City and County of San FranciscoDepartment of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 



BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

 

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
City Hall,1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 416
Aired Live on SFGTV Channel 78
ADOPTED JUNE 12, 2009

MINUTES

The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 9:15 a.m. by President Lee.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTS:
Frank Lee, President
Mel Murphy, Vice-President
Kevin Clinch, Commissioner
Reuben Hechanova, Commissioner
Robin Levitt, Commissioner
Criss Romero, Commissioner
Debra Walker, Commissioner
Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

D.B.I.REPRESENTATIVES:
Vivian  Day, Director
Edward Sweeney, Deputy Director
William Strawn, Communications Manager
Laurence Kornfield, Acting Manager, Permit Services
Pamela Levin, Administration & Finance Division Supervisor

Sonya Harris, Secretary

2.   Election of BIC President and Vice-President.


President Lee said that it has been a very interesting year for him and that DBI has gone through some changes, and is still going through an economic downturn.  President Lee stated that the Department has weathered all of the changes in the downturn very well.  President Lee stated that this is his second time as chair of a Commission; the first time he was the chair of the Commission on San Francisco’s Environment, and the second time he chaired the Building Inspection Commission.  President Lee said that it has been fun but said he thought it was time to pass the presidency on to somebody else to let them have some fun. 

President Lee made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hechanova to nominate Mel Murphy for President.

The Commission voted as follows:

Commissioner Lee                     Aye
Commissioner Murphy                Aye
Commissioner Hechanova           Aye
Commissioner Levitt                   Aye
Commissioner Romero               Nay
Commissioner Clinch                 Aye
Commissioner Walker                Nay

The motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 013-09

Commissioner Murphy made a motion seconded by Commissioner Lee to nominate Commissioner Hechanova for Vice-President.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 014-09

 

3.       President’s Announcement(s).


President Murphy thanked Commissioner Lee for the hard work he has done, and also thanked him for the nomination. President Murphy said that he has been in business in San Francisco for 35 years, but said that for the past 12 years or so it has become increasingly difficult to do business in the City.  President Murphy stated that many entrepreneurs have moved out of San Francisco altogether and many families have been forced out by higher housing costs.  President Murphy stated that everyone heard a lot about change during the presidential election so he would like to see a real change in how business is done in the City.  President Murphy stated that he would like DBI to get back on track and see inspection services in line with the actual costs.  President Murphy stated that he has heard of difficulties with the process and everyone who comes to DBI should have a good customer experience; he intends to hold people accountable for their responsibilities.  President Murphy talked about the importance of implementation of the Permit Tracking System.  President Murphy welcomed Kevin Clinch, who replaced Commissioner Sattary in the Structural Engineers Seat, to the Commission and thanked the Commissioners who voted for and against him and said that he looked forward to working with everyone.

Commissioner Walker said that she did not vote for President Murphy but said that they have worked together and will continue to do so.  Commissioner Walker stated that this is a challenging time for the BIC and stated that there has been some division amongst Commissioners over certain issues, but said she hopes that this year brings everyone back together. Commissioner Walker said that staff reductions have affected morale and said that it is important to move forward with the reforms and the people to implement them are the staff.  Commissioner Walker stated that Director Day has the support of staff and the BIC is expecting better performance aimed at some of the missions that they have set forward.  Commissioner Walker encouraged the BIC to remember that they are the Commission, not the Director.  Commissioner Walker said that even though the Commission has set goals, the Director implements them and she said that she supports Director Day in her decisions.

President Murphy stated that he is 100% behind Director Day and he understands the Charter.

Vice-President Hechanova said that under President Murphy’s leadership he hopes that there will be better leadership to improve.  Vice-President Hechanova stated that the Department needs to address the CAPSS issue of soft-story buildings now as opposed to later when an impending disaster looms over the buildings in San Francisco.  Vice-President Hechanova said that this could be the Department’s own stimulus package to bring about additional housing into the category of the City, but more importantly bring about more seismic retrofit that is needed in San Francisco.  Vice-President Hechanova stated that he looks forward to the direction of the Commission and Director Day to bring about a stronger push and probably bring in another category of staff to help with this.

Commissioner Levitt welcomed Commissioner Murphy as President and thanked Commissioner Hechanova for his willingness to serve.  Commissioner Levitt also thanked Commissioner Lee for his work and said since he is a relatively new Commissioner he always appreciated Commissioner Lee’s ability to look at all sides of issues very objectively in his very balanced leadership.

President Murphy called for public comment.

Mr. Rodrigo Santos, President of the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth (SFCRG), congratulated President Murphy and said that he is uniquely qualified to lead the Commission in arguably the most difficult time in DBI history.  Mr. Santos stated that when he was President of the BIC he would often use the statement “The Department of Building Inspection is the only department that consistently generates revenue for the City”, however DBI is suffering dramatically due to the downturn of the economy and the Department has a huge deficit.  Mr. Santos stated that the DBI has its only generated funding source from permit fees, and does not have the luxury to draw from the general fund.  Mr. Santos said if there is no construction, there is no DBI so it is crucially important for President Murphy and Director Day to make sure that the Department does everything possible to simplify the permitting process.  Mr. Santos stated that as a short term goal DBI should expand the over-the-counter permitting process because that would generate the quickest source of funding.  Mr. Santos said that it is imperative to make over-the-counter permitting the main goal, but as a long-term goal SFCRG as well as other like-minded groups could produce suggestions for the Commission’s consideration.

Mr. Charles Turner said that he is a board member of SFCRG and has known Mr. Murphy for a number of years. Mr. Turner stated that he has found Mel Murphy to be a man of integrity, and he congratulated him on being elected President.

Mr. John Keogan, Chairman of SFCRG, congratulated President Murphy on his appointment and said that it is very fitting for someone who has a had a very diverse business life for over 35 years in property business in San Francisco.  Mr. Keogan stated that he has no doubt that Mel Murphy will bring the same energy and passion that he brings to his business to the presidency.  Mr. Keogan mentioned Mel Murphy’s childhood playing Irish football and said that at a young age he developed a strong winning streak and idea that nothing is impossible.  Mr. Keogan said that President Murphy will be a great captain to steer DBI’s ship through economic turmoil, and he thanked Commissioner Lee for serving during his presidency.    

 

4.   Director’s Report.

a.  Update on DBI’s finances.

 

Director Day stated that the report dated March 11th shows where DBI is and reflects a $6 million dollar deficit projected for the year.  Director Day said that the Department charted the operating fund balances from the beginning of fiscal year 2004-2005.  Director Day and Pamela Levin, Administration and Finance Division Supervisor, presented a power point presentation and addressed the following items:

·            How did we begin FY 2008-09?  FY 2008-09 began with an Operating Fund Balance of $2.1 million.

·            What is Our Financial Picture as of February 2009?  Without implementing the balancing plan, DBI is projecting a deficit of $6 million by the end of FY 2008-09.

·            How Do We Balance FY 2008-09? 

·            How Do FY 2009-10 Budgeted Revenues Compare to FY 2008-09 Projections?

·            How Did We Balance the FY 2009-10 Budget?

·            What Position Reductions are Required to Balance the FY 2009-10 Budget?

·            How are the Position Reductions Distributed Among Divisions?

Several items were discussed during the budget presentation beginning with the way the Dept. proposes to balance the budget to the end of the year; DBI will use the $2.1M that was in the operating fund.  DBI will go to the Controller’s office to bring deferred credits back into the budget.  Staff went back through outstanding permits, determined which ones had been completed and if that money was still in the deferred credit fund DBI is pulling that money back into the operating fund.  Expenditures will be reduced by the transfers to the project by $1.1M that will give the Department a $6M balance in this year’s budget.  DBI also cut materials and supplies, all travel and training has been limited to state requirements.  The Professional Services contracts have been held for savings.  DBI is not entertaining any increase work orders from other departments.  Position reductions were necessary to balance the budget for the $7.2M.  There were 25 vacant positions and there were 48 filled positions reduced.  There were a total of almost 15 temporary people reduced.

BIC Commissioners, Director Day, & Pamela Levin addressed following questions:

·         Commissioner Walker questioned the decrease in hotel license fees, and said those seem to be a stagnant number.  Director Day replied that people are not paying their property taxes, and since the license fee is billed on their property tax this is almost 1/3 of the revenue.  Director Day said that DBI is down $1M in hotel revenue and apartment license fees.

·         Commissioner Walker asked if these are defaults in payments that are due to the City, and if there is something being done citywide about this issue.  Director Day said the property would have to be sold in order to collect the money.

·         Commissioner Walker questioned if a lien would be put on the property.  Director Day stated yes, but right now that is income that she cannot count on.

·         Commissioner Walker asked if that amount is recoverable in the future and if it would be credited to DBI. Director Day said that the Department does not get credit until the money is actually received.

·         Commissioner Romero asked how many people were retiring.  Director Day stated that she had proposals for 4 people, and a few people mentioned they might retire but have not committed or gone to the retirement board.

·         Commissioner Romero questioned the overestimation of the City Attorney litigation fees. Director Day responded that it was overestimated by $800K, because it was estimated that DBI would get $1.5M in litigation fees, but the Department has collected about $2,500.  Director Day said she is going to go through the books with the City Attorney to find out where the fees are to try and get more money back and continue on with the prosecutions.

·         Commissioner Levitt asked if staff cuts were based on seniority or quality of work.  Director Day said the Department just eliminated positions; the position numbers were sent to the Department of Human resources, and they determine seniority under Civil Service rules – it is last in, first out.

·         Vice-President Hechanova asked if the last person out would be given the option of being the first hired back.  Director Day stated not necessarily, because it depends on where they are on the list.

·         Commissioner Lee asked what DBI was doing with the rest of its City Family agencies in terms of obtaining stimulus money from the federal government.  Director Day said that DBI has partnered with the Controller’s office and any stimulus money that the Department qualifies for.  Director Day said that right now nothing is determined and the stimulus money is like a big question mark.

·         Vice-President Hechanova asked if there were any shovel-ready projects that could be cast into this stimulus project that could possibly mean more revenue for DBI.  Director Day said that some of the projects are with the PUC, Trans Bay, and the Libraries, but they will not hit until the beginning of next fiscal year.

b.  Update on proposed legislation.  (CONTINUED to later in the meeting)

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

(CONTINUED to later in the meeting)

*PLEASE NOTE:  Item #6 was taken out of order at appointee’s request.

 

6.   Discussion and possible action to appoint and swear in Patrick Buscovich to the Board of Examiners, Structural Engineer Seat.  Appointment to expire 9/15/10.

 

Vice-President Hechanova said that there were a number of candidates, but Mr. Buscovich’s experience with the Commission along with his representation and professional service to the structural category of the industry speaks for itself. 

Commissioner Romero stated that Mr. Buscovich submitted a more complete application, and that was one of the main reasons he chose to recommend him. 

Secretary Aherne said that due to the Trans Bay Terminal project that is coming up, it is important to have a structural engineer on the Board of Examiners.  Secretary Aherne stated that this project has a potential to bring revenue into the Department, so that is why the sub-committee did this one appointment.

Commissioner Walker stated that she has worked with Mr. Buscovich on a number of projects, and she supports his nomination because she thinks he will be a good addition to the BOE.

Vice-President Hechanova made a motion, seconded by President Murphy, to appoint Patrick Buscovich to the Board of Examiners.  The motion passed unanimously.

President Murphy read the Oath of Office, Mr. Buscovich repeated the Oath of Office and was sworn in as a member of the Board of Examiners, Structural Engineers Seat.

The Commissioners congratulated Mr. Buscovich and he thanked them for the appointment, as well as for taking his item out of order.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 015-09

 

4.   Director’s Report (Continued)

a.  Update on DBI’s finances.

 

President Murphy called for public comment on item 4a.  There was no public comment.

President Murphy said that layoffs are painful in the private sector as well as City Government, and it pains him to see so many great people being laid off as they are the producers of the Department.

 

b.  Update on proposed legislation. 

Director Day stated that the following legislation will be coming before the BIC: 

·         Revised Apartment House Fees.

·         Minor updates to the existing fee schedule.

·         New technology surcharge.

·         Legislation that will affect the electric vehicle charging stations.

·         Working with the Mayor’s office on legislation to consolidate the fee collection in the Department, so that applicants do not have to go to different departments to pay their impact fees or other fees.

President Murphy asked if the Department had to refund the money once permits are withdrawn.

Director Day said yes, the money has to be refunded if it is within the guidelines of the municipal code.  Director Day stated that there are certain timelines that customers have to meet in order to request a refund.

President Murphy asked if the refund would be 100%.  Director Day responded that it is not based on a percentage, but it is based on time;  if the request is made within a year of the cancellation of the project or expiration of the permit and in some cases it is six months depending on when the permit was submitted. Ms. Day stated that there are other reasons for a permit being cancelled such as refunds of street space, and these could possibly be collected back from other departments.

 

President Murphy asked Director Day if she thought all of these permit withdrawals were economy driven or if the Department has statistics for a year or two ago in order to compare.  President Murphy stated that a lot of the permits seem to be small electrical and plumbing permits.

 

Director Day said that there are some big projects as well, and there were some permit valuations that were incorrectly done in previous years that were corrected and came to a fair amount of money.  Ms. Day said that DBI has received ten to twenty requests a week for refunds, and a year ago the Department received maybe two or three.  Ms. Day stated that people come in and take a permit out on Monday and realize by Friday they have been laid off and can not do the job and request a refund, so in some cases DBI has to refund that portion of the project that services have not been provided for.   

 

Commissioner Lee asked if it was possible to get a list of proposed legislation and a table format with a status of what is happening and where each piece of legislation is.

 

Director Day stated that she would forward this list to the Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Walker said that she was at the Board of Supervisors yesterday and the concept of charging a fee for vacant units has just been introduced.  Commissioner Walker stated that this information should be coming to the Department and would provide some significant income for work that could be done.

Director Day stated that she would like to get these proposals through as fast as possible to try to rescind layoff notices, and the first thing on the agenda is getting any new income to the Department which would be focused toward bringing back staff. 

 

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

 

Director Day said that she did not have much to report on this item, since her main focus has been trying to balance the budget daily and trying to keep staff. 

 

President Murphy called for public comment on the Director’s Report.

 

Mr. Tony Sanchez-Corea said that he is a member of the Code Advisory Committee (CAC), and said that legislation is coming to the committee that does not have any budget provided or any information as to what the staff from the Building Department has to do to get there.  Mr. Sanchez-Corea suggested that the BIC look at these legislations that come down the line and try to get the Board of Supervisors to understand that every legislation that involves a Building Department issue has to come with a fee and also with some type of manpower study of what it takes to be enforced.  Mr. Sanchez-Corea stated that he thinks it is a major issue to have the Department get healthy again with the whole CAPSS, soft-story program and stated that if there is an earthquake tomorrow the first responders are the people that are being laid off and everyone knows what happened in 1989.  Mr.  Sanchez-Corea said that he thought that in these times the private industry needs to have the City and Department of Building Inspection out there “manned up”, ready to go because it is not something that may happen; it will happen.

 

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

 

Mr. Jose Morales said that he would like for the Commission to have public comment at the very beginning of the meeting because working people are attending the meetings to support the tenants and the poor.  Mr. Morales read the following letter into the record:

 

March 14, 2009

Ms. Vivian Day, Executive Director
Mr. Frank Lee, President
Building Inspection Commission
City and County of San Francisco
1660 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

 

Dear Commissioners and Executive Director Day,

 

Supporters of the Community Living Campaign and friends and members of Jose L. Morales’ Network for Human Rights and Housing Justice are here today to ask for fair consideration and due process with regard to his concerns.

The bottom line is that we are asking that you correct a mistake made and restore the original and legal addresses to his former building on San Jose Avenue:

 

574 San Jose Avenue was an address assigned to a new, proposed unit on the third level, which was never constructed, for which a permit was requested and then cancelled and for which there is no certificate of occupancy.

572 San Jose Avenue was Jose’s former home.

572A San Jose Avenue is and has been a legal unit as far back as 1971 (Mr. Morales has copies of previous permits and documents from your department as evidence of this fact).

 

Aside from how this might impact Mr. Morales’ eviction, changing unit numbers in this way has an implication for how units involved in city actions get tracked and monitored over time.  As it stands now, there is no tenant history for 574 San Jose Avenue.  The long, involved history of 572A San Jose Avenue has now been “disappeared” with this simple slight-of-hand with the house numbers.

 

The Building Inspection Commission as a body cannot reverse Mr. Morales’ eviction nor can they give him back all the time and energy he has invested in making sure the City and County of San Francisco follows its own policies and procedures when it comes to preserving affordable housing.  But you do have jurisdiction over how the housing numbers are assigned and a process for individuals to file a complaint if they believe those numbers have been assigned in error.  And if the DBI Executive Director decides the complaint has been abated, you havean obligation to grant due process and a hearing for those that disagree.

 

We simply ask that you correct an error and assure that the property addresses are returned to their original state based on the complaint of Mr. Morales, or provide him his due process with a hearing at the Building Inspection Commission.

 

Sincerely,

 

Marie Jobling
Executive Director

 

Mrs. Marcia Petrozal  said that she lives in one of the best housing districts in  the City in the St. Francis co-op apartments.  Ms. Petrozal said that the units are 43 years old and have been affordable housing.  Mrs. Petrozal stated that she finds Mr. Morales’ situation very moving, and said that he is 70 years old and present this morning because he feels strongly that there has been a wrong done that the BIC can easily right.  Mrs. Petrozal stated it is not rocket science that 574 was illegally put on this building as this number does not exist in any of the papers that talk about the property.  Mrs. Petrozal said that it was created by the landlord under the Ellis Act so that he could evict Mr. Morales after he lived in that apartment for 42 years; it was his home.  Mrs. Petrozal stated that it was “home away from home” and Mr. Morales should not have suffered all these years when a simple correction could really right the wrong.  Mrs. Petrozal said that she finds this moving and stirring and said that she wants the Commissioners to feel the same and act in a way that would allow a hearing on the Ellis Act itself which needs to be repealed, and on Mr. Morales’ constitutional rights to a legal apartment, not deference to an illegal apartment created to make wealth.  Mrs. Petrozal stated that she is particularly addressing this to each and every one of the Commissioners.  Mrs. Petrozal said that she has three adult children and seven grandchildren and they all live in San Francisco. Mrs. Petrozal asks that everyone maintain the integrity of having working class housing in the City and not have it deferred outside. Mrs. Petrozal said that there are a number of people that have left the area in order to survive, and they have left because the housing costs have been out of sync as to what they should be.  Mrs. Petrozal stated that she has lived in a three-bedroom and two-bathroom apartment at St. Francis apartments 30 years, and she pays $900 a month including all utilities except cable and telephone so she urges the BIC to think of this situation with Mr. Morales as important for Mr. Morales, but it is also important for the citizens of San Francisco that there is truly affordable housing.

 

(Mrs. Zamora spoke Spanish and had an interpreter to translate)  Mrs. Medea Zamora said that she worked with St. Peter’s Housing Committee and her main purpose there is to defend the rights of tenants like Jose Morales especially focused in the Mission district.  Mrs. Zamora stated that this is a historic moment in San Francisco because this is an example of how tenants are defending their rights and fighting for justice.  Mrs. Zamora said that Jose Morales is a victim of the sort of abuses that are going on against tenants, and it is an injustice that has been placed upon him.  Mrs. Zamora stated that she strongly believes the Commission is conscientious, just, and has a good heart and asked if they could hear the case and side with Jose Morales.  Mrs. Zamora said that she is asking the BIC to examine the documents carefully, and look at the tricks that have been perpetrated to evict many elders throughout the City.  Mrs. Zamora stated that she strongly believes San Francisco is a city built on unity, community, and the power that everyone possesses as a community.  Mrs. Zamora said that because the Commission is their voice and represents them through the legislative process, she asks that the BIC does the right thing.

 

Cynthia of St. Peter’s Housing Committee stated that she wanted to congratulate President Mel Murphy on his new appointment and said that she hopes the next time when there are issues like this one that affect the community, and community members come out to speak on their issues that the Commission is more attentive and a little more respectful of that, and if possible have public comment go first since there are so many people that are taking the day off to come speak to them. Cynthia said that she hopes the experience that happened today with public comment does not happen again with other issues that the BIC is dealing with that are going to affect the community.

 

Mr. Oscar Grande  said that he is an organizer with an environmental justice organization based in the Mission District for nearly twenty years, and is a life-long native of San Francisco.  Mr. Grande stated that he was present to ask that the Department to correct the mistake and restore the original legal addresses to this former building on San Jose Avenue.  Mr. Grande said that he would speak to the character and personality of Jose and what an inspiration he has been.  Mr. Grande stated that he looks at examples of people like Jose who have that fire and give everything they have got resource-wise, his ideas, thoughts, and his heart to really give it all to not just seek justice for himself.  Mr. Grande stated that he thought that is the main attraction that draws everyone, but they see the bigger picture because they know justice for Jose is justice for other elders in their community.  Mr. Grande said that he sees a lot of injustices going on and a lot of tricks and outright schemes to really displace elders.  Mr. Grande stated that San Francisco is built off of unity and said that his community looks out for one another.  Mr. Grande said that over the last decade that sort of fabric has really been ripped apart because of greed to make the most amount of money at any cost necessary, and the cost is examples like Don Jose and the thousands of other elders and families that are going through similar situations.  Mr. Grande said that he asks the Commission to please correct the mistake that has been made.

 

Mr. Andrew Junius said that he represents the owners of 135 Yerba Buena, and said that this issue goes back to last November. Mr. Junius stated that there have been some staff presentations as well as comments from a person that owns the adjacent lot, but does not live in the neighborhood.  Mr. Junius said that he is present to answer questions if there are any to set the record straight, and said that this issue stretches back to 1995 and a sinkhole. Mr. Junius said that in 1995 the sinkhole swallowed one entire house but it significantly damaged another and that is 135 Yerba Buena.  Mr. Junius said that his clients have been working with the City since that time for the last thirteen years to try to put their house back together and put their lives back together.  Mr. Junius stated that it took a couple of years for the City to even stabilize the lot to create a proper boundary and property line to restore a retaining wall, and in 1998 a special permit was issued to allow them to start rebuilding their house, but they have not lived there since 1995.  Mr. Junius said that additional permits were issued in 1999 and 2004, but the special permit was renewed by DBI in 2005 and 2008 and no less than nine building permits have been issued to try to resolve the issues surrounding this home.  Mr. Junius stated that to the extent the Commission has heard testimony in the last few months that there has been an enormous amount of work done with no permits which is absolutely untrue.  Mr. Junius said that there is a situation at the home where there are outstanding Notices of Violation; the first one dates to the middle of last year and has to do with allegations of work that exceeded the scope of the special permit.  Mr. Junius said that on December 31, 2008 the owners filed a permit to clarify the record, and they still dispute the fact that there was any work done without a permit.  Mr. Junius stated that the permit dealing with that is before the Planning Department staff right now, and it is going through the process and it will be dealt with.  Mr. Junius said that he believes the second NOV should not have been issued at all, because it has to do with a private property line dispute at the rear of the property having nothing to do with any permits ever issued with respect to the sink hole or any permits ever issued back to the time the house was built. Mr. Junius stated that this is an existing condition that has always been the case and like a lot of property line situations there may not be an encroachment, and it is not an issue for the Building Inspection Department.

President Murphy said that for clarification he recalls that this is the building where the house disappeared into a hole.

Mr. Junius stated this is not the one that sank, and that property is now a legal lot which is vacant and owned by Mr. Simone.  Mr. Junius said that the property next door at 135 Yerba Buena is where portions of it fell in the hole, but some of it was re-stabilized and rebuilt through permits and working with the City. 

 

President Murphy said essentially what Mr. Junius is saying is that he is stuck.

 

Mr. Junius stated that they are definitely stuck trying to resolve what has clearly been a very complex 13 years to try to get this put back together. 

 

Commissioner Walker said that she knows the Commission has been looking into the issue of addresses and she met with Mr. Morales to discuss it.  Commissioner Walker stated that she would actually like to agendize the issue of addresses and changes in the Department’s numbering process.  Commissioner Walker said there is a real issue of the history of tenant occupancies being erased, and she would hope that in the reengineering process and the computerization of the Department’s data that these types of things would not happen.  Commissioner Walker stated that in this instance it affects notice of people and what the Rent Board looks at as far as historical data, and tenant occupancy since all of this is very much affected by the given address.  Commissioner Walker said that she has looked at the records and understands how it could be confusing since it certainly was to the people who were living in the building that did not get the notice, because the address was messed up.  Commissioner Walker again requested that this item be agendized so that people concerned in the tenant community could hear what DBI’s process of numbering is.

 

Director Day said that she has explained the process to Mr. Morales and his representatives, as per her memo to the Commission.

 

President Murphy stated that he sympathizes with Mr. Morales, but requested that counsel explain what DBI’s jurisdiction is over a situation like this.

 

John Malamut, Deputy City Attorney, said that Director Day’s memo to the Commission on this matter presents the jurisdiction of the Department.

 

Commissioner Walker stated that there is a situation that people living in the building were under an assumption that there was a legal address of 572-A, and other departments are reflective of that and then it probably changed in the legal process.

 

Director Day said that the address was legally changed.

 

Commissioner Walker stated that it was attached to a development at the same time that was not approved, so it was confusing if nothing else.  Commissioner Walker said that it would be a good idea for the BIC to have an agenda item where the process is laid out for these types of address situations.  Commissioner Walker stated that in this case the address change was submitted with an addition of a new floor and a new apartment that was not approved and it never addressed unit 572-A.

 

Director Day said that the owner came in and requested that the 574 address be retained and the address of 572-A to be changed to 574, and he paid a fee for that.

 

Commissioner Walker stated that it was not specifically clear that 572-A was switching to 574, and it was attached to a construction project where the basement, 572-A was going to made into a garage and then an additional unit on top but that was not approved and the address change went through.  Commissioner Walker stated that the information was not passed along or noticed to the existing tenants in the building.

 

Commissioner Lee said that the process should be reviewed and as Commissioner Walker suggested it should be agendized so that the Department can see where the loopholes are.  Commissioner Lee stated that maybe there is some way the Department can fill in some of these missing actions and possibly collect some fees. 

 

President Murphy asked how much time the Department is spending on cases like this involving door numbers. 

Director Day stated that for the last year and a half she has personally spent many hours with Mr. Morales and his representatives, and her staff has spent many hours as well.  Director Day said that there are records where the Department of Building Inspection did change 572-A to 574 with the fee that was paid and at that time the procedure was, and it still is, the owner notifies his tenants and the appropriate private industries.  Director Day stated that DBI notifies all of the utilities, 911, 311, and all of the Federal agencies of the change of address.

 

President Murphy called for any further public comment.

 

Mr. Rodney Grevey said that he was speaking regarding 135 El Camino Del Mar, and said that he thought that there is a disagreement in the facts as presented by Mr. Junius.  Mr. Grevey stated that the plans for 135 El Camino Del Mar at the time of the sinkhole did not show the three additions that have been put on the house since that time.  Mr. Grevey said that this is why there are three Notices of Violation because there are three additions without proper permits, in fact the last permit indicated that there was no additional construction to be made to the house and about 500 square feet or so were added.  Mr. Grevey stated that in addition, the plans in front of the Planning Commission do not apparently show the current drawings of the house properly, so again the facts support the Notices of Violation that were issued and do not jive with what was just heard.

 

Commissioner Walker asked what was the current status of 135 El Camino Del Mar.

 

Ed Sweeney, Deputy Director of Inspection Services, said that the status of 135 El Camino Del Mar right now is that there are three Notices of Violation, and one violation is for a vertical/ horizontal addition done to the front which is recent and still they are under construction; it was a permit from 1998.  Mr. Sweeney stated that the only permit that refers to anything as special is one that was filed to renew a special permit, but the original 1998 permit says nothing about being a special permit.  Mr. Sweeney said that the property was under construction and DBI stopped it in November, but is giving the applicant time to get their plans and permits in order.  Mr. Sweeney stated that this case has been referred to the City Attorney, and the second Notice of Violation has to do with a horizontal addition to the side of the building that was done years ago.  Mr. Sweeney said that in the Department’s view it was done without plans and permits or approval so it was cited.  Mr. Sweeney stated that in the third Notice of Violation the owners were not cited for being over the property line, which according to one survey is actually the indication.  Mr. Sweeney stated that the applicant brought in a set of plans to address that and the plans they brought in from their own designer shows the building clearly over the property line, but he does not think that DBI will be able to prove that.  Mr. Sweeney said that the Department took in the plans to give the property owner time in the interest of fairness to correct whatever he needs to get an agreement with Mr. Simone, the adjoining neighbor, but to his knowledge that has not been done.  Mr. Sweeney stated that DBI will give a reasonable amount of time before issuing another Notice of Violation. 

President Murphy asked if there were any aerial pictures of what the property was like before the cave-in.

Mr. Simone stated that he has a lot of pictures.

 

Ms. Elizabeth Yee said that the owners of 135 El Camino Del Mar, Walter and Ramona Yee, are her parents and this is the home that she grew up in.  Ms. Yee stated that one can only imagine the morning her parents called to tell her that a portion of their home had fallen into a sinkhole, because she had no comprehensive understanding of what they meant until she turned on the television and saw something much bigger than the probably 10 or 15 foot hole she was thinking of.  Ms. Yee said that the enormity of the situation only grew when she showed up at the property a couple of hours later and saw basically the underside of their home in a hole swallowed up, which also swallowed the property next door.  Ms. Yee stated despite the fact that they knew this was going to take a while to resolve and get through and rebuild their home, she would have been absolutely shocked if someone had said she would be standing before the BIC more than 13 years later and still talking about this.  Ms. Yee said that her family has been through quite a lot with this project and are still working to rebuild and restore their home.  Ms. Yee stated that since the time of the sinkhole they have tried to work with the City, follow the rules and regulations that were set forth, and have applied for and been issued permits that they are now told are no longer valid.  Ms. Yee said that her family is continuing to work with the City and has filed new permits to clarify issues or concerns, and they are asking that the BIC to help to give them some closure to this matter.  Ms. Yee stated that they have gone through a lot and said she thought that 13 years is a very long time for her parents to have to deal with this and frankly they are just in shock and disbelief that this could still be going on and they would like to resolve this issue.       

 

Mr. Dennis Carlin, President of the Building Inspectors Association, said that he came to speak on the recent layoffs at the Department of Building Inspection.  Mr. Carlin stated that he knows the Department and the economy have hit hard times, therefore the construction industry has hit hard times and revenue is way down at DBI.  Mr. Carlin said that it would be an easy thing if this were just a department that inspected construction sites because it would be understandable for President Murphy to rectify or justify why the layoffs occurred.  Mr. Carlin stated that the problem is that DBI is much more than that and as with certain cases that come before the Commission, the Department is such a part of public service and safety for the general public, the Mayor’s Office, and so on.  Mr. Carlin said that staff has worked with Ed Sweeney, Jeremy Hallisey, and are happy to have Vivian Day as the Director.  Mr. Carlin stated that staff feels like they have been shot in the gut, they have been shown the door, and the problem is that DBI’s revenues have been taken from the Department over the years.  Mr. Carlin said that over the last six years DBI has lost in the neighborhood of $26 million dollars that was taken out of the Department and given to other departments while the work was done on the back of the building inspectors.  Mr. Carlin stated that he is asking for the Commission’s help and if any money comes from the stimulus package to try to get it back to the Department, since DBI is so vital to the City.  Mr. Carlin said that it is hard to say in three minutes what the building inspectors do so maybe at the next Commission meeting he would like to make a presentation with other inspectors with a Power point presentation to the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors as to exactly what kind of service this Department provides.  Mr. Carlin stated that there were no layoffs in the Police and Fire Departments, and building inspectors work alongside police and fire in emergency situations.  Mr. Carlin said that building inspectors are second responders and they provide a service to the City.  Mr. Carlin stated that he is happy that he is a civil servant and takes his job seriously as do the men and women of DBI, and they serve the public to the best of their ability.

 

Mr. Pollard said that he was present on behalf of San Francisco Garage, and said that it is unfortunate what is happening with the economy especially for the Building Department and for the industry.  Mr. Pollard stated that many people have been working tirelessly the last two-plus years on the BPR to help the Building Department to be a more efficient organization.  Mr. Pollard stated that this is the first time they have ever been invited from industry to give their input on processes with the Planning and Building Departments, and it feels like they have come so far and now are about to take a few giant steps back.  Mr. Pollard said that, for the record, his company pulls approximately 2,000 permits a year in San Francisco out of 60,000 permits so he is pretty knowledgeable about the process.  Mr. Pollard said that his organization does approximately 65 to 80 inspections a week through electrical, plumbing and building so it is imperative for them to have access to building, electrical, and plumbing inspectors on a morning basis between 7:30 to 8:30 to schedule inspections.  Mr. Pollard stated that inspectors are extremely important to their business and to generating income.  Mr. Pollard said that pulling permits and getting inspections got easier over the past few years, so this process got people who were not pulling permits in San Francisco to start pulling them and that generates revenue, business for S.F. Garage as well as generates inspections.  Mr. Pollard stated that, as Mr. Carlin said earlier, it is important to have building, electrical, and plumbing inspectors because if there is an earthquake one would want a plumbing inspector who knows how to shut off a gas valve or an electrical inspector to shut off a terminal at a building.  Mr. Pollard said that it is important to know whether a building is dangerous or not and important for all divisions to work well together, so he are loathe to see these cutbacks as DBI has always been one of the only self-sufficient organizations that are not part of the general fund.  Mr. Pollard stated that there have been huge fee increases and the industry does not like it, but understand that it is necessary to pay salaries and have competent staff.  Mr. Pollard stated that the cutbacks have included support staff, clerks, plan checkers, Deputy Directors, and Chief Building Inspectors.  Mr. Pollard said that this is systemic throughout the whole Building Department from the first floor to the sixth floor and said that his heart goes out to the employees, so hopefully something can be done to get some money back into the Building Department so that DBI can start hiring back more people.

 

Mr. Mulligan, Financial Secretary of Carpenters Local 22, said that he is a life-long resident of San Francisco.  Mr. Mulligan said that this is a difficult time for most departments and the construction industry nationwide, but said his interest is specifically for San Francisco.  Mr. Mulligan stated that layoffs are difficult across the board but unlike much of the private sector, the Building Department provides a very basic public service.  Mr. Mulligan said that in spite of any budgetary issues there is a threshold where the basic public services still need to be provided and if neglected could become public safety issues as well as emergency situations.  Mr. Mulligan stated that outside of emergency situations if buildings are not properly maintained or construction issues not addressed, they become emergency situations even in spite of some natural catastrophe.  Mr. Mulligan said that it is important to note the Department has always been financially self-sufficient and frequently running a surplus, but unfortunately most of that surplus has been taken from DBI over the past several years.  Mr. Mulligan stated that the surplus was in place so that even during difficult times this Department would be in good shape to provide basic public services.

 

Mr. Patrick Otellini of Sanchez & Corea said that he has seen the Building Department come leaps and bounds as far as transparency and accountability, and right now the core group that is running DBI are some of the best that have ever been in their positions and they are doing a tremendous job.  Mr. Otellini stated that as opposed to talking about layoffs, it is going to affect the Department in ways the BIC knows and has seen.  Mr. Otellini said that the support staff and the people who work hard at Central Permit Bureau do so much to make sure the lines go, and at times when business is slow there are still lines but they work hard to process permits in a timely manner.  Mr. Otellini stated that the more layoffs occur it will be more difficult to process in a timely manner, and the plan checkers and inspectors may be slow right now but it will get busy and they want DBI to be adequately prepared to handle that.  Mr. Otellini said that there is nothing worse than seeing the level of productivity go down and when it ramps up again it will take longer times for plan check and inspection scheduling, so on behalf of the business community he would like to try to avoid that.

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz stated that he recalls when DBI had a nice surplus and the Department had friends at the Planning Department who decided they needed the money and took it away.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that it is a shame when it comes to layoffs that Planning has had nowhere near what DBI has, and there will come a time when the public needs people and they will not be there.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that DBI is having difficult times but he is hoping to not layoff anymore staff than already have been. 

 

Mr. Angus McCarthy congratulated President Murphy and Vice-President Hechanova and he thanked Commissioner Lee for his service as past President and getting DBI through a difficult period.  Mr. McCarthy said that he is a member of the Residential Builders Association, a citizen and taxpayer, and like most building people building in the City they are looking to the Departments and Commissions as it is a time where everyone is asked to do a lot more with a lot less and people have to adapt.  Mr. McCarthy stated that they fought many years ago to keep the rainy day fund, but no one would have guessed DBI would be in the position they are in now, and the fund would have helped with this situation.  Mr. McCarthy said that they have learned the lesson that they have to fight hard, particularly with departments who demonstrate to be productive.  Mr. McCarthy stated that the Department needs to run like a good business, and not necessarily like a government agency because it makes money and they understand that down the road there will be good times and bad times and everyone must plan for the bad times and that is the silver lining.  Mr. McCarthy said that they must look in the tradition going forward and he has no doubt that there will be times like this again, but at least it may not be so severe.  Mr. McCarthy stated that the building community has over 700 units ready to go and if the banks begin “breathing” they would have a shot at getting revenue back in the City and hopefully getting people back to work as soon as possible.  Mr. McCarthy said it is their responsibility to do everything they can to generate revenue, and that people at DBI are valuable and it is hard to retrain people like that.  Mr. McCarthy stated that institutional memory is probably the biggest thing DBI needs, particularly in emergency times and he said the RBA will do everything they can to generate revenue and hopefully at the end of the year they can turn the ship around and head to a positive sea again. 

 

Mr. Sean Keigran said that he was present to support Dennis Carlin and the hard-working staff at DBI but he would like to clarify a point that has been overstated or oversimplified.  Mr. Keighran said that we are in a tough recession and one of the worst in recent years but the building industry goes through up and down cycles.  Mr. Keigran stated the fact that the industry is in a down period right now is nothing new and it has always been like that and always will be, so what everyone should look at is how and why DBI does not have the funds to get through this tough period.  Mr. Keigran said that at one point the Department had a $25 million surplus, but one has to ask why customers submitted their fees in advance of the service that they were going to get and somehow those fees made their way into a surplus fund.  Mr. Keigran asked why DBI stopped putting money aside into the rainy day fund and instead moved it over to the surplus fund, because once it was in the surplus fund it set the stage for other people to raid it.  Mr. Keigran questioned why DBI paid so much money to Planning, and why did DBI go to its customers and ask them to help pay for a building and once it was paid for then DBI should own the building.  Mr. Keigran asked why the building was transferred to the Department of Real Estate and now DBI has to pay rent.  Mr. Keigran questioned why at one point DBI paid $100K to MTA to buy a van that was supposed to be used for educational purposes, but that no one has ever seen the van appear in the streets of San Francisco.  Mr. Keigran stated that he is raising these questions because all of these decisions made in previous years are now thrown on the backs of hard-working DBI employees; the same employees that provide public safety, regulate construction, protect the tenants and improve the overall quality of housing in the City.  Mr. Keigran said that everyone must learn from these mistakes and make sure this never happens again.

 

7.   Discussion and possible action to appoint a Commissioner to the BIC Litigation Committee. 

 

Secretary Aherne said that right now the two members on the Litigation Committee are Debra Walker and Mel Murphy.

Commissioner Lee said that the Litigation Committee essentially reviews recommendations from staff to refer cases to the City Attorney’s Office for litigation.  Commissioner Lee stated that this committee is made up of representatives of the Commission that acts on behalf of the full Commission to kind of review and approve those recommendations to the City Attorney.  Commissioner Lee said that the Commissioners have a leeway of maybe suggesting some compromise or mitigation to possibly hold off litigation.  Commissioner Lee stated that it is a very interesting committee that is worthwhile for Commissioners that have never served on it to give it a try. 

 

Commissioner Lee nominated Commissioner Kevin Clinch to serve on the Litigation Committee, and President Murphy seconded the nomination.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

Commissioner Clinch accepted the nomination.

 

Secretary Aherne said that she would contact all three of the Commissioners to set up the next Litigation Committee Meeting.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 016-09

 

8.   Discussion and possible action regarding DBI’s 2009 Cost Schedule of Building Valuation Data. 

 

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Acting Manager of Permit Services, stated that as required by the Building Code, the staff prepares an updated cost of what is considered the standard cost of construction for the purpose of valuating permits.  Mr. Kornfield said that based on those standardized costs DBI charges fees based on the fee schedule, and every year the Department updates that with modified local factors which are further modified by construction quality.  Mr. Kornfield stated that this is the annual update for the BIC which shows an average cost update of 8.05%.  Mr. Kornfield said that there are no remarkable elements included other than a large increase in institutional construction costs since Marshall & Swift had not updated that over the last couple of years.  Mr. Kornfield stated that this is in line with the previous annual update and with the Commission’s approval staff would like to make this the policy of the Department.

President Murphy said that this was a thorough evaluation and asked if the BIC would like to move to approve the 2009 Cost Schedule of Building Valuation Data.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Clinch pass DBI’s 2009 Cost Schedule of Building Valuation Data.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 017-09

 

9.   Discussion and possible action to adopt Administrative Bulletin AB-023 regarding Tower Crane Site Safety Plan and Building Permits.

Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield, Acting Manager of Permit Services, said that this is an update of an existing Crane Safety Bulletin.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the Board of Supervisors directed the Department to develop crane safety measures, and staff has reviewed the bulletin and updated it to conform to best practices and national standards, as well as to conform to OSHA requirements for crane site safety.  Mr. Kornfield said that this is a consensus document that updates DBI’s longstanding crane safety document including restrictions on operations such as raising the crane during high traffic and so on.  Mr. Kornfield stated that this is an Administrative Bulletin that would become part of the Building Code.

The Commissioners asked Mr. Kornfield the following questions:

·         Is there a difference in this criteria compared to other cities? California is primarily regulated by CAL/OSHA, and DBI is confirming that they conform and the Department regulates the hours that they can jump cranes locally, but generally it conforms to regional & statewide standards.

·         Is there a Building Inspector or CAL/OSHA inspector on site when cranes are elevated? No CAL/OSHA does not have an inspector on site, but he believes the building manager has certain obligations to assist them.

·         In New York was the outcome due to sloppy workmanship? It had fewer than the required number of connections to the building as well as certain other failures.  This would require various inspectors by the crane manufacturer to avoid those kinds of problems.

·         Is there anything in this A.B. that would address the unique situation in San Francisco?   DBI makes sure the site plan identifies traffic & pedestrian patterns in regulating times so that it does not interfere with high traffic areas at a time of day.

·         There are not many crane companies in the Bay Area, asked if DBI has received comments from them regarding this A.B.? The crane companies have been involved with this process over the last year. 

·         Can the standards of what OSHA requires give a higher performance since S.F. is in an earthquake zone? Is there a category of seismic performance during the critical operational stages? He understands the concern as structural performance of the cranes during earthquakes, but he does not have a clear understanding of the seismic performance of the cranes themselves and can not speak directly to this seismic issue.

·         This A.B. is primarily for fixed power cranes, and that is the particular hazard that is being addressed, and is highly regulated by CAL/OSHA.  CAL/OSHA almost entirely takes the lead on cranes, but DBI tries to address local issues that might be a little more difficult and could impact people.

 

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lee to approve AB-023 regarding Tower Crane Site Safety Plan and Building Permits. The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 018-09

 

*(PLEASE NOTE: AGENDA ITEMS #10 AND #11 WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER)

 

10.  Discussion and possible action to recommend File #090225, the Residential Water Conservation Ordinance Amendments.

 

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Acting Manager of Permit Services, stated that items 10 and 11 are updates to the Building and Housing Codes.  Mr. Kornfield said that there are existing water conservation requirements in the ordinance, and it also has certain water conservation standards that are provided.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the ordinance requires all higher flow toilets to be reduced to low-flow toilets within a certain length of time.  Mr. Kornfield said that the affected parties have been consulted and have come to an agreement that this is acceptable. Mr. Kornfield stated that the residential people and the realtors have also come to an agreement, so the Department has been able to work on the development of this legislation over the last year or so.  Mr. Kornfield said that normally legislation gets developed and it comes to DBI so the Department was very grateful to have the chance to be a part of the legislative developments.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the big change in his hand-written notes and pieces of legislation that relate to something that came up a couple of times in the Commission, and the Department feels strongly that anything that burdens the building needs to have a fee associated with it and this is written in the ordinance.  Mr. Kornfield said that he would like the Commission’s approval of the legislation to include a change in the wording to state the Department will not take on any further work unless there are fees associated with it so that DBI staff is paid.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the other change he would like to suggest is that he would like the requirement for recordation to stay in as it is proposed, and that this gets done for residential properties.  Mr. Kornfield said that he would like to request on behalf of the building partners that the Commission approve this legislation with the change that these may be approved, and we put back the requirements for recordation.

President Murphy asked if the PUC has spent any money educating the public on this ordinance, and asked who was going to enforce it.

Mr. Kornfield said that the PUC has three staff members present and they could address some of those questions.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the current ordinance has a water component and there are outside inspectors who do this work, and DBI accepts their certificates and files them. 

Vice-President Hechanova asked what was proposed on agenda item 11, and questioned if it was regarding the Commercial Water Conservation ordinance.  Vice-President Hechanova said that in section 13 the valuation changed from $50K to $150K, and asked why there was an increase.  Vice-President Hechanova also asked if there was any reduction on fees associated with this or if there would be an increase of fees.

Mr. Bart Broom, Government Relations Manger for the PUC, said that the change from $50K to $150K was part of a negotiation with the Building Owners and Managers Association.  Mr. Broom stated that basically there is a major shift in the way that the PUC will be implementing water conservation measures going forward in this legislation.  Mr. Broom said that there will be a hard, fixed deadline of 2017 and by that date all buildings in San Francisco should be retrofitted, but they also need flexibility.  Mr. Broom stated that one of the reasons that commercial buildings do not really work upon resale is because a lot of times they do not change hands for very long and the PUC needs to achieve these water conservation savings.  Mr. Broom said to address that issue the PUC actually developed an alternative mechanism with a deadline allowing them to partially comply until 2017, and at that point they need to fully comply.

Vice-President Hechanova asked if they should be associated with construction costs if the fixtures remain the same, and the usage does not have any correlation to increase in construction cost.

Mr. Broom said that the $150K is considered a trigger of when an alteration or improvement is substantial enough that it is going to require someone to make conservation or retrofitting at that particular alteration or improvement, and so it is just a threshold; it does not have a relationship to the fixtures themselves.

Commissioner Walker asked because it is not over $150K could it be replaced with a non-low flush toilet.

Mr. Broom stated that it is not possible to buy a toilet in California that does not meet these standards.

There was a lengthy discussion on items 10 and 11 and following are some of the main points of discussion:

·         Leaking toilets are a major source of water waste in San Francisco

·         If a water conservation inspector is there to actually see that water conservation measures are implemented, there should be no leaks occurring at that time.

·         Once a building is completed and all water conservation measures are done, it needs to have a compliance inspection done by a water compliance inspector. They are required to confirm that the fixtures are properly installed and there is protocol before they certify that it is finished.

·         Compliance inspections will be done when the plumbing inspector goes out to check the work being done.

·         Eventually every building is going to have to hire an outside inspector to come and certify buildings, and send out a Certificate of Compliance.

·         There was a question asked about imposing or moving toward adaptive reuse of gray water when flushing toilets.  Response was the PUC has been very active in gray water reuse, and it is vital to achieving water conservation savings that they are mandated to achieve by 2018 through their water assistance programs.

·         It is crucial for the PUC in San Francisco to set a good standard for the 27 other water districts that are wholesale customers, so they will know that San Francisco is doing water conservation so they need to as well.

·         Question asked if there are any incentives being considered for water recovery programs. Response was there are some programs under development.

·         The Plumbing and Building Code was changed 4 years ago to allow people to not have to put their rainwater from the roof into the sewer.  It is now permitted to be disposed of on site through an engineered system where it might be put in a cistern or do water recharge with it.  There is a MOU that allows the big blue bin to capture water and reuse it.

·         The new Green Building Ordinance requires storm water management for every new building, and in some cases even major remodels.

·         The PUC is working closely with the Dept. of Parks and Recreation in terms of irrigation.

·         These water conservation ordinances are intended to help get the City on its way to conserving 10 million gallons of water per day.

·         Question asked when properties are transferred how they fit into this legislation.  There are mostly private inspectors that do inspections and they are authorized by DBI to do these inspections.  There is a certificate of compliance that is signed and given to the property owner and filed with the Department.

·         The current law says that this certificate of compliance needs to be recorded with the sale of the property.

·         There have been numerous meetings with the S.F. Realtors Association and their comments and suggestions included in this ordinance.

·         Questioned asked what is San Francisco’s per capita water consumption and response was S.F. is among the lowest in the state because there is not irrigated land.

·         There is an ongoing water conservation program to do public education so that people understand that they need to shut off the water when brushing their teeth and water needs to be used wisely.  There are a lot of tenant/landlord relationships in S.F.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hechanova to approve   Item 10 – Residential Water Conservation Ordinance Amendment and Item 11 – Commercial Water Conservation Ordinance Amendment. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 019-09 

11.  Discussion and possible action to recommend File #090226, the Commercial Water Conservation Ordinance Amendments. (SEE COMMENTS IN ITEM 10 ABOVE)

12.  Review and approval of the minutes of the January 21, 2009 meeting.

Commissioner Lee made a motion seconded by Vice-President Hechanova to approves the January 21, 2009 Minutes.  The motion was approved unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 020-09 

(*PLEASE NOTE:  ITEMS # 13 and #14 WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER)

 

13.  Discussion and possible action for the Commission to convene a Closed Session regarding REMOVAL OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE - 1.

a.   Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session.

b.   Possible action to convene a Closed Session.

 

Commissioner Lee made a motion seconded by Vice-President Hechanova to go into Closed Session.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 021-09

 

The Commission adjourned to Closed Session at 11:46 a.m.

 

c.   CLOSED SESSION:  Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b) and the San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(b).
Discussion and possible action to remove a public employee.

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

 

Commissioner Lee made a motion seconded by Commissioner Walker to reconvene in open session and to disclose what was discussed.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 022-09

 

President Murphy said that in Closed Session the Commission approved a recommendation by Director Vivian Day on a change at the Building Department.

 

Director Day announced that effective in 30 days she was combining the Plan Review and Permit Services Divisions under the direction of Deputy Director Laurence Kornfield who will be appointed in 30 days, and said that she was removing Ray Lui as position will no longer exist.

The Commissioners congratulated Mr. Kornfield on his appointment.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield thanked the Commission and stated that he appreciated their confidence and said that he looked forward to working with Director Day.  Mr. Kornfield said that Ms. Day is a wonderful Director to have at this tough time, and stated that his appointment was a big honor.

 

President Murphy said that he has known Mr. Kornfield a long time going back to when Mr. Kornfield was a building inspector in Daly City.  President Murphy stated that he thought that Mr. Kornfield would be a great mentor for some of the young people in the Department.

 

Commissioner Walker stated that she would also like to welcome Mr. Kornfield into the upper management Deputy Director position.  Commissioner Walker said that she has had the pleasure of working with Mr. Kornfield on many really important projects, and said that he has really made a difference to the built inventory of the City.  Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to thank Ray Lui for taking the position he did, and said that she was happy that Mr. Lui will remain with DBI in very important capacities around plan check and peer review. 

President Murphy said that Ray Lui is a nice, young man and a native San Franciscan and he believes that he will rise to the top.

 

Vice-President Hechanova stated that he echoed President Murphy’s and Commissioner Walker’s comments, but said that more importantly he thought that Mr. Kornfield will fill the role more than adequately.  Vice-President Hechanova said that the guidance that Mr. Kornfield will have on greening of the City is really going to be instrumental, and that will continue to set the benchmark for all other cities across the nation as San Francisco being the spearhead and lead for the green technology and implementation into the category of sound building systems.

 

President Murphy called for public comment.

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that without a doubt Mr. Kornfield is one of the most knowledgeable people at DBI, and it is time there is a Deputy Director that is extremely qualified for this position.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that he has known Mr. Kornfield for many years, and it has been a pleasure working with him on the Code Advisory Committee.  Mr. Karnilowicz congratulated Mr. Kornfield, President Murphy, and Vice-President Hechanova on being elected to their positions.

 

14.  Discussion and possible action for the Commission to convene a Closed Session regarding a PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT - DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
(SEE COMMENTS IN ITEM 13 ABOVE)

a.   Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session.

b.   Possible action to convene a Closed Session.

c.   CLOSED SESSION:  Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b) and the San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(b).
Discussion and possible action to appoint a Deputy Director.

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

 

15.  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 Walker said that the Commission received a letter regarding 2130 Harrison Street and said that she was not necessarily aware of the particular issues, but there are some actions pending because there is an abatement order.  Commissioner Walker stated that she would like an update either under the Director’s Report or as an agenda item.  Commissioner Walker also requested a report on the address designation process.

 

Vice-President Hechanova requested an update on a timeline for the CAPSS report, and asked if there could be an update as to the next series of activities.

 

Director Day said that there would be a full report on CAPSS at the next meeting.

 

President Murphy stated that he would like to agendize an item regarding permit extensions. President Murphy read the following statement, “These are difficult economic times and many projects which were entitled under the radically different economic conditions must now be placed on hold.  Further, many developers are unable to secure financing, even if they are willing to assume the market risk of moving forward with construction.  Because the entitlement process in San Francisco is long, costly, and unpredictable it would allow them to extend the permit until a time when the economic requirement is more viable.  By allowing developers to extend permits, they will have a shovel-ready project when the economy does turn around and that is pretty much the case from very small projects to big projects.  Homeowners, developers, and contractors have permits running out or expiring.”  President Murphy said that in the next month or so he would like Director Day to put some framework around this and maybe give the BIC some ideas of how DBI could help these people out. 

 

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

 

President Murphy said that the next regular meeting is on April 15, 2009.

Commissioner Walker asked if there could be a date scheduled for the Litigation Committee meetings.

Secretary Aherne said that she would talk to all three Commissioners on the Litigation Committee, most likely by e-mail.  Secretary Aherne also said the Commissioners on the sub-committee need to meet regarding appointments, because there is a couple that are needed for the Access Appeals Commission and the Code Advisory Committee.  Secretary Aherne stated that people serving on the AAC, their seats are expiring in November 2009, but for the Board of Examiners they do not expire until September of 2010, and the CAC seats expire in August of 2010.

 

Commissioner Walker asked if Secretary Aherne could give the Commissioners a list of the seats, and maybe they could get people to apply.

 

Secretary Aherne said that she would do so and will also send the Commissioners a list of what they do, and the letters of solicitation.

 

President Murphy stated that the Litigation Committee meets once every two months now, and he requested to set up a meeting date for the near future.

 

Secretary Aherne said that she would try to schedule the meeting by the end of March or the beginning of April, and she will check with all three Commissioners as to their availability.

 

Commissioner Levitt stated that he thought there was going to be a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission, and Commissioner Walker responded that it has been put off until April.

 

16.  Adjournment. 

Vice-President Hechanova made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker that the meeting be adjourned.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 023-09

The meeting was adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

__________________

Sonya Harris
Assistant Secretary

Edited by,

__________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS OR FOLLOW UP ITEMS  

List of upcoming legislation to the Commissioners. - Commissioner Lee

Page 7

Issue of addresses designation and changes in the Department’s numbering process. - Commissioner Walker

Page 12, 24

Set up the next Litigation Committee meeting. - Secretary Aherne

Page 18

  Update on 2130 Harrison Street. - Commissioner Walker

Page 24

Report on CAPSS at the next meeting. - Vice-President  Hechanova

Page 24

List of the vacant seats for the sub-committees -  Commissioner Walker 

Page 24

Agendize the issue of permit extensions. - President Murphy  

Page 24