Director Chiu said that the Fire Department and DBI has been working very closely with property owners to bring high-rise buildings into compliance with this ordinance and would continue to work together with to notify those few property owners who are not in compliance with the Code. Director Chiu said that some property owners are still having trouble complying with the Code and some might be applying for hardship.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how many buildings were there and what constitutes a hardship.  Director Chiu said that an example of a hardship would be someone who signed a lease twelve years ago that is about to expire and the owner has demonstrated that they have sprinklered other areas that were required in the past; this owner shows that they were doing the best to comply, but now the lease might not be renewed.  Director Chiu stated that these issues have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and said that he had asked Deputy Director Wong and Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield to come up with some sort of written policy so that everyone would know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. 

Commissioner D’Anne asked if there was a City program that helps with funding for this program.  Director Chiu said that this particular sprinkler ordinance does not have any assisted City funding.  Commissioner Santos said that these were privately funded, case-by-case conditions.  Director Chiu said that this law has been in place since 1994 and rather than wait until 2006 when it is mandatory, the Department thought that it was important to start notifying owners at this time. 

Vice-President Hood said that she thought the Department should be very active in that regard because many of the fires around the country that have caused the most deaths in recent years have been in these types of building other than in single-family homes and home heaters which are the major cause.  Vice-President Hood stated that San Francisco is a City where the buildings are close together and this is a good thing to be moving ahead with because people do put things off until the last moment.  Vice-President Hood said that it would be good for DBI to develop some clear guidelines as to what is hardship because otherwise everyone would be claiming hardship.   Director Chiu said that he would continue to inform the Commission as the Department works on this policy.

President Fillon arrived at the meeting.  Secretary Aherne asked if he wanted to continue with the Directors report.  President Fillon said that the Director should finish his report and then the Commission would come back to the continued items. 

Report on a joint news conference held by Consumer State License Board and Department of Building Inspection on February 12, 2004 regarding unlicensed contractors and permit requirement.

Director Chiu said that he was requested by the State Contractor’s Licensing Board and the Chinatown Neighborhood Association to join a press conference on the issue of hiring unlicensed contractors.  Director Chiu stated that he took this opportunity to inform the public that not only was it important not to do business with unlicensed contractors, but also to make sure that they apply for the appropriate permits to do work.  Director Chiu said that this was a public announcement that was made as a result of 60 or more people being arrested by the State Contractor’s License Board when they did a sting operation around the Bay Area.  Director Chiu stated that the Chinese Community thought that it was important to let people know that it is important to hire licensed contractors and to apply for a permit.

Report on a Community Meeting with the Mayor, Supervisors and City Department heads concerning the living conditions of Hunters-View Housing building.

Director Chiu reported that this meeting was cancelled.  Director Chiu stated that the Hunter-View Housing is under the Housing Authority and DBI has very limited jurisdiction over these Housing Authority buildings, but the meeting was cancelled.

Report on a Town Hall Meeting with the Mayor and District #8 Supervisor Bevan Dufty on February 28, 2004.

Director Chiu said that he was requested by the Mayor’s Office and Supervisor Dufty’s Office to attend Mayor Gavin Newsom’s first Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, February 28, 2004.  Director Chiu said that it was his understanding that the Mayor intends to have these Town Hall Meetings in all eleven districts and the next meeting would be in District 10.  Director Chiu said that he would urge the Commissioners to attend these meetings if they have the time.  Director Chiu stated that most of the City’s Department heads were required to attend this Town Meeting and the purpose was to listen to any of the concerns of the neighborhood with particular departments.  Director Chiu reported that there were some issues with Parking and Traffic and Muni.  Director Chiu said that there were a couple of issues with DBI having to do with construction taking place and stated that he would follow up with questions arising from that meeting. 

Vice-President Hood asked how the Commission could get a list of the meeting schedule and asked Director Chiu to give the information to the Commission Secretary.  Director Chiu said that a schedule had not yet been set up, but as soon as it was he would be happy to share the information with the Commission.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he did not attend the Town Hall Meeting, but understood from people who were there that a question was raised concerning why it was taking so long to get buildings processed.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he believed that the Mayor indicated that he was going to appoint an auditor to make a determination as to why this was so.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in addition he was told that the Mayor then went on to ventilate about Expediters and went into a whole digression that he could understand why the large companies have Expediters.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this indicated an ignorance on the part of the Mayor, despite the fact that he spent several years on the Board of Supervisors, regarding the excellent record of this Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that what this Department has got to do, and said that he had stated it for the past several years because there is money in the budget, is to publicize the fact that 98% of all permits are approved within 30 days out of DBI and something like 94% are approved within 48 or 72 hours.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the impression is out there that the delays, which are really those of the Planning Department, are those of the Building Inspection Department and that needs to be clarified.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Director needs to go to the public and actually write to the press whenever there is misinformation or utterances, which are lies, and biases are articulated by a supine press about this Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this needs to be corrected because the employees of this Department have for too long become the scapegoats of misinformation and disinformation that is out there; for that matter he believed that DBI would have to aggressively attack this problem and show that this Department, since its inception, has one of the best records in the State of California and is being used as a model throughout the State.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Expediters, from the ones that work for the smallest customer to the largest ones, are the people that get the permits approved within the 48 hours.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there should be a report at each meeting as to how many permits DBI has processed.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that unfortunately the noisy wheel gets the oil, but in this instance the employees of DBI have become the scapegoats for all sort of abuse with misinformation that is out there.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that since this Department processes 55,000 permits a year it is a disservice to the hard work that this Commission has done over the years, including the employees, for these allegations to go unanswered.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that considering that $100,000 has been put aside in the budget to so do, that money needs to be spent in the proper direction.  Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.

Update on property located at 425 Junipero Serra Blvd.

Director Chiu stated that he would give the Commission the status of 425 Junipero Serra Blvd.  Director Chiu said that the Department has ruled that this property was an unlawful demolition and as a result of that the property owner has filed an appeal with the Board of Permit Appeals (BPA).  Director Chiu said that he understood that there was a first hearing, but the case was continued to March.  Director Chiu said that he was open to answer any questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he asked that this item be put on the calendar because this project had been troubling him for a long time.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he and Commissioner Santos have spent a lot of time at the property looking at it and what he could not figure out was what was the Inspector doing out there.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he believed that if the Inspector had done his job out there this would not be the problem that it is today.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it has always been his contention that the street level floor was completely removed, all of the joists in order to put all those walls in and said that he really had no proof of that.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that in talking with the neighbors, they gave him documentation that verified his suspicion that the floor only had a height of 6’ or 6’6” and now it is 8’.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there was no way that those walls could be poured in place under all of those joists so the floor was completely removed.  Commissioner Guinnane said that his position is that when the Inspector went out there to inspect the pour and saw the floor gone, he should have stopped the job.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to see an investigation to find out exactly where the breakdown was and what caused this to get the point that it is at today.  Commissioner Santos said that he thought that Commissioner Santos would concur with him that the floor was removed out of there because there are all new joists and sub floors and there is no way that anyone could put those walls under a two-foot crawl space.  Director Chiu said that he would be happy to investigate this matter.

Vice-President Hood asked if the Commission could get copies of the job cards and the inspections by the Inspector.  Director Chiu said that he believed that the initial investigation was done, but said that he was not sure if the issue requested by Commissioner Guinnane was addressed.  Director Chiu said that he would be happy to go back and look at this, but cautioned that the Commission could look at the daily activities, but could not get involved in personnel matters.  Vice-President Hood said that the BIC did not want to get into Personnel matters and the names could be crossed off, but the Commission was interested in knowing why this was not picked up earlier.  Vice-President Hood said that she had heard a lot about this project from neighbors and wanted to know what was happening now with the process of appeals by the owner. Commissioner Santos said that the appeal was to be heard on Wednesday, March 3^rd at the Board of Permit Appeals.  Commissioner Santos stated that the project sponsor had contacted Commissioner Guinnane and himself on a couple of occasions and suggested that they meet with the neighbors to clarify the condition of the building as it stands and what the project sponsor proposes to do with the building.  Commissioner Santos said that there was a finding of an unlawful demolition on that building and that is what is being appealed.  Vice-President Hood said that this would mean that the building could have to be returned to its original condition or what is shown on the permit or otherwise be fined and wait five years to do anything with the property.  Commissioner Santos said that was correct and stated that the project sponsor was aware of the severity of the penalty.  Vice-President Hood asked what the penalty was.  Commissioner Guinnane reported that it was $5,000 for the Contractor and $1,000 for the owner.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there is some discussion that if the Department rules against the applicant that he has to take down what is there and has to put it back to the original house.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know if that was the case or not as there was a case about five or six years ago where an individual over in the Richmond District got a building permit, a demo permit and tore down the house, but didn’t wait for the two weeks for appeal on the demo.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there was a five-year ban put on this individual where he couldn’t build back anything for five years.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know if the Code had changed since then or not. 

Commissioner Santos said that Mr. Ken Harrington was in the audience and said that it was his understanding that Mr. Harrington was primarily the author of this section of the unlawful demolition ordinance regarding the penalties.  Mr. Harrington stated that the penalty was $5,000 against the Contractor, $1,000 against the homeowner or property owner and there is a five-year moratorium on the issuance of building permits for that property, except the Code reads, that one could build back what was there before.  Mr. Harrington said that this would be the same square footage and the same ratio of residential to commercial.  Mr. Harrington said that it was his understanding that they could build back the original square footage that was there and then in five years come in with a remodel permit for the vertical addition.  Commissioner Santos asked if the property owner would have to file an application to build back what was there and go through the planning process as in a conventional application.  Mr. Harrington said that it would be like an initial construction job that would have to go through Planning and all of the regular processes. 

President Fillon asked what would happen if the applicant put the property back to its original size with the intention of applying for an addition in five years, would the applicant in the replacement building that they would be doing now, be allowed to put in foundations that would be adequate for a three-story building as opposed to the now two-story building.  Mr. Harrington said that he would think so, but there was no case right on point.  President Fillon said that this would be even if the original foundation were not adequate to allow for three floors.  Mr. Harrington said that the Code reads that it requires the same square footage and ratios and does not speak to the size of the foundation.  Mr. Harrington stated that he would think, just off the top of his head, that they could put in the beefed up foundation which eventually could accept the additional floors in five years.  Vice-President Hood said that it was her understanding that part of this foundation on the first floor is part of the building height so if the crawl space is now the first floor.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he believed that it was raised about one-foot to one-foot and a half.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the foundations are put in to carry a four-story building.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he thought that what was there would come down and the same envelope would be rebuilt because the initial envelope that was there has not changed that much.  Mr. Harrington said that he believed that the project sponsor actually came out six feet from the original footprint, as there was a porch on the front of the property.  Mr. Harrington said that they came out to what was the front of the original porch with the foundation and then put an additional six feet to the west of that.  Mr. Harrington said that under any interpretation of the law they would probably have to go back to the original footprint and in so doing take that foundation in by six feet.  Commissioner Santos said that when Commissioner Guinnane and he went out to the property they found that there was actually a foundation in two locations, one on the old line and then there is a new foundation on the projected section.  Commissioner Santos stated that the project sponsor would have to drop the floor to match the original 6’6” and would most likely use those foundations because it would physically be a very, very difficult process to take that out. Mr. Harrington said that there is another issue on the height because there are some neighborhood CC&Rs that have a total height of 19’.  Commissioner Santos said that in Ingleside it is 21’ and stated that the project sponsor was not aware of these CC&Rs and retained an Architect to do an overall review of the maximum envelope that he could build.  Commissioner Santos said that based on the most restrictive criteria, whether that be the Planning Code or the Ingleside Association according to the Architect the Project Sponsor is allowed to maintain and keep the building the way he has it with the exception of the removal of the rear portion.  Commissioner Santos said that the Project Sponsor has offered to remove everything that projects beyond what is allowed from the most restrictive guidelines.  Commissioner Santos said that the neighbors were so disenchanted with the way the process took place and the way it was constructed that they are not interested in anything other than having the Project Sponsor go back and build what was there originally.  Mr. Harrington said that this would all be played out at the Board of Permit Appeals and stated that he thought there would be some negotiations and some applications made with the City and the Department would have to deal with that at the time.  Vice-President Hood asked what time the BPA meeting would be held.  Commissioner Santos said that meeting began at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday and said that it was item #8. 

Commissioner Santos said that the Project Sponsor would have to obtain four out of five votes to reverse the decision of the Director.  Commissioner Santos said that in the last several weeks that he had attended the BPA they had not had five Commissioners and said that it was his sense that the Project Sponsor’s Attorney would not go on with the hearing if there were only four Commissioners present.  Commissioner Santos said that at 2:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing it would be known if there was going to be a full complement of Commissioners at the BPA.

Update on property located at 4809 Mission Street.

Director Chiu reported that there are three properties involved with this particular project and a result of the property owner and the Contractor not following the approved set of plans these projects were stopped.  Director Chiu said that there were two Director’s orders issued to bring two properties into compliance.  Director Chiu said that additionally the Department has almost concluded its internal investigation with personnel matters.  Director Chiu said that two of the properties were built not according to the approved set of plans.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu where the breakdown was and was it in DBI or initially in the Planning Department because he understood that when this project was submitted to the City & County of San Francisco it was an underground garage with one slab and three buildings framed off the slab with three lots being merged into one.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how that would be signed off in Planning without the actual lot merger being approved.  Director Chiu said that he believed that when the project sponsor started with this project, he or she wanted to take advantage of the zoning requirements with the result that they applied for permits with three separate structures so the project sponsor took advantage of the density and dwelling numbers allowed by Planning.  Director Chiu stated that they wanted to take advantage of providing more parking without providing parking through the normal front entry and wanted to put all of the parking space for the three properties at the back of the buildings.  Director Chiu stated that this is a corner lot and the project sponsor was trying to provide the parking entry from the side rear yard from the other property.  Director Chiu said that when this is done then this triggers the Building Code requirement that someone cannot go through adjoining property to use it as a vehicle entrance; this is why it was required for the Project Sponsor to merge the property which they agreed to do.  Director Chiu said that somehow the lot mergers never happened and the Inspector issued the completion notice without verifying that the log merger procedures were in place so the Department is looking at the process that the Inspector followed and looking at internal personnel matters.  Director Chiu said that certainly without the lot merger the Project Sponsor violated the Building Code and Planning Code as well.

Commissioner Guinnane said that right now the corner building is vacant and the other two parcels are built and finaled out by the City & County of San Francisco.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that there is no parking for those two buildings and now there are three separate owners with no easement through the corner vacant lot to get into the other two adjoining buildings.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Inspector out there that did all of the Inspections was not the Inspector for that area.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Inspector that did all of the inspections also came in and put in a request for overtime when there was no backlog in residential, but there was a backlog in commercial.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there are a lot of issues with these properties and said that he would like a full accounting of what happened out there.  Director Chiu said that the Department was looking at what happened out there and would take appropriate action if warranted and are very close to making a conclusion.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that on this item and the previous item it seems that recently that a number of what would be defacto illegal activities are in fact occurring out in the community.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that it was good that the Department has started its own investigations once alerted to the problems.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that oddly enough the press who should be picking up on this is not picking up on it and spokespersons that are normally condemning the Department are avoiding condemning it so whether or not there is a nexus of knowledge and a cover up no one knows.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that on behalf of the RBA he wanted to welcome investigations into this sort of illicit activity.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in the past, and Commissioner Marks probably did not remember it, the defacto first hearing on a defacto demolition happened during her era when Art Agnos was elected Mayor and that Commission acted appropriately at the time, even though the RBA did not agree with it, and there was never another problem with defacto demolitions because the message went out that the Department would act in the proper manner against illegal activities.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he hoped that the Department would now act in a prudent, but vigorous manner if illegal activities occur when they are actually discovered.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is rather disconcerting because it blemishes the good reputation of the good Inspectors and employees that there is such a plethora of situations such as this occurring.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commission needs to clarify the fact that these items are calendared and are publicizing the actions of the Department and the Department needs to get credit for this and not condemnation from the supine press or again from politicians who have aspirations for higher office.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Departments good work should be commended because DBI started the investigations, not some outside source, and furthermore, unlike other Commissions, active Commissioners on the BIC go forth and actually do field inspections and this does not happen with other Commissions.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Residential Builders welcomed the Commission’s and the Department’s vigorous investigations.

Vice-President Hood said that the Commission could not get into individual personnel matters, nor did it intend to, but if the Department discovers a pattern like the same person is causing this problem or if there seems to be some underlying issue, she hoped that in the Director’s reports to the Commission this would be brought to the Commission along with the measures that have been taken.  Director Chiu said that he would be happy to do that.  President Fillon said that he had been on the Commission for several years and this is not a new practice and the BIC has been following up on a lot of complaints from the public.  President Fillon said that the Litigation Committee has been able to go after several violators and win those cases.

President Fillon stated that the Commission would now go back to the continued items, #2 and #3.

The motion carried on a vote of five to two.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 011-04

Director Chiu said that he welcomed President Santos to his new position and said that he was looking forward to working with him for the next year.  Director Chiu said that he wanted to take the opportunity to thank Alfonso Fillon for doing a wonderful job and stated that it had been a pleasure working with him over the past four years and on behalf of the Department he wanted to thank Commissioner Fillon for his leadership.

President’s Announcements.

President Santos said that he wanted to thank his fellow Building Inspection Commissioners and said that he wanted them to know how immensely proud and honored he was to accept this.  President Santos said that the opportunity to serve as the President of the Building Inspection Commission was by far the greatest honor of his professional career.  President Santos stated that during the short few weeks that Gavin Newsom has been Mayor of San Francisco there have been tremendous changes throughout the halls of City government and things will be no different for the Department of Building Inspection.  President Santos said that DBI was now standing at the dawn of a new year of transparency in DBI and this transparency will be brought about by greater communication, participation and overall representation.  President Santos said that most Commissioners felt that these hearings should be televised, allowing the public to witness first hand DBI in action.  President Santos said that the implementation of a new online permit tracking system where applicants will be able to access the progress of the permits and see for themselves whether any holdups are caused by this Department or what is most likely the case, the Department of City Planning.  President Santos stated that with this new openness the Department of Building Inspection will have to be more diligent in the arena of public relations; the old slow response time to resident’s questions and concerns will be unacceptable to the better informed public that will result from this new found access.  President Santos said that the demand will be for two way communication and DBI will measure up to that standard.  President Santos said that by keeping up with the push towards greater transparency Mayor Gavin Newsom has let it be known that he intends to appoint a special monitor to oversee the workings of this Department.  President Santos said that he wanted to say honestly and unequivocally that he supported this move by the Mayor and since this Department has never engaged in any intentional wrongdoing this greater oversight combined with this new transparency will completely eliminate the perception of wrongdoing in the future.  President Santos stated that the good work of Building Inspectors and Building Plan Checkers would never again be overshadowed by unfounded allegations and innuendo.

President Santos said that, while he supports change, DBI should never lose sight of what has worked for this Department in the past.  President Santos stated that in the last fiscal year the Department of Building Inspection was the only Department in City government that turned a profit; the Department of Building Inspection has continually generated revenue for this City and that should be remembered.  President Santos said that DBI should be proud of that as it uses its old successes to build a strong foundation for future endeavors. 

President Santos said that again he wanted to thank his fellow Commissioners for their trust and said that he hoped to be as fair and balanced as President Fillon had been. 

President Santos received a round of applause.

There was no public comment on this item.

The meeting resumed with Item #5.

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

Ms. Spike Kahn introduced herself as the Union Representative for Local 21 representing the IT Professionals at DBI as well as others, but specifically she has been dealing lately with MIS issues and the changes that have been requested regarding restructuring.  Ms. Kahn stated that she was present because the outstanding issue, for which the Union filed a grievance back in July, is still outstanding and said that she did not know if the BIC was aware of this.  Ms. Kahn said that one of the professionals is misclassified and several have submitted JAQs, but one in particular jumps up at her, a Business Analyst (1051) that is part of the team on the helpdesk and people working on helpdesk are not Business Analysts they are helpdesk people which is the 1020 series.  Ms. Kahn said that the 1051 employee had submitted a JAQ back in March 27, 2003 and the Union filed a grievance for at least acting assignment pay for in July 2003 when the contract changed and allowed for action on misclassifications.  Ms. Kahn said that at that time she hoped that the remedy through DHR would help.  Ms. Kahn stated that she had asked Director Chiu for meetings about this issue several times and had sent three different e-mails stating the dates of her availability for meeting.  Ms. Kahn said that the next step is to file for arbitration and there has never been a conversation as to why this person is misclassified as a Business Analyst.  Ms. Kahn said that she had copies of two grievances and information regarding the employees involved for the Commission.  Ms. Kahn said that the 1051 works side by side with the 1022 and the 1022 who has more expertise filed a grievance in July to get classified as a 1023.  Ms. Kahn said that all she wanted was, if these people are classified correctly, a meeting for somebody to tell her why the Department feels that they are properly classified.  Ms. Kahn stated that she has asked Director Chiu several times for this meeting and could go forward with arbitration, which would cost both sides several thousand dollars to decide.  Ms. Kahn said that the Union has had other IT professionals who are 1070s, a Supervisorial classification, look over the JAQs and agree with the Union and again stated that she was just looking for resolution.  Ms. Kahn said that maybe she would agree that these employees are properly classified if somebody would just tell her why.  Ms. Kahn said that she was asking the Commission’s help in getting the Department to respond to the Union before this has to go to court.

Commissioner Brown said that he thought that there was a grievance right now and that the Department would not want this to go to arbitration if there was any way to avoid it.  Commissioner Brown said that he was not sure that there were good reasons like Ms. Kahn reported, but said that he would like to encourage the Director or someone on DBI staff to look into this matter as it seemed like such a small matter that could become much bigger and cost the Department a lot of money to defend in court or at arbitration proceedings.  Commissioner Brown said that he was not sure why this had not been done yet, but thought that the Department should get on this as soon as possible.

Director Chiu said that at this point he did not know what the status of this issue was because he had directed John Marquez DBI’s Personnel Officer to work with DHR to resolve this issue or respond back to the Union.  Director Chiu stated that he would be happy to respond back at the next meeting to let the Commission know what has happened.  Commissioner Brown said that if this could be done through a meeting it would be great because the Department’s City Attorney’s bill is already through the roof. 

Vice-President Hood asked Ken Harrington of DBI who is an Attorney to monitor this because she agreed that the Department should avoid arbitration and it seemed to her that relations between Local 21 and the Department had always been very cordial and responsive. 

Ms. Kahn said that she appreciated the Commission’s help on this and just for the record reported that the difference in the biweekly between a 1051 and a 1022 is $120 so it is not that the Union is asking for some big money, but is just trying to get an employee properly classified.  Ms. Kahn stated that if the proposed restructuring of the MIS did go through since a 1051 is not appropriate for helpdesk it is not on the new organizational chart and that person would end up without a job at all.  Ms. Kahn said that the 1051 classification was an old classification that is not being hired throughout the City and this would be the first to be cut.  Ms. Kahn said that even with seniority there would be no place for this person to bump anymore.  Ms. Kahn said she wanted to let the BIC know that she is still waiting to hear about this a year and a half later because this is actually a bread and butter issue for this employee.  Ms. Kahn thanked the Commission.

Ms. Ernestine Weiss said that she wanted to congratulate President Santos and welcome him and Ms. Hood for remaining as Vice-President.  Ms. Weiss stated that she welcomed President Santos’ toughness as more of it is needed in the City and it is a refreshing thing to hear.  Ms. Weiss said that she wanted to talk about Prop J, which is the most misleading legislation; it has no notice to people, no hearings and is not affordable for the workforce, it is a shame.  Ms. Weiss said that she wanted to bring hotelization to the attention of the Commission because there are corporations renting apartments in Golden Gateway Towers, Park Merced and others.  Ms. Weiss said that these people remove rentals from the apartment situation and drive rental rates up.  Ms. Weiss said that they deny hotels of their taxes and that is where the City loses money so it has to stop.  Ms. Weiss stated that she thought that one way to do this was to increase the fines so that these people know that this is no longer acceptable in the City of San Francisco.  Ms. Weiss thanked the Commission.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders congratulated President Santos and said that he did not know why Mr. Santos wanted to take the office and maybe he should be offering condolences.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that when Ms. Weiss stood before the BIC she demonstrated that part of the creation of this Commission was to give access to the public to voice or vent or file a complaint and the same way with the Union.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the fact is that the creation of this Commission by the public allowed this to happen and in addition led to many positive things happening on behalf of the public including contractors and employees.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that, as noted by President Santos, this Department has never been given the credit for the second year in the row, when every other department has a deficit, this Department turned in a surplus.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that it has never been published that this Department is one of the most integrated departments in the entire City of San Francisco.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the third thing that has never been demonstrated or propounded is that there have been no layoffs in this Department because DBI prudently and judiciously over the years watched its budget and paid attention to the cost and the revenue correlation.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that maybe this allegation that has been leveled against him in particular, and the builders, that there has been undue influence, maybe considering the success of this Department, maybe the quote of undue influence should be applied to other departments because if they did these other departments would not have the deficits or the layoffs.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he wanted to set the record straight on this undue influence because of the 55,000 permits per year that are processed through DBI, the Residential Builders only process a maximum of 300 permits.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that if the Residential Builders were getting priority, the fact that 98% of permits are all being processed within 30 days would mean that no one is being harmed, but the record is such that of the 2% that are not processed within 30 days, the RBA is in that 2% so the misinformation and the allegations that have been attributed to undue influence by himself and his members is just not borne out by the facts.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that for this reason the RBA welcomed, as President Santos indicated, the monitor being established.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was asking that this Commission send a letter to Mayor Newsom asking that he appoint a monitor here and now because reputations have been maligned and vitriol has cast a pall and a shadow on the reputations of good people.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this monitor should have full power and subpoena power.  Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission. 

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to call it to the attention of Ms. Weiss that in the communication items to the Commission there was a letter from Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque and said she understood that the Director was going ahead with the inspections requested by Ms. Bosque.  Director Chiu said that was correct.

Mr. John Hinchion introduced himself as a Building Inspectors Association Executive Committee member and congratulated the new President and thanked the Commission for helping the Department to run a surplus last year which DBI shared with other departments that were not run as efficiently as DBI.  Mr. Hinchion said that he was present regarding a potential conflict, which would affect the ability of Inspectors to do their jobs.  Mr. Hinchion stated that he would read a statement from the San Francisco voter’s handbook regarding Prop J.  “Proposition J is an ordinance that would provide new rules for certain housing developments with ten or more units that are located downtown or along the central waterfront.  A development that would be subject to a less restrictive density and height rules and its building permit application could get rapid review.” Mr. Hinchion said that he wanted to emphasize this last part about building permit applications getting rapid review as this sounds like special treatment.  Mr. Hinchion said that since he joined the Department special treatment was something that is not done as all members of the public are to be treated equally and fairly.  Mr. Hinchion said that he could see a situation where if this were to pass that he could provide special treatment to somebody in the neighborhoods that would continue to be prohibited, but if he were to give that same special treatment to a developer in the downtown area that would actually be legal.  Mr. Hinchion said that according to this proposition that would be encouraged.  Mr. Hinchion asked how was he supposed to do his job as a Building Inspector with this conflict and asked if the Commissioners could give the Building Inspectors some direction on this.  Mr. Hinchion stated that one possible solution to this would be if the Commission would contact the local, major daily newspaper and ask them for a list of names of these so called Building Inspectors that are corrupt that they constantly write about maybe one of these so called corrupt Building Inspectors could provide this special treatment to the downtown areas.  Mr. Hinchion said that the rest of the honest Building Inspectors could continue to serve the people of the City and County of San Francisco in a fair and honest manner.  Mr. Hinchion thanked the Commission.

Vice-President Hood said she thought that was a really interesting comment and said that she would like the BIC to calendar something like this in the future to talk about the few types of projects that actually are given special treatment by forming a team that stays with the project all the time.  Vice-President Hood said that to her knowledge these had been limited to major public projects like the baseball stadium and things that had to go through quickly and were in the public’s interest.

Discussion and possible action regarding construction activity at 337 – 28^th Avenue, 1288 – 30^th Avenue, 4109 Irving Street and 1461 – 43^rd Avenue. [Commissioner Guinnane]

Commissioner Guinnane said starting off at 337 – 28^th he and President Santos went out to look at this property.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it is very disturbing to go out and look at a job such as these three.   Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu to help with this one because the whole that is four stories of living and has been all replumbed, rewired; the whole house has been rebuilt, all foundations put in, steel beams put in and basically there have been no inspections and it is all sheet rocked.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he could not figure out how a building of this size could get so far along without the Building Inspector figuring out what was going on there.  Commissioner Guinnane said there were some issues out there about the actual count of units; some documents show it as being a single-family dwelling, some show it as two units and the building is completely sheet rocked and there have been no inspections.  

Director Chiu said that Commissioner Guinnane was correct and all these issues had surfaced so the job was stopped.  Director Chiu said that Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson had written a letter to the property owner outlining exactly what the owner has to do to bring the property into compliance, but very few inspections were called for so the Department is looking into what is legal and what is not. 

Vice-President Hood asked how much work could be done and if the work went beyond the scope of the permit.  Commissioner Guinnane said that initially the permit was only for $13,000, but an extension that is 20’ x 25’ and is by four floors has been put on the back of the building.   Commissioner Guinnane said that after much research he believes that originally this building was a set of flats, which would show the building by about 60’ long and now the building is 75’ to 80’ long and there are all brand new foundations.  Commissioner Guinnane reported that there is a new penthouse on top and looking at pictures that penthouse was never that size.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that what was particularly troubling to him was that the Inspectors out there are not overwhelmed by work and asked how it is that this job could get so far along and sheet rocked inside without any inspections.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the building was insulated and all of the outside walls have no paper on them and all of the windows were installed illegally.  President Santos said that when this was presented to the project sponsors they were willing to create a record of the conditions that existed and were perfectly willing to remove any sections of that building to reveal sprinkler pipes so an “as built” condition would be developed.  President Santos stated that the project sponsor never posed any resistance regarding the fact that they are perfectly willing to remove anything that the Commission would ask them to remove to review the conditions that were reflected. 

Commissioner Marks said that Commissioner Guinnane’s point was that there were no inspections done as should have been done.  President Santos said that was correct, but said that in some construction or remodeling work it is quite possible to go back and do a testing schedule where the Department could check whether there was any reinforcement to the foundations so it is more complicated because it is easier to view a foundation prior to pour. 

Vice-President Hood said that she thought the issues were not about getting it corrected, but how it happened in the first place.  Commissioner Marks agreed.  Vice-President Hood said that she would like to agendize the calculation of the permit fee and why it was so low.  Vice-President Hood stated that she would also like to know how this got missed by the District Inspector and how was it assigned.  Vice-President Hood asked Commissioner Guinnane how he discovered this.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he was called about it and said that this work was done on a building that is right across the street from two brand new buildings that are about 95% done so the Inspectors had to go out to the area several times. Commissioner Marks said that if this address was going to be calendared she wanted to know why the penalty was reduced to two times the permit fee.

  Commissioner Fillon asked Commissioner Guinnane if he looked at the original permit and if the scope of the building is significantly more than what was proposed.  Commissioner Guinnane said yes, there is a brand new four-story building there with new foundations.  Commissioner Fillon asked how it went through Planning.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he didn’t think it ever went to Planning.  Commissioner Fillon stated that it sounded like the project sponsor got a remodeling permit to build a whole new building.  Commissioner Guinnane said that was correct, but the big issue out there is that it is not a three-unit building and was never a three-unit building, and it is now a four-story building with a huge penthouse on top and that structure was never there.  Commissioner Guinnane said that if the project sponsor does everything to make sure the construction was done properly there is still the question of unit count.  Commissioner Fillon asked Commissioner Guinnane what documents he looked at that showed unit count.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he had an old listing that showed the MLS, the actual square footage and what was being sold at the time and said it was a two-unit building.  Commissioner Fillon asked if Commissioner Guinnane looked at the 3-R reports.  Commissioner Guinnane said that was another issue because he had two 3-R reports on the property that were issued one day apart from the Building Department and one shows it as a three-unit building and one shows it as a single-family dwelling.  Commissioner Guinnane said this was a big issue and is going to take some time to go through and unravel.  Vice-President Hood said that when applying for a permit a customer has to take the permit up to Housing to get the number of units verified so if the number of units for this particular property wasn’t verified, she wondered why this did not happen. 

Commissioner Marks said that the other issue that Commissioner Guinnane started with is how this can go on without the neighborhood Inspector stopping by to see what was happening.  President Santos said that this would be agendized for the next meeting as a separate item.

President Santos asked Commissioner Guinnane about 1288 – 30^th Avenue.  Commissioner Guinnane said that 1288 – 30^th Avenue is a job where a permit was filed to do an addition to the back of the building, but in looking at the actual property all new foundations were put in and a huge extension was put on the back.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that both of the buildings next door to this property have been undermined where the walkways have actually pulled away.  Commissioner Guinnane said that his questions were the same as to where is the breakdown in the Building Department and why aren’t the Inspectors catching this stuff.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Department issued two or three Notices of Violation and the Contractor is just laughing at the Building Department and keeps on working.  Commissioner Guinnane said that from Thursday through Wednesday retaining walls were poured and built a one-story addition after the Stop Notice was issued.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he had talked to Inspector Sweeney who was very troubled and said that the project sponsor was just thumbing their noses at the notices.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he put a call into the City Attorney’s Office to try and get a temporary restraining order to stop them.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Sweeney could speak to the issue.

Senior Building Inspector Sweeney said that the Department received a complaint anonymously through the e-mail on 2/11/03 and on 2/12/03 Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau told him to look into it.  Mr. Sweeney said that later on that day he went by and, as Commissioner Guinnane pointed out obviously there was work done beyond the scope of permit, and no permits or plans were one site.  Mr. Sweeney stated that he posted the owner for a special shoring permit that would be required.  Mr. Sweeney said that he went back the following day and posted a second notice for value of work performed without permit at $63,000 and a foundation wall had been underpinned without permit and a five foot high retaining wall in rear was done without permit.  Mr. Sweeney said that the project sponsor excavated anywhere from one foot in front to four or five feet in the rear and excavated all of the sand out of the property to accommodate an 8’ ceiling height for a permit they had pulled for two bathrooms and two or three rooms.  Mr. Sweeney said that they had removed plaster and underpinned port foundations and two of the retaining walls were 2’ x 12’ lagging with a 4” x 6’ approximately every 5’ and that was what they were posted for.  Mr. Sweeney stated that the Contractor continued working and Mr. Sweeney stated that he went back a third day to check on it and posted them a third day after contacting the City Attorney to post a temporary restraining order.  Mr. Sweeney stated that the City Attorney’s Office representative contacted the Contractor and as a result work was stopped and has been stopped since that time.  Mr. Sweeney said that the Contractor has engaged the services of a Structural Engineer and the Structural Engineer has prepared plans and they are currently trying to get a permit for this site.  Commissioner Guinnane asked who the Structural Engineer was.  Mr. Sweeney said that the Structural Engineer was Benjamin Li who was brought in after the fact.  Commissioner Guinnane said that on 2/20/04 the owner came into DBI to get an over the counter permit and asked what happened there.  Mr. Sweeney said that the owner came into see him and Mr. Sweeney had to sign off on the job in order for the owner to pick up the permit downstairs.  Mr. Sweeney stated that he was uncomfortable with the information the owner was supplying and said that he felt that the owner was not covering all of the items so he refused to sign the permit.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the permit covered the underpinning for the two adjoining houses.  Mr. Sweeney said that it was, but the owner still wanted to apply the 2” x 4” lagging with a 4” x6”.  Mr. Sweeney said that he was not an Engineer and wanted this to be looked at by an Engineer and certainly by DBI’s engineers.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Engineers from DBI looked at the application or the drawings to cover the underpinning on both sides. Mr. Sweeney said that the owner did go down to the second floor and spoke to a Structural Engineer there.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what the response of the Structural Engineer was at that point.  Mr. Sweeney stated that DBI’s Structural Engineer did not have all of the information and did not know about the two houses on either side of the property.  Mr. Sweeney said that when he informed the Engineer of the site condition he agreed and gave instructions to the permit applicant.  Mr. Sweeney said that he did not know what instructions were given.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the applicant did not like the instructions of the Structural Engineer if the applicant could go to someone to override that decision.  Mr. Sweeney said that would be up to a Chief Engineer.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if any Chief Engineer got involved in this.  Mr. Sweeney said that he did.  Commissioner Guinnane asked who that Chief Engineer was.  Mr. Sweeney stated that it was Hanson Tom. Commissioner Guinnane asked what Hanson Tom’s response was to the applicant.  Mr. Sweeney said that Hanson Tom wanted to issue the permit, however he was going to issue it based on the information supplied and when he came upstairs to see Mr. Sweeney who had refused to sign the permit, Mr. Tom asked about the conditions and why it was not going to be signed.  Mr. Sweeney said he informed Mr. Tom of the conditions and said that once he explained this to Mr. Tom that seemed to take care of it and Mr. Tom left.  Commissioner Guinnane said that no one signed it off and asked what was the current status.  Mr. Sweeney said that the owner has now resubmitted an application and have picked up a permit for property line walls, however they have to get additional permits to underpin the neighbor on the north property line and probably on the south property line wall.

Vice-President Hood said that it seemed to her that Mr. Sweeney had mentioned excavating in the basement to increase the height on that level and it seemed to her that there was an expansion of livable area.  Mr. Sweeney said that was correct.  Vice-President Hood asked if this permit went through Planning for approval of an addition.  Mr. Sweeney said that it did not.  Vice-President Hood stated that the whole permit should be withdrawn.  Mr. Sweeney said that he suspended all permits.  Vice-President Hood asked if Planning had been notified of this problem.  Mr. Sweeney said that he believed that they had.  Vice-President Hood said that this is not a demolition, but it is a violation of the permit and asked if there was any kind of special penalty for this situation.  Mr. Sweeney stated that there was an additional work permit required under San Francisco Building Code 106.4.7; therefore the penalty is times two.  Vice-President Hood asked if the owner had been notified that he has to get Planning approval before any work could be continued.  Mr. Sweeney said that on the second Notice of Violation issued on 2/13/04 it stated that the owner would have to submit plans and obtain approval by Building and Planning Departments, plans to specify how special inspections are to be performed to ascertain steel placement form size depth, etc. for forms poured without inspection.  Vice-President Hood said that this did not specify that there was an expansion of livable area because anytime that occurs it triggers parking and all kinds of things so not to have that in the permit is a really serious thing.  Mr. Sweeney said that generally he sees that the project sponsors get general approval from Planning for rooms down.  Vice-President Hood said that this project was a mistake in not going to Planning because there is the month’s notice to people of a certain radius and it doesn’t look like any of this happened.  Vice-President Hood said that she thought this should be stopped until it goes through Planning.  Mr. Sweeney said that it was already stopped.  Vice-President Hood asked if Planning was pursuing this issue.  Commissioner Marks stated that she thought that what Commissioner Hood is pointing out is that the Department should be making clear to both the property owner and Planning what needs to be done so that it is not just a matter of this being written down on the Notice of Violation. 

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that this has been a difficult project as there are three or four jobs that the Department has been spending a lot of time on.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that Mr. Sweeney has been the point person for these projects and said that the Department would make sure to go back and modify the Notice of Violation to make sure it goes through Planning.  Vice-President Hood said that she would like this to be calendared so that the BIC could monitor it.

Commissioner Marks said that she would like to ask if it is routine that when DBI comes across a situation such as this where it has to go back to Planning does DBI, as a matter of routine, give clear information to both the property owner and Planning as to what was found and action has to be taken.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he was not able to speak to Chief Wing Lau today as he was absent, but Mr. Lau went out with one of the Seniors on Friday to look at two jobs and this could have been one of them.  Mr. Hutchinson said that Deputy Director Wong has brought up a permit for this application where there was notification in place right now as City Planning is doing the notification.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that he thought there was a few questions asked that he would have to go back and analyze, but he understood about these rooms that were being created rather than space that was existing so that would be checked on this afternoon.  Commissioner Marks said that she wanted to make sure that DBI as a matter of regular procedure is taking this action.  Mr. Hutchinson said that it was being done.

President Santos said that Mr. Sweeney said that the structural drawings were done by Benjamin Li and this new set of drawings now clearly defines the fact that there are some adjoining structures that might be affected by the construction of the retaining walls.  President Santos asked if this was now a condition that has been excavated and there is a time issue where the Department could not wait a month for Planning to review this, but would have to act structurally to stabilize this condition or is it currently stabilized.  Mr. Sweeney said that it was currently stabilized because the owner has poured all of their walls and does have it shored at present.  Mr. Sweeney said that one of the reasons the Contractor claimed that he kept working was because he wanted to stabilize the structures and had replaced all of the walls that had been removed. 

Vice-President Hood said that it was her understanding that whenever someone would excavate within ten feet of a property line the project sponsor would have to notify the owner of the adjacent property that they were within ten feet of and State law actually requires the neighbor to stabilize their property for the first ten feet down.  Vice-President Hood said that typically the project sponsor does this as courtesy because they are making the changes, but the notice letter has to go to the neighbors so that they get proper notice of this kind of threat to their property.  Mr. Sweeney said that it is in the computer about notification to the adjacent property owners.

Deputy Director William Wong said that according to the records that he had the first permit did go to City Planning, but it was not for any expansion and was approved over the counter.  Mr. Wong said that the valuation for this work was $30,000; a second permit came in after the notice was issued for $50,000 for the addition that was being discussed.  Mr. Wong stated that this was the project that was in progress right now and the records show that a notification mailing was done for the 150’ as required as of February 13^th.  Mr. Wong said that this project is still with City Planning and DBI would deal with the structural issues at that time.  Vice-President Hood said that as a courtesy to the owner DBI should let them know about it right now. 

Mr. Wong said that the owner came in with a smaller scale of work at the beginning and then when the Inspectors went out into the field the project had been expanded.  Vice-President Hood said that when the Building Inspector caught it the project should have been stopped and those letters requested.  Mr. Wong said that he agreed, but looking at these two projects that have been discussed what is troubling is that with these permits there is a pattern of permits coming in separately. Mr. Wong said that the project sponsor should come in with a full set of plans at the beginning.  Vice-President Hood said that this serial permitting has been discussed many times and is what the biggest scofflaws in this City use to get by the Building Code and the Planning Codes.  Vice-President Hood suggested that there should be some sort of red flag that goes up at the counter whenever anyone comes back with a second permit within six months or even two years that ought to trigger a review of all of the permits as a group.  Commissioner Fillon said that it would be a good practice to ask for a permit history of the last three permits pulled for any property and now with the online Permit Tracking System this would be easier to do.   Mr. Wong said that this is the loophole in getting bigger projects through the system by getting smaller parts of it approved and this is really up to DBI as an enforcement agency to catch as much of it as possible. Vice-President Hood said that this has been happening since she first started on the Commission in 1995 and that is nine years and one of the things that could be done is to get copies of the drawings scanned on the computer system.  Vice-President Hood said that these plans go into microfilming and become very difficult to retrieve.   Vice-President Hood said that she would like to see a rule initiated that if there is a permit that was issued within three years then the Project Applicant would have to submit all of those drawings or they would not be able to get the permit. Vice-President Hood said that this has been around too long and there are repeat serial scofflaws who have been doing repeat serial permitting and DBI really needs to find a way of stopping this that doesn’t place too much of a burden on Plan Checkers and Inspectors. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about the three Notices of Violation and stated that on the first notice the penalty is two times the permit fee, on the second notice it is two times and on the third notice it is nine times.  Commissioner Guinnane asked why they were not all nine times.  Mr. Wong said that he did not issue the NOVs, but usually if someone has a legal permit to do something and then they exceed the scope of work the penalty is two times; usually the nine times is reserved for the more severe cases where there is no permit at all.  Commissioner Guinnane asked who arrived at the value of work done because he is starting to see a big breakdown on that. Commissioner Guinnane stated that there is a lot of work going on with these three permits.  Mr. Wong said that the Plan Checker bases the valuation on the Marshall and Swift index based on the plans that are submitted.  Mr. Wong said that during construction is when the scope of work is actually discovered and then it is up to the Building Inspector to stop the job and ask for a whole new valuation. 

Commissioner Santos said that when a plan is submitted the Plan Checker can only go by those plans and if the plans call for the removal of one wall the Plan Checker will estimate the cost of that removal; he doesn’t know what the future holds in the field unless there is a pre-application or pre-construction meeting.  Vice-President Hood stated that this ties back into the serial permitting and if all of the drawings are together then staff could see the big picture.  Commissioner Santos said that he thought that this would eliminate the ability of DBI to issue over the counter permits.  Vice-President Hood said that she did not think so because people don’t usually remodel every three years.  President Fillon said that part of the problem is the Code itself because it is tied to square footage of improvements and that encourages people to chop it up.  Vice-President Hood said that if it costs the project sponsor enough money and time when they do this chopping up they wouldn’t do it anymore because it won’t be profitable and profit is the bottom line. 

Mr. Wong said that the Department and the public does have access to the permit history of past permits, unfortunately it is not so easy to get access to the plans and usually DBI asks the applicant for those copies or DBI physically goes through the microfilming and that takes a lot of time.  Vice-President Hood said that the applicant should be required to do it and if they come in with all of their information the applicant could still get an over the counter permit.  Mr. Wong said that perhaps DBI should not issue the permits as quickly as it has been doing over the counter.  Commissioner Marks said that Vice-President Hood is saying that the Department could have certain requirements of the property owner, which should not delay the process if the Department lets them know exactly what is required.  Mr. Wong said that the ones that Commissioner Guinnane has discovered are not clean projects, but project sponsors that feel they will come in for a permit only if they are caught or are responding to a Notice of Violation.

Director Chiu said that the Department needs to look at the Code itself and perhaps look at stiffer penalties because there is a trend right now that people are using the over the counter permits as a front permit and then they are exceeding the scope.  Director Chiu said that he was looking at coming back with a proposal to eliminate the two times penalty even though there may be an existing permit unless the work is related.  Director Chiu said that he agreed that the permits need to be monitored if someone is coming in for additional permits.  Director Chiu said that Deputy Director Wong is concerned about issuing over the counter permits, but maybe if someone comes in for a second permit within a few days or a few weeks then the Department needs to stop right there and check it out by sending an Inspector out a lot quicker.  Director Chiu said that with these properties the project sponsors did not call for inspections, but just kept on going.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the first permit for this property was to put two rooms at the back of the garage; it didn’t say anything about putting new foundations under 70% of the house up in front or underpinning the house or going upstairs and stripping the whole upstairs of the house out.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that this is pure fraud.  Director Chiu said that was exactly what he was talking about and some of these people know exactly how to manipulate the process and the Department has to find a way to stop that.  Vice-President Hood said that perhaps there should be a committee on the Department to sit down with William, Jim and the Director and develop one, two or three extra rules that should be submitted with the application.  Vice-President Hood said that there could be a handout that lets the project sponsor know that if they go beyond the scope of the permit that x, y or z is going to happen.  Vice-President Hood said that it doesn’t have to be terribly complicated, but could be done by just slightly changing the permit application requirements and that would be extremely beneficial.  Mr. Wong stated that his staff reminded him that the Department tried to do an Administrative Bulletin on those issues, the same as are being discussed, and it went through several versions.  Mr. Wong said that it came to the Commission and for some reason it was not adopted and perhaps that should be revisited.  Vice-President Hood said that it did not have to be too punitive to the public, but this should be dealt with up front at the time of permit application.  Mr. Wong said that it is a small percentage of permit applicants that try to manipulate the system.  Commissioner Fillon said that this issue should be looked at from the point of what the effects are going to be on the processing of permits, on staff and on the public.  Vice-President Hood said that it is not a burden on the staff and it shouldn’t be a burden on the project sponsor it is just a matter of submitting the permit drawings for the previous three years.  Mr. Wong said that he would be happy to look into this.

President Santos asked what kind of communication the Department encouraged between the Structural Plan Checkers and the Inspectors.  President Santos asked if the Inspector was encouraged to call and talk to the Plan Checkers to define the actual conditions in the field.  Mr. Wong said that he thought that the Department was doing a better job with this recently because there have been meetings with the Plan Checkers and the Inspectors and some of the Engineers have been out in the field to look at jobs that they have approved.  Commissioner Guinnane asked for the meeting to move on.

President Santos asked the Secretary if the meeting had to end at 11:45 a.m.  The Secretary said that the BIC only has Room 400 until noon as there is another Commission coming in after the BIC.  President Santos said that there were several items within item #6 that had not been discussed and that is Irving and 43^rd Avenue.  President Santos asked if the Commission should continue with those or continue them until the next meeting.  Commissioner Guinnane asked that the Commission review these items briefly and then continue them at the next meeting.

Commissioner D’Anne asked if the Commission knew who the Contractors are on these buildings and is there a pattern here.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he did not know the Contractors, but said that he did see a pattern.  Commissioner D’Anne said that if it was the same Contractors then perhaps the Department could start working with these Contractors.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what Commissioner D’Anne meant by working with them.  Commissioner D’Anne said that the Department could inform them that they are out of line by doing these things that Commissioner Guinnane is complaining about.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not think that the Department had to inform them because they know exactly what they are doing and that’s why they are doing it.  President Santos said that this was going to be agendized for a future meeting.

Commissioner Guinnane asked to move on to 4109 Irving Street and said that he was really troubled by this project because it looks like it is almost and unlawful demolition.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the project sponsor is trying to put a four story building in there, but they can’t put the foundations in with what is there.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that there is probably 80% of the building gone and this should have been an application for a brand new building.  Director Chiu said that it was his understanding that according to Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau an investigation was done and the project sponsor is going according to the approved plan and there were some more walls with dry rot.  Director Chiu said that the Department verified that and are now trying to figure out how to go about approving additional walls to be removed.  Director Chiu said that it was his understanding that the project was very consistent with the plans that were reviewed by Planning and DBI.  Commissioner Guinnane said that every job has a certain amount of rot and this seems to be the MO to get around the demolition ordinance.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that the number was that when more than 50% of the house was gone it triggers unlawful demolition.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that the way this house is the foundations all have to come out; the whole house is almost gone.  Director Chiu said that the 50% or the 2/3 or substantial rule only applies when the scope of work is exceeded that was not permitted; for example, according to the Code 75 – 80% of the walls or partitions could be removed and that is still approved if it is reviewed by both Planning and DBI and appropriate notification is followed.  Director Chiu said that only after that, if the project sponsor exceeds the scope of work, does that become an unlawful demolition.  Director Chiu said that this particular project at 4109 Irving Street went through that process and the proper notification was followed.

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that some information became available that the foundations as designed at 4109 Irving Street have inherent problems.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that he met with the Chief Inspector and Hanson Tom and they are looking at that.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department has put a flag on the computer to make sure that no permits go out on this project until DBI decides what the appropriate course of action is with this job.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this is a very large scale alteration and once it was opened up problems were found and some pieces that should be there have been removed.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he asked his staff to go back to the Project Engineer and the Project Engineer was present to speak to the issue.  Mr. Hutchinson said that his question was what came out that should have stayed and what can stay when the Department goes out today.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that the information about the foundations is very troubling so there are a lot of things that need to be worked out with the Engineer.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that perhaps the Project Engineer should apply for a new building permit and a demolition permit and be done with it.  Mr. Hutchinson said that in his opinion there was going to be nothing left of this building when it gets done.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there was nothing left there now and everything would have to come out of there, as all of the foundations have to come out.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the project sponsor is taking out a one-story building and putting up a four-story building.   President Santos said that this item would be calendared for the next meeting and asked to move on to 1461 – 43^rd Avenue.

Director Chiu asked for Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson to help out with this case. Commissioner Guinnane said that on 1461 – 43^rd Avenue he just happened to be out there on a Sunday and stopped to look at the house.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that on the ground floor there are ten studs left that are short a foot on the top and a foot on the bottom.  Commissioner Guinnane said that going to the top floor there is about twenty foot of wall left and the rest of the house is gone.  Commissioner Guinnane said that 99.5% of the house is gone; the foundations are all new, the framing is all new, everything is gone.  President Santos asked if Commissioner Guinnane was suggesting that this was another potential unlawful demolition.  Commissioner Guinnane said absolutely these people are getting around the system. 

Building Inspector Edward Sweeney came forward on this issue.  Mr. Sweeney stated that right now there are D1 and D2 demolition plans with their packet allowing for one wall remaining.  Mr. Sweeney said that the Contractor and the owner said that they found a lot of dry rot and termites and had to cut off the bottom one-foot of the entire wall.  Mr. Sweeney said that they removed the top plate on the first floor and inserted studs 16” on center to gain an additional 7” of headroom to comply with the Code.  President Santos asked if this was different from what the drawings were calling for.  Mr. Sweeney said that they had notes saying that they could upgrade the wall to comply with the current Code.  President Santos asked if there was a note on the drawings saying that if the builder or someone determined that some sections needed to be removed they could do it.  Mr. Sweeney said that was correct.  President Santos said he would like to see that wording.  Mr. Sweeney said there was nothing left of the first floor.  President Santos asked if the project sponsor went back to get an over the counter permit to do the modifications, but just relied on that wording on the D drawing.  Mr. Sweeney stated that the Inspectors were never called out to say that there was a problem that had to be removed.  Mr. Sweeney said that he met with the Contractor while he was in the progress of pulling the foundations and he told the Contractor that in his opinion they were going to have problems with the wall and not to remove it.  Mr. Sweeney said that he informed the Contractor that if he was going to remove any portions of that wall that the Inspector should be called out first and to document it.  President Santos asked if Mr. Sweeney was saying that he was concerned that this would result in a potential unlawful demolition.  Mr. Sweeney said that was correct.  President Santos said that this was another address where more review was needed.  Commissioner Guinnane said that this one was a little more egregious than Irving Street because this is a brand new house with the valuation on the permit being $200,000.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there is nothing left.  President Santos said that he understood that most people were present for the review of Item #9 and said that he wanted to give an opportunity to the public to speak.  President Santos asked to move public comment and then to Item #9 if time permitted.

Secretary Aherne reminded the President that the Commission did have to hear Item #7 at this meeting and said that it would be very quick. 

Mr. Mike Rueben said that he happened to be a personal friend of the property owner’s on the 28^th Avenue property and said that they were present to respond to some of the allegations.  Mr. Rueben said that obviously if the item gets agendized again they would address those items at that time.  Mr. Rueben stated that the only thing he wanted to say was that no one should presume what is an issue here as there are some factual issues that he believed he could refute.  Mr. Rueben stated that the Commission had only seen the correspondence from the Department to the property owner and had not seen the correspondence that has gone the other way.  Mr. Rueben said that in the interest of fairness he hoped that the Commission would consider everything at that time.  Mr. Rueben said that he had some personal comments he wanted to express to Vice-President Hood, but unfortunately she had left the meeting.  President Santos said that the Commission would welcome any feedback or any information that anyone would have regarding 28^th Avenue.

Mr. James Li introduced himself as the Project Engineer for 4109 Irving Street and said that just for clarification the proposed building was only three stories, not four stories as Commissioner Guinnane had stated.  Mr. Lee said that he wanted to briefly tell the Commission about the history of this project.  Mr. Lee stated that at the beginning he did try to file a demolition permit with a new building permit, but unfortunately because of the new demolition guidelines adopted by the Commissioners this could not be done.  Mr. Lee said that the original exterior condition of the building did not look that bad so he suggested to his clients that they might consider doing an alteration.  Mr. Lee said that unfortunately in getting into the project they found out that things were very substandard, but said that nothing was destroyed beyond that which was shown on the approved plans.  Mr. Lee said that the Inspector Ed Sweeney and also Hanson Tom were out there to review the conditions and saw that the walls were full of rot and the conditions were substandard so everything was stopped.  Mr. Lee said that he wanted to let the Commission know that nothing was removed beyond that, which was shown on the original plans.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that the Commission was to be congratulated and the staff for investigating these problems because he believed that it was outrageous what the public was hearing today.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in answer to Commissioner D’Anne’s question about there being a pattern, there is obviously a pattern here as scofflaws have found a means to avoid the Codes.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that these scofflaws have found a way to avoid notification to the neighbors and a way to reduce the fees including the taxes.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that unfortunately, the Board of Permit Appeals are reducing the nine times penalties back to the two times penalties which is the minimum required by the Code.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Advocacy from the Department of Building Inspection at the Board of Permit Appeals has to be a lot more strong, more vigorous because what has happened is that the scofflaws are finding that the penalties are so minimum and the cost savings and the results to them so great, that there is no disincentive for them to stop.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there is also a problem within the Department itself that somehow or other these people are very well informed and they know how to manipulate the system.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the problem that occurs from this, and it has already been heard today, is that as Deputy Director Wong suggested doing, this, this or this; the good people who comply with the Codes are now going to be punished because of the scofflaws.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department should concentrate on the scofflaws and start fighting that pattern that is already there and when that pattern is discovered then put enforcement by going after that Contractor’s or Engineer’s license or whoever’s license at the State level is responsible for this pattern.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that these people are very adept at doing this and do not need to be warned by the Department; they are bringing a contamination and a vitriol down on the entire industry and are causing changes that will result in non-productivity and higher cost for the rest of the people, the 98% that are doing good.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that these cases need to be isolated and when the Department comes back before this Commission these cases need to go through the whole ringer in terms of investigations.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that when Mayor Newsom sends in the monitor Mr. O’Donoghue said that he is not at liberty to talk about investigations that started on the side that started twelve months ago and it will all come out in the wash for the monitor to see.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is a pattern and it is all part of a group that are all being advised by special interest people and they are not on the RBA’s side of the fence, in fact they may even have been on the Mayor’s transition committee.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it will all come out and thanked the Commission.

Discussion and possible action to amend the regular meeting schedule of the Building Inspection Commission from the first and third Wednesday of each month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 408 at City Hall to the first and third Monday of each month at 9:00 a.m. in Room Room 400, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place.

There was no public comment on this item.

Presentation by the Department of the Environment (DOE) regarding work being done in conjunction with DBI

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld introduced himself as Director of the Department of the Environment (DOE).  Mr. Blumenfeld congratulated President Santos and thanked Commissioner D’Anne for her contributions to the DOE over the years.  Mr. Blumenfeld stated that S.F. Environment was present to report on the cooperative effort between DOE and DBI to further explore and further articulate ways to benefit in each other’s works in the years to come.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that S.F. Environment’s programs and goals supports DBI’s mission to safeguard the property and life of all San Franciscans.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that DOE operates programs in toxic reduction, recycling clean air and environmental justice.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that the greatest area of overlap is in the Green Building Program, which fulfills the requirements of the 1999 Resource Sufficient Building Ordinance as well as in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that last year DOE received $100,000 in support from the BIC and much of this went to the support of the two departments mutual work improving Title 24, training DBI staff on solar energy, energy efficiency and green building design and building practices.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that S.F. Environment is working with DBI’s Code Advisory Committee and is participating in the Green Building Sub-Committee of the DBI Code Advisory Committee to recommend changes to Building Codes to enhance performance in high performance buildings.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that the first issue worked on together was to streamline the permitting process for solar power installations, an important resource efficiency measure which means that San Franciscans can at least obtain a modicum of energy independence.  Mr. Blumenfeld said the DOE certainly welcomes the opportunity to continue this level of cooperation.  Mr. Blumenfeld stated that DOE’s Green Building training program for City design staff provided LEAD training for over sixty staff.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that LEAD meant leadership in energy and environmental design an internationally recognized Green Building rating system developed by the U.S. Green Council.  Mr. Blumenfeld said the Green Building Program developed tools of great value to DBI’s mission including residential green building guidelines for new construction and remodeling, a green building design tool kit for City design professionals and a municipal construction monitoring and evaluation database.  Mr. Blumenfeld stated that these Green Building design tool kits were available at S.F. Environment’s website and regularly received over 2,000 downloads each month.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that the Green Building Program coordinated nine pilot projects to give the City design team and construction staff practical experience in what it takes to create the highest performing buildings.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that the Laguna Honda Hospital which will be 30% more efficient than the Code requires will save the City over $7M in energy costs over the first ten years of operation.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that the Moscone West project taught the DOE how to recycle over 80% of the construction and demolition materials from that building; the California Academy of Science will be LEAD platinum the highest level of environmental performance.   Mr. Blumenfeld stated that the Green Building Program also developed an ordinance requiring LEAD silver for all City buildings over 5,000 square feet which Mayor Newsom and Supervisor Ammiano have introduced and will be adopted hopefully this quarter.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that the Resource Efficient Building Taskforce will have oversight of these projects; the taskforce is an interdepartmental body with David Leung representing the DBI.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that DBI is getting value for the dollar from S.F. Environment and for this coming fiscal year DOE intends to continue their work with support from this Commission with the request of $150,000 for additional green building work and for important energy related programs.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that San Francisco has a unique power infrastructure with old City plants, both of them over forty-five years old with insufficient power coming from the trans Peninsula transmission lines and residents of the City in the southeast are demanding the closure, very rightly so, of the Hunters Point power plant.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that there are also some other interesting things such as Props B & H, which passed in November 2001 and provide for over $100M in voter approved bonds for renewable energy.  Mr. Blumenfeld reported that S.F. Environment worked with the S.F. PUC to develop an electricity resource plan to find solutions to these problems and to take advantage of the opportunities by promoting energy efficiency and renewables.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that last year DOE helped more than 5,000 businesses save six megawatts of energy, which is enough to actually turn the lights off for 6,000 homes in the City.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that this year his department is working with PG&E to implement a $16M partnership, which will reduce peak energy, loads by 16 megawatts.  Mr. Blumenfeld stated that DOE wished to continue to work with DBI to develop new energy efficiency requirements that would surpass the demands of the State Energy Code, Title 24 and would require existing buildings to have energy efficiency upgrades at a time of sale or renovation, would require period review and performance of HVAC systems, would require minimum shading coefficient of south and west facing windows and on the renewable energy front S.F. Environment is currently developing a program called Generation Solar with the goal of installing 100 residential and small commercial solar power systems this calendar year.  Mr. Blumenfeld stated that this would install solar panels on people’s roofs and will take full advantage of the permit streamlining that the departments have been working on together.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that DOE’s staff on both energy efficiency and green building would remain available to DBI for planning assistance.

Mr. Blumenfeld reported that this year by virtue of State funds made available to DOE there is a special offer to DBI that is one he hoped DBI could not refuse.  Mr. Blumenfeld said the DOE has raised $150,000 from the State Energy Department to develop energy codes and regulations so therefore DOE can reimburse DBI up to $150,000 for any staff time that is assistance with energy efficiency work.  Mr. Blumenfeld stated that working with S.F. Environment is therefore a win, win because with $150,000 coming from DBI the DOE can proceed on their goal to work on green building and blaze new ground for renewable energy and DBI can get $150,000 in return for developing Codes for energy efficiency.  Mr. Blumenfeld stated that S.F. Environment has enjoyed an excellent working relationship with DBI staff such as Vernon Takasuka and Laurence Kornfield and others.  Mr. Blumenfeld asked that DBI continue this cooperation into the future for San Francisco’s environmental well being.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what S.F. Environment’s budget was for last year.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that it was about $11M.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how much was received from other departments, other than DBI.  Mr. Blumenfeld reported that it was about $800,000 in total.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what were those departments.  Mr. Blumenfeld mentioned PUC and the Port and said that it was virtually every department because DOE does integrated pest management for the entire City so everyone work orders the money to them and they do that work.  Mr. Blumenfeld stated that DOE does energy efficiency for the PUC Commission so the largest after DBI would be about $500,000 from the Public Utilities Commission.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that DOE gives out about $720,000 per year to other departments so there is a shortfall of about $80,000 net to them.  President Santos said that Mr. Blumenfeld just offered that money to DBI.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that it would be given to DBI anyway, but he was just letting the Commission know that it was available because DOE went and fundraised for it.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that the money was very specific to develop Codes in particular so it is not like DOE could use that money if it wasn’t given to DBI.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the $11M was from the General Fund.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that DOE is completely off of the General Fund and receive no money from the General Fund.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that while it was said that DBI was the only department that broke even, DOE also gets no money from the General Fund and has no deficit in their history.

Commissioner Marks asked if DOE was getting the $150,000 from the State why they needed the money from DBI.  Mr. Blumenfeld said that DBI is giving DOE the money to do the work that they need to do on green buildings, which is not covered under the State grant and other money to do renewable energy work and the work that is in that intersection between renewal energy and the Department of Building Inspection.  Mr. Blumenfeld stated that DBI is doing this because the City has many environmental goals and one of them is how DOE brings in DBI to be part of that progress rather than a perceived obstacle for instance in putting solar panels on someone’s roof.    President Santos thanked Mr. Blumenfeld for his very clear presentation.

Discussion and possible action on proposed new amendments to Section 3407 of the Building code regarding safe work practices for lead work on interiors.  [Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson]

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..

Copy of letter dated February 9, 2004 from Deputy Director William Wong to Mr. Christopher Rojahn, Executive Director of Applied Technology Council regarding outstanding invoices for the CAPSS program for October 2002 to April 2003.
Copy of CAPSS final report by ATC 4/05/03.

Copy of e-mail dated February 17, 2004 from Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque to Director Frank Chiu regarding Golden Gateway Towers.

Copy of Planning the City’s Future, An Agenda for Change in the San Francisco Department of City Planning and Department of Building Inspection a Joint report from AIA San Francisco and SPUR received from Ms. O’Driscoll of AIA San Francisco.

Copy of e-mail dated February 5, 2004 from Mr. James Riley to Mayor Gavin Newsom regarding property located at Lake Street and 17^th Avenue and DBI’s handling of Mr. Riley’s complaint.

Copy of letter sent to Mayor’s Office Chief of Staff Steve Kawa regarding transfer of DBI fund to assist other General Fund Departments.

President Santos said that he understood that Ms. Ernestine Weiss had been very patient waiting for this item so he would go directly to item #10b.

Ms. Weiss said that she appreciated this investigation because this is crisis management and that is why she has not been able to take a shower for months.  Ms. Weiss said that management has been groping at straws for months trying to fix this problem and said that it has been going on for months since the first violation.  Ms. Weiss stated that nothing has been done to result in a solution, as rust is still prevalent.  Ms. Weiss said that the argument that management gives is that she has not tested it for months and that is ridiculous because people go away on vacation for more than a month and come back and have clean water.  Ms. Weiss said that this is an erroneous statement.  Ms. Weiss said that there are weekly appearances of the rust as she has been turning it on every day for the past two weeks and it is still prevalent.  Ms. Weiss said that the fact of the matter is that it hasn’t been contained and she has been told that the tanks are going to be lined, but this can’t go on forever.  Ms. Weiss said that she would like to see some quicker results and thanked the Commission.

Mr. Alan Anderson introduced himself as the Operations Manager for the Golden Gateway Center and the landlord for Ms. Weiss.  Mr. Anderson said that management has been responding to complaints of rust in the shower water from November 2002 and have had no less than seven service orders from Local 39 Stationary Engineers who have gone there and have not found a problem.  Mr. Anderson said that he had seen light rust in one or two instances in visiting and at one point Ms. Weiss brought in the Building Inspector and on November 13^th the notice was issued to repair the problem.  Mr. Anderson said that on November 15 through the 18 the Center flushed the tanks and the Inspectors then returned on the 25^th of November and indicated no rust found.  Mr. Anderson stated that the Notice was abated on 12/01/03.  Mr. Anderson said that the complaint arose again on December 15^th and the Inspectors came out again in the presence of the Golden Gateway Center Building Engineers and found no rust present.  Mr. Anderson said that if the Inspectors have been out on a couple of occasions and cleared a Notice they are a little confused as to why this is still an issue.  Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to mention that this is a very large property with 1254 units and over 1800 people living there; they are fully staffed with very competent, qualified stationary engineers and have made multiple attempts to clear this problem.  Mr. Anderson said that there was rust at one point and they flushed the tanks and after the holding tanks were flushed the presence of rust was abated.  Mr. Anderson said that he felt that management has done much to respond to Ms. Weiss’ needs above and beyond what they believe is prudent given that this was only one complaint on a system that serves so many people. Mr. Anderson said that management looked back for one year for any other complaints for rust and also surveyed all of the apartments in the same loop as Ms. Weiss and found no service requests relating to complaints of rust.  Mr. Anderson said that he understood that there was an e-mail that came from Ms. Bosque asking that there be a full investigation and in part he was trying to understand the justification for a further investigation if it has already been investigated and abated.  President Santos asked how many units there were.  Mr. Anderson answered that there were 1,254 with 1,196 in towers and 58 town homes.  President Santos asked if there had been any other complaints.  Mr. Anderson said that there had not been one.  Mr. Anderson said he did want to make it clear that there was rust found at one point and the tanks were flushed.  Mr. Anderson said that the Center has also changed out a circulating line and are looking to change out some other items on the system that would be prudent to do so.  Mr. Anderson asked for some clarification on why a further investigation would be warranted.

Secretary Aherne informed President Santos that the Commission was being asked to vacate Room 400. 

President Santos said that all other items would have to be continued and moved to item #15, adjournment.

Review and approval of the minutes of the January 21, 2004 meeting. (continued)

Review and approval of the minutes of the February 2, 2004 meeting. (continued)

Adjournment.

Commissioner Fillon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane to adjourn.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC014-04

The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.