has used the rationale previously that since the Inspectors are out in the field and most of the gas stations are in the southeast part of town or what if someone were to run out of gas. Ms. Madison said that the this rationale is not working anymore as the response is that the City is only 49 square miles so everyone should be able to get to the gas and that is why vehicles are more expensive this year.

Commissioner D’Anne asked if the Department had budget turnaround, A, B, C & D. Ms. Madison answered, yes. Commissioner D’Anne asked if the Department had received anything and where the process was at now. Ms. Madison stated that the Department had not received anything yet, and were waiting for Phase B and that would give the Department its baseline. Ms. Madison said that she referred to this earlier, where the Controller would say according to what was spent this year, and according to what the budget was last year, this is where the Department should start. Ms. Madison said that this information was going to be released later in the day. Ms. Madison said that the budget instruction came out a little bit later this year and all of the other documentation is also coming out later, but the budget is still due in February. Commissioner D’Anne said that the Department is at point A right now. Ms. Madison said that the Department is at A right now, but the Controller’s Office did not send out A’s this year.

Commissioner Walker asked if a new Budget Committee needed to be formed. President Fillon said that he would like to be on the Committee and would like Vice-President Hood to be on the Committee. President Fillon asked if Commissioner Marks would be willing to serve on the Committee. Commissioner Marks stated that she would like to serve on the Committee. President Fillon said that if there were four on the Committee, it would have to be a public meeting. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that it would still have to be a public meeting, but with four Commissioners, it would be considered the full Commission rather than a Committee. Commissioner Marks said that last year Commissioner Walker attended the meetings, but did not participate. Commissioner Walker said that she thought this was a problem, but the Commission did not know at the time. President Fillon said that the Committee would be bringing back a full report back to the Commission as the Committee could not make decisions on its own, but makes recommendations. Commissioner Walker asked if it were okay if a Commissioner had an issue, that this information be passed on to one of the Committee members to bring up. President Fillon said that this is encouraged. President Fillon asked when the first meeting was going to be held. Secretary Ann Aherne said that the next public hearing was going to be on January 31^st, which was two weeks from today, but the Committee would have to meet before this meeting. Commissioner Walker stated that this was a special meeting that was going to be held at 1:00 o’clock. Director Chiu asked if the Committee could meet at 1660 Mission Street. Secretary Aherne said she would check into a room for the Committee Meeting.

There was no public comment on this item.

6. Update on progress of 755 & 759 - 37^th Avenue. [Commissioners Guinnane & Santos]

Commissioner Santos said that there was a productive meeting held on December 22^nd regarding the issue relating to the undermining of the adjacent foundation of 755 - 37^th Avenue. Commissioner Santos stated that it was decided at that time that a full set of drawings would be available for a new foundation to replace the foundation that had been affected due to the construction of the adjacent property. Commissioner Santos said that a final financial settlement was obtained with the insurance company and the structural drawings were submitted and approved by the City on December 28^th. Commissioner Santos said that the construction work commenced on January 4^th and foundations were to be poured today. Commissioner Santos said that there was nothing but positive things to report on this issue and everyone is happy and everyone loves each other.

There was no public comment on this item.

7. Discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance amending Section 1004.2.3.2 of the San Francisco Building Code by repealing Exception 7 that states that Group R Occupancy buildings shall be provided with no less than two exits from all stories that are more than 25 feet (7.62m) above exterior grade at any point.

Director Chiu said that he would give a brief history of this amendment. Director Chiu said that basically it is a San Francisco Ordinance amendment that retains an additional exit requirement for a building that is more than two stories or more than 25 feet high and this is just an item to clean up a Code Section where the City wants to coincide with the State Building Code. Director Chiu stated that there a lot people who have problems with this remaining item from the previous San Francisco Code and the Department strongly recommends that this is removed so that San Francisco is uniform with the State law. Director Chiu said there is a very short ordinance that was drafted by Deputy City Attorney Boyajian’s office. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to answer any questions. President Fillon asked if under the Building Code two exits would still be required where the occupancy requires it. President Fillon said that this would only affect single-family dwellings and condos. Director Chiu said that two stories or more would still require two exits depending on the occupancy, but where the problem arises is when there is a condominium or apartment building where there are two floor occupancies within a four or five story dwelling and just because there are two stories within the level, the Code is asking for an additional exit within that dwelling unit as well, and this is a redundancy and is not required. Director Chiu said that this can cause trouble to a large number of people with multiple units where the building already has two exits, but within the unit, just because there are two levels or more, than the Code is asking for two more exits within the dwelling unit. President Fillon said that he understood this would bring San Francisco into line with other surrounding jurisdictions. Director Chiu said that this was correct. Director Chiu asked Alan Tokugawa to clarify the ordinance.

Alan Tokugawa introduced himself as part of the Technical Services Division of DBI and stated that he was in strong support of this removal. Mr. Tokugawa said that there are certain cases that really create problems for R occupancies and that is what this deals with, typically the R occupancies. Mr. Tokugawa said that the Fire Department is in strong support of this removal as well, as the Department discussed this with them before they went ahead with the recommendation. Mr. Tokugawa said that the Fire Department has no problem with exiting issues or fire safety issues. Mr. Tokugawa said that one of the biggest problems is when there is a third floor of less than 500 square feet; the California State Building Code only requires a single means of exit from that floor. Mr. Tokugawa said that the Department’s amendment states that not withstanding any other requirements of the Code, there needs to be two means of egress from that so it is not uncommon that there might be a 500 square foot addition with two exits fifteen feet apart going into a yard where there might be a problem with the City Planning Department requiring a variance for a rear yard encroachment. Mr. Tokugawa said that for this reason and because San Francisco is more restrictive than the State Code, and this happens a lot more than is realized, the Department feels that this should be removed from the Code. Mr. Tokugawa said that there is also a problem where there are very steep sights because sometimes even second story buildings would require a second means of egress if the rear end drops off at any point more than 25 feet, even though adequate exiting requirements have been met as per the State Building Code. Mr. Tokugawa said that because of these reasons, the Department suggests that this be removed from the Code and come in line with the State Building Code, which provides enough latitude for exiting. President Fillon asked if there were any questions or public comment.

Pat Buscovich said that this was the most he had been at the Commission in years and this item was really why he attended the meeting. Mr. Buscovich said that he was probably one of the first persons to complain about this issue, partly because he is somewhat responsible for it. Mr. Buscovich said that the easiest way to understand this second means of egress was that it was put into the code when Jome ladders and fire escapes were allowed, so it wasn’t that big of a deal when the second means of egress was allowed as a Jome ladder. Mr. Buscovich said that this is no longer allowed and when all of the requirements were being deleted of fire escapes and Jome ladders no one paid attention to this more restrictive requirement than the State law, which is the second means of egress. Mr. Buscovich said there are no longer Jome ladders and the requirement for this second means of egress should be deleted as it is more restrictive than the State and Mr. Buscovich said that he could see no rationale of the present Code and would recommend that it be done now and not wait for the next Code cycle. Mr. Buscovich thanked the Commission.

President Fillon said that the Commission could take on action on this item. Commissioner Walker asked if the action would be just supporting or not supporting this ordinance as it is the Board of Supervisors. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that it does say the Board of Supervisors as they ultimately pass it, but it is being initiated from the Department of Building Inspection.

Commissioner Marks made a motion seconded by Commissioner D’Anne that the Commission move this ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for action. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOULTION NO. BIC-001-01

At this time the Commission took a ten-minute break.

The meeting resumed at 2:40 p.m.

8. 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.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker that the Commission go into Closed Session. The Commission carried unanimously.

RESOULTION NO. BIC-002-01

The Commission convened to Closed Session.

c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

Existing Litigation: Golden Eagle Insurance Company v. CCSF

Superior Court No. 997-242

Martha Johnson v. CCSF

Superior Court No. 997-465

d. Reconvene in Open Session to vote whether to disclose any or all discussions held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.10(b).

The commission reconvened in regular session.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos that none of the discussions held in Closed Session would be disclosed. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC-003-01

Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian reminded the Commission that the action taken would have to be disclosed. President Fillon stated that the Commission had recommended that the City Attorney’s Office settle Superior Court Case No. 997-242.

9. 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.

a. Memo from Taras W. Madison, Manager of Administration and Finance to Director Frank Y. Chiu regarding Monthly Financial Reports for August and September 2000.

b. Copy of December 4, 2000 letter from Mr. Don C. Conley to Todd Thyberg, Esq. of Valerian, Patterson, et al. - Claim No. E8-217916 regarding 755 - 37^th Avenue.

c. Copy of December 5, 2000 letter from Mr. Don C. Conley to Mr. Todd Thyberg, Esq. of Valerian, Patterson, et al. in response to Mr. Thyberg’s December 4, 2000 letter to Mr. Don C. Conley regarding Conley v. Kwok et al. - Claim No. E8-217916.

d. Copy of December 9, 2000 letter with attachments from Mr. Don C. Conley and Angela C. Conley to Mr. Testa of Farmers Insurance Group regarding Conley v. Kwok et al. - Claim No. E8-217916.

e. Letter to Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian from Director Frank Y. Chiu regarding Mr. Paul Kwok’s November 20, 2000 letter (copy attached) regarding Suspension of Building Permit #9908189S at 759 - 37^th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94121.

f. December 15, 2000 letter to Ms. Ann Aherne, Secretary to the BIC regarding Request for Hearing Before the Board of Examiners regarding the Fillmore Center Project and Mr. Wing Lau, Secretary of the Board of Examiners’ letter of response dated December 26, 2000.

g. Letter from Director Frank Y. Chiu to Mr. Paul Paradis, Senior Vice President of Hines Company regarding Building Permit Application 20000124819, 560 Mission Street, request for fee adjustment.

h. Letters from Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson to 14 owners of property at 39 Boardman Place.

i. Copy of Resolution No. 916-00 regarding "Granting major encroachment permit to Metricom, Inc., to mount 1500 wireless radio repeater devices on City-Owned light poles and third party poles for a term of 60 months and adopting findings pursuant to Planning Code Section 101.1."

j. Copy of Resolution No. 962-00 regarding "Urging the City and County of San Francisco to increase the recycling of plastic beverage bottles and promote the use of recycled content in order to meet State Mandate AB 939."

k. Copy of Resolution No. 984-00 regarding "Resolution urging the City and County of San Francisco Departments to fully cooperate with the investigation by the Commission (on the Status of Women) and the Department on the Status of Women into the causes and responses of City Departments leading up and following the death of Claire Joyce Tempongko."

l. Copy of Resolution No. 1013-00 regarding "Establishing a $100 penalty for violating Traffic Code Section 66 (Tour Bus Loading Zones)."

m. Memorandum sent from Director Frank Y. Chiu to various DBI employees thanking them for their participation in the BOMA Codes and Permits Seminar held on Wednesday, November 29, 2000.

n. Staff Report from Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau to Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson regarding Fire Damaged Building at 224-228 Hyde Street, Block 0337, Lot 012.

o. Department of Building Inspection’s Brown Bag Lunch Talks agenda for 2001.

p. Letters of commendation received from the public regarding DBI employees and Director Chiu’s letters of response to the public.

q. DBI Newsletters.

Commissioner D’Anne asked why the Commission had to review all of these communication items as they seemed to be part of the day-to-day operations of the Department and it was her understanding that the Commission did not have the authority to interfere with the day-to-day operations except if there was an appeal. Commissioner D’Anne said none of these items seemed to be an appeal and asked why the Commission was reviewing this. President Fillon explained that these are actually letters that are sent to the Commission or copied to the Commission. Commissioner Walker said that was why they were being reviewed. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that this was just so the Commissioners could see the number of communications that come in addressed to the Commission and if any Commissioner wants to ask questions about it they can, or if nobody does, the item is just passed. Commissioner D’Anne said if these are copied to the Commission then they have to be looked at. Ms. Boyajian said that they could be looked at, but these items are just there for the Commissioners to look at if they want to, but if they don’t want to, they don’t need to. Commissioner D’Anne said she was worried about precious resources and felt if the Commission could avoid having to look through all of this stuff, they should. President Fillon and Commissioner Walker said that this was part of the Commission’s job. Commissioner Walker stated that it was a way of getting public input so that the public can direct communications to the Commission. President Fillon said that he just goes down the list and if any of the Commissioners have comments or questions, they can make them at that time. President Fillon said that normally there are not this many items, but since meetings were cancelled during the holidays, there are more items this time. President Fillon read the item numbers.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had comments about Item G. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had discussed this particular project with Director Chiu and thought that Director Chiu was going to settle with the project manager’s number to build the building, but that an audit statement would be required at the end of the job to make sure that there were no cost overruns from the $85M; if there were overruns from the $85M that fees would be picked up accordingly to whatever the overrun was. Commissioner Guinnane said that his concern is that the Department is so far apart on the construction costs on this particular building and if the Department starts doing this, all of the other developers downtown will start doing the same thing. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to have some sort of a certified statement from an accounting firm. Director Chiu said that the Department did reserve the right to increase the cost and it is the Department’s intention to reevaluate the cost before the project is signed off to make sure that there are no other change orders and so forth. Commissioner Guinnane asked how the Department planned to do that as the way it is done is so vague, and what if the developer says that it only cost $85M, will the Department believe them. Director Chiu said that where the discussion left off with the developer was that the Department wanted to look at the contract. Director Chiu said that in his discussions with staff and the people from Hines the Department has the right to go back and revisit what the actual cost of the building will turn out to be. Director Chiu said that the Department has the right to look at any change orders or any amendments to the original plans. Commissioner Guinnane said that his concern was change orders as obviously in this size of a project there are going to be change orders. Director Chiu said that this is part of what the Department will be looking at before the project is signed off. Director Chiu said that this letter would allow the Department to do that. Commissioner Guinnane asked Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian if in looking at the letter, the Department has the right, the way the letter is done, to actually come back and do that. Ms. Boyajian said yes, she believed so.

Commissioner Marks said that it seemed really startling that there is a $40M difference between the original estimate by the Department and what the developer is claiming that the costs are. Commissioner Marks asked how this could happen. Director Chiu said that there is still debate among the staff about what the actual cost of the construction should be and the way it is written in Marshall and Swift. Director Chiu said that one of the items that were found was that the Department may have lumped the valuation of office buildings with medical buildings and as such the value was not related to office buildings only. Director Chiu stated that staff was evaluating that, but were also looking at the actual cost. Director Chiu said that the Department spoke to a number of industry people who have actually built this kind of building and the Department still believes that this building cannot be built for this amount of money. Director Chiu said that the Department still reserves the right to re-evaluate the cost. Commissioner Marks said she was curious as to why the Department would agree to the $85M. Director Chiu stated that he agreed to the $85M based on what is limited in the Code; Marshall and Swift states that in an office building x amount of dollars are charged per square foot. Director Chiu said that he thought when Laurence Kornfield’s staff did the table, office buildings should have been separated from medical buildings instead medical buildings and office buildings were lumped together as one valuation. Director Chiu said that medical buildings cost more to build, but staff was using that table only and it came out as a higher valuation versus strictly an office building. Director Chiu said that the Department needs to look at the bigger picture to see if the Marshall and Swift data is even relevant to the actual construction cost. Director Chiu said that the Department will be coming back to the Commission to look for a more permanent fix. Director Chiu said that rather than fight this particular project, since it was not clear in DBI’s table fee, it was decided to accept what was in the Marshall and Swift estimate. Director Chiu said that the Department needs to do a better job on the table and also evaluate if in the future the Department wants to follow Marshall and Swift, which may not be relevant to the Bay Area standards anyway. Director Chiu said that this would a future discussion. as to how the fee should be charged. President Fillon sated that the owners had hired Marshall and Swift to complete a separate valuation.

Commissioner Walker asked if the communication in 9h regarding Boardman Place was current regarding the Department’s actions. Commissioner Walker stated that the Commission had talked about this item at the last meeting and she had asked for a staff report and staff had not been to the property to resolve the issue at that time. Director Chiu said that at a previous meeting the Department had reported that the person who initiated the complaint had not responded back to DBI and December 6^th was the last communication. Director Chiu said that he needed to follow-up and see if any other action had been taken. Commissioner Walker asked if there could be an official report regarding Boardman Place at the next meeting. Director Chiu said that he would be happy put this on the agenda as a Director’s report.

President Fillon asked for any public comment on any of the Communication items. There was no public comment.

10. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of December 6, 2000.

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

RESOLUTION NO. BIC-004-01

11. Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

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

Commissioner D’Anne asked about Communication Item #9I and stated that this was a Planning Commission item and asked what affect this had on DBI. Commissioner Walker said that the application came first to DBI and then gets triggered over to Planning and Planning just sends DBI a copy of it. Commissioner D’Anne repeated that the application goes to DBI first and then to Planning and they approve it and they just let the Department know that it has been approved. Commissioner D’Anne thanked Commissioner Walker for the explanation.

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.

Commissioner Walker said that she would like the Boardman Place issue brought up and asked if the demolition issue could be on the agenda for future airing to try and get some resolution for the Department on that. Commissioner Walker stated that the Commission needed to look at this issue, look at the language and get more clarification. Director Chiu said that he would recommend, since this is not an issue that will be resolved quickly, that a Committee should be formed so the Committee has more time to work with staff and community members. Director Chiu said that he could guarantee that this issue would not be resolved in one or two meetings, as it is a very hot issue in some of the neighborhoods. Director Chiu said that as he had stated earlier, a previous Commissioner had volunteered along with another Commissioner to work with staff and the community and essentially there was no consensus. Director Chiu said that this was a couple of years ago. Commissioner Walker asked if this needed to be on the agenda to form a Committee so that was what she was requesting. Director Chiu said that it should be on the agenda to select Committee members to work with staff and the community. President Fillon said that this Committee could also take on the task of how the Code defines demolitions. Commissioner Marks said that the Committee should determine how it should be defined. Director Chiu said that there is a larger issue as to how the Department deals with demolitions and the policy of the Department. Commissioner Walker said that the case that came before the Commission is kind of one of these circular things and said she did not know if there was any resolve in it because it points back that there is no code that can be enforced, so therefore it’s not, and this is how she feels about this issue. President Fillon said that the Department had to be careful not to encroach on the rights of the owners also. Commissioner Walker said that the issue of demolition is a big one for people on both sides, and said that the quicker the Commission acts to get some definition that everybody understands the sooner the Commissioner will not be in the position of hearing about this issue again.

Commissioner Marks said that she would like the whole issue of, not only the high rise development, how the Department calculates the dollar amount of construction for example on the penalty fee on the garage that was discussed. Commissioner Marks said that the Marshall and Swift calculation of $4,000 for a garage, when everyone knows there is no such thing as a $4,000 garage, needs to be looked at. Commissioner Marks said that it looks like the Department is using figures that don’t seem representative of the real world. Director Chiu said that he wanted to clarify that on this particular issue it is not being said that the cost for rebuilding a garage is $4,000; when someone applies for a permit to demolish something, that is considered the scope of work and the fee is based on how much it costs to demolish the structure, not rebuild it. Director Chiu said that it would cost $4,000 to demolish the building, therefore, for example the permit fee would be $100.00 and the penalty fee is 2 times the permit fee or $200.00. Director Chiu said that in no way is the Department saying that it only costs $4,000 to build the structure. President Fillon said that when a building is being constructed the fee is based on materials and the cost of labor, but in this case the fee was based on what it would cost to tear down the garage. Director Chiu said that this was correct and this is how the valuation works. Director Chiu said that if the developer demolished the garage and built a new building without proper permits, then the penalty fee would be based on the work that was done; in this case all the developer did was to demolish the structure and this is what the fee was based on. Director Chiu said that according to the Building Code this is what was charged. Commissioner Marks said that in conjunction with looking at what a demolition is, the Commission and the Department should also look at how the penalty is determined. Director Chiu said that he agreed that the Department needs to look at the whole picture and not just one area; look at the definition, the policy, the process and the penalty fees as a whole. Commissioner D’Anne said that she wanted to clarify that it is the fee that would be $100.00 if this job were done legally and this would be a $100.00 permit, and in this case the penalty was two times the amount of permit because they did not initially get a permit. Director Chiu said that if they did not have any permit, it would be nine times the permit fee, but because they had a permit to do something, it was only two times. Director Chiu said that in his opinion, in this particular case, they had a permit to alter the garage structure and planned to remove say 80% of the structure, but instead removed the additional 20%. Director Chiu stated that there was a base permit to do something to the structure and therefore according to the Code, they exceeded the scope of work and the penalty is only two times the permit fee. Director Chiu said that as an example, if this person did not have any permit, but just came in and demolished a building, the penalty would be nine times; in this case there was an alteration permit to remove a major portion of the structure. Commissioner Walker said that the fee structure should be looked at because demolition should be treated as a totally different thing, as demolition is still demolition. President Fillon said that maybe the fee should be based on replacement cost. Commissioner Walker said the fee could be increased as if there was no demolition permit because a renovation is different than a demolition. Director Chiu said that it sounded like several Commissioners were anxious to work on this Committee and he would look forward working with everyone as the Department needs all of the help it can get. Commissioner Marks stated that she would like the whole fee issue brought up because in her mind the question is that for $217.00 it is easier to just demolish a building and hope you don’t get caught, rather than to go through the process. Commissioner Marks said by the same token when work goes beyond the scope of a permit, the fee could be so minimal that again it is worth taking a chance, rather than go through legitimate procedures. Director Chiu said he agreed. Commissioner D’Anne said that there needs to be a disincentive. Director Chiu asked for clarification through the President and asked if Commissioner Marks were interested in revisiting the penalty fee structure or did she want to wait until the Committee was formed to discuss unlawful demolition and all of the rules, fees and penalties, etc. Commissioner Marks said that it is more than just demolition although that is just one aspect and Commissioner Marks said that she thought the whole fee structure needed to be looked at. President Fillon said that he would like the fee structure to be a separate issue and once again the community needs to be involved as this is like going about revising the Code and there needs to be a lot more players involved. Commissioner Walker said that there would be hearings about this. Commissioner Marks asked if this could be put on the agenda so that the possibilities of how these issues should be approached could be brought up. Director Chiu said that he would recommend that at the next meeting the process of different types of fees and penalties could be explained and after that the Commissioners could then decide to form a Committee to have a huge agenda to deal with changing the fees and particularly the penalties. Director Chiu said that it would be helpful to understand the base first and then proceed with changes if needed. Director Chiu said that this would be aside from the unlawful demolition Committee to look at the Code. President Fillon said that this issue would affect everyone and the Commission should go through a very detailed process. Director Chiu said that he was trying to pinpoint what should be on the agenda as he felt he would not be ready to talk about the fee structure as a whole, but would be happy to talk about how the Department is imposing penalties. Commissioner Walker said that she would agree to talk about penalty fees, not the application fees, but the penalty fees for violation. Director Chiu said that he would report on what the staff is doing and then the Commission could determine what changes, if any, need to be made. Director Chiu said that the Department is not ready to discuss the entire fee structure at this time. Commissioner Walker said that Vice-President Hood has expressed concern about this issue of violators.

There was no public comment.

11. 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.

12. Adjournment.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker that the meeting be adjourned.

The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC-005-01

The meeting was adjourned at 3:55p.m.

_______________________

Ann Marie Aherne Commission Secretary

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS
Agendize setting up a Committee to review policy for illegal demolitions, fee, penalties & particularly penalties for violations. - All Commissioners	Pages 12, 13, 27 & 28
Redistricting of Building, Housing, Plumbing and Electrical Districts to coincide with Supervisorial Districts to provide a Department liaison for the different Districts. - Commissioner Walker	Page 14
Budget & Organizational Committee to report back to the full Commission regarding the 2001-2002 Budget. - President Fillon	Page 18
Revisit Marshall & Swift valuation process to determine if the process is relevant to the Bay Area. - Commissioners Guinnane & Marks	Page 25
Report on Boardman Place - Commissioner Walker	Page 25

Prepared by Ann Aherne

q:\mgb\minutes\01-17-01