Building Inspection Commission
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)
Wednesday, June 6, 2001 at 1:00 p.m.
Adopted July 18, 2001
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
MINUTES
The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by President Fillon.
1. Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alfonso Fillon, President Denise D'Anne, Commissioner
Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President Esther Marks, Commissioner
Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner
Debra Walker, Commissioner
Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:
Frank Chiu, Director
Amy Lee, Assistant Director
Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director
William Wong, Deputy Director
Tuti Suardana, Secretary
2. President's Announcements.
President Fillon said that he would like to move item #8 which is the report and discussion on the expansion of 1660 Mission Street to right after public comment, which is item #4. President Fillon asked if this was acceptable to the Commission. The Commissioners agreed to adjust the agenda. President Fillon said that he had no further announcements.
3. Director's Report. [Director Chiu]
a. Update on 174 - 178 Brewster Street.
Director Chiu said that he wanted to give the Commissioners an update on the property located at 174-178 Brewster Street that was brought to the attention of the Commission by a public member at the last meeting. Director Chiu said that the concern was that the property might have been built encroaching into the public right of way. Director Chiu stated that he had asked Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson and Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau to send an inspector out to investigate this matter and it was reported back to him that there was a new survey that indicates that the building is built within the property lines; therefore there is no code violation for this particular property. Director Chiu asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Santos asked who authorized the new survey. Director Chiu said that it was his understanding that the Department asked for a new survey to make sure that the property is within private property.
b. Update on 767 - 769 North Point.
Director Chiu said that a letter came into the Department that was copied to the Commission regarding roof drainage. Director Chiu said that the allegation was that when an addition was done on top of the building the roof drainage was not done properly. Director Chiu said that there has been an ongoing history, back and forth, between the neighbors regarding this addition and there were lawsuits involved. Director Chiu said that this issue was just on the roof drainage and stated that he had asked Senior Inspector Ron Tom and the Chief Plumbing Inspector to go out to the property to look at the issue of roof drainage. Director Chiu said that staff had reported back that the roof drainage is installed and is proper, but there may be some maintenance issues; however, at this point there are no code violations that the Department could cite the property owner for and the Department considers the matter closed. Director Chiu said that the roof drainage is installed and in the Department's opinion, it is proper.
c. Update on 442, 322 & 324 - 28th Avenue.
Director Chiu said that there were three properties involved in this issue and one of the Commissioners was concerned about a letter received from the Richmond District Neighborhood Group and other neighbors regarding demolishing the buildings and replacing the properties with a four story, two unit brand new building. Director Chiu said that at this point the issue only dwells on the planning issue, as the neighbors are just concerned about saving properties. Director Chiu said that the Building Department plays no role in deciding what to save and the applications are still pending with City Planning. Director Chiu said that this issue should be brought to the attention of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. Director Chiu stated that DBI did not need to take any action on these properties at this time.
d. Update on parking allocations at 1660 Mission Street.
Director Chiu said that this particular item was brought to the Commission's attention by Vice-President Hood who was concerned with the 1660 Mission Street parking spaces. Director Chiu said that additionally Commissioner D'Anne was concerned with the number of parking spaces available for the entire City staff for DBI. Director Chiu stated that there are a total of sixty parking spaces at 1660 Mission, ten of which are reserved for DBI personnel, three for City Planning and one for the Fire Department. Director Chiu said that these spaces were already allocated by the Real Estate Department as it had something to do with the Planning issue to make sure that the proper amount of spaces were allocated for the public. Director Chiu said that if those spaces were subtracted there are a total of forty-six spaces available for the public in the building. Director Chiu said regarding the total number of parking spaces available, one block away from 1660 Mission Street, at 13th and Mission Street, there are approximately one hundred parking spaces dedicated for DBI employees. Director Chiu stated that he hoped this answered Vice-President Hood's concerns. Commissioner Walker said that she remembered Vice-President Hood speaking about being concerned that a lot of City cars park in front of the building and basically take up spaces that might be used for people who are coming in to get permits, etc. Commissioner Walker said that she thought Vice-President Hood was concerned about making sure that there was on the street parking spaces for the public, as it is always full of City cars. Director Chiu said that he believed Vice-President Hood was talking about the parking space inside. Commissioner Walker said that Vice-President Hood also mentioned parking in front of the building as she was trying to assess what the parking situation was in regard to staff and City employee cars. President Fillon said that Vice-President Hood was concerned about there being no parking for people coming to get permits. Director Chiu said that he would have to admit that a while back there was a real concern about there being too many City cars inside the garage, and since then the Department has been cracking down and making sure that there are no City cars parked in the garage, other than those that were allocated for staff. Director Chiu said that he would look into the issue of street parking by the staff as well. Commissioner Walker said that the street spaces are not counted as permanent parking for staff cars. Director Chiu said that these would not be counted. Commissioner Marks said that when this issue was discussed before she thought that even though in theory there would be only one car at a time from the Fire Department or whatever, in fact, the Department gets maybe four access cards and then all four cars are there. Commissioner Marks said that Director Chiu was planning to ask for the cards back. Director Chiu said that the Department has taken back cards and denied access to those people who were not specifically designated to have access cards. Director Chiu said that only those people who are authorized to use this privilege are now able to enter and DBI has asked the Real Estate Department to work with them so that there are not multiple cards for the spaces. Commissioner D'Anne stated that Director Chiu had mentioned forty-six public parking spaces and asked if there were any restrictions or costs to the public to park in those spaces. Director Chiu said that the Department is a tenant of the building and just as any real estate that is owned by the City is run by the Real Estate Department, so the public do get charged and employees who want to park inside are also charged. Commissioner D'Anne asked about the one hundred parking spaces on Mission Street and asked Director Chiu to clarify the location. Director Chiu said that there are another one hundred parking spaces for City personnel a block and a half away from the office. Commissioner D'Anne asked if the employees were charged for that parking. Director Chiu said that there is no charge because it is required by the Planning Department to provide parking spaces for the employees where the City cars are parked.
e. Update on shuttle service for 1660 Mission Street.
Director Chiu said that the Department went through a comparative bid process to provide shuttle service for DBI and anytime there is a contract involved the Department needs to work with the Human Rights Commission to go over the contract to make sure that a particular contractor is in compliance with all of the various City requirements. Director Chiu stated that the Department is at the stage of waiting for the Human Rights Commission to verify all of the requirements. Director Chiu said that hopefully as soon as DBI gets their endorsement, the Department could move on to signing contracts so the service can be provided.
Director Chiu said that this concluded his report for the meeting. President Fillon asked if there was any public comment on the items covered by the Director under the Director's Report, Item 3.
Mr. Terry Milne introduced himself as being from Bernal Heights and said that he wanted to comment on item 3a, Brewster Street. Mr. Milne said that the reason that the neighbors asked about the citing of these two houses is because in the past they saw surveys for the two adjacent lots where one house was built by the same contractor and one house is under construction with the same surveyor. Mr. Milne said that these houses, that are now virtually finished, did not line up with the other houses on the block. Mr. Milne said that the surveys that he saw in the past showed a different front property line and a different distance from the sidewalk than these two buildings. Mr. Milne said that he has seen a recent survey from the same surveyor that confirms that he was right the first three or four times that he did it. Mr. Milne stated that the neighbors had hoped that there would be some way for the City to be able to confirm this instead of relying on the original surveyor or the original builder. Mr. Milne said that the problem is that there are six or eight other vacant lots on this block and the neighbors are concerned about what the next guy who comes along is going to do; is he going to build in line with one set of houses, or in line with another set. Mr. Milne stated that this is a problem from the neighbor's standpoint because they knew what the first two adjacent houses were going to look like from the survey and now there is another one that is approved by the City and that is why he asked for the accuracy to be checked. Mr. Milne said that he was not clear from the Director's report how that accuracy was checked. Mr. Milne said that he had hoped that the City would be able to confirm the survey as opposed to just relying on the original surveyor.
Director Chiu said that DBI does not have its own surveyor crew and the City does not do this for private properties. Director Chiu stated that any time there is a dispute or a concern about a property being built over somebody else's property or not built within the property line, then the Department asks the project sponsor to hire another surveyor to verify and make sure that it is correct. Director Chiu said that these surveyors are licensed under the State of California and generally speaking it has been the policy of the Department to ask another surveyor to go back out to do a survey. Director Chiu said that this is what the Department has been doing, but perhaps the Commission wants the Department to revisit the policy and set up other guidelines. President Fillon asked if there was a surveyor on contract with the City to do this kind of work. Director Chiu said that there was nothing in place for DBI's purposes. Commissioner Santos said that there was a peer review for this issue. Director Chiu said that occasionally there are two different survey results and if that is the case, the Department has the project sponsor go and get another survey; if there is a survey dispute the Department asks for a third party to do another survey and be a kind of referee to determine which survey is correct. Commissioner Santos asked who paid for the survey and if it was the developer. Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to comment as she lives in Bernal Heights. Vice-President Hood said that it took her a very long time to find out where her property lines were because there have been street widenings in this area and this may be the source of the problem with these lots. Vice-President Hood said that she was not familiar with this particular block, but said that she knew that it is quite confusing in the Bernal area. Vice-President Hood said that she believed that this could stem, not just from the survey, but from information about what the public right of way is. Vice-President Hood said that some of the houses were obviously built with the understanding that the property line was in one place, so there was a pattern, and now it has changed and there seems to be a genuine lack of information about where the street property line is. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that the Department should have someone from the Bureau of Engineering verify the street right of way for this block face, as she has known surveyors not to have the correct information anymore because it was recorded on one map and is only in one place, and there is no way of directing people to that one place. Vice-President Hood said that the surveyor is sometimes relying on the original subdivision or something of that sort. Vice-President Hood said that this situation sounds to her like it is that sort of thing and not a survey error, but it seems that there was some kind of information that was available to some of those people that was not available to the others. Vice-President Hood said that this matter needs to be looked into further to find out what the source is, as it is not a matter of getting another surveyor involved, but is a matter of knowing what the history is for that particular parcel. Vice-President Hood said that she finds that it is really confusing and people have to go personally to the Bureau of Engineering and said that someone from DBI should do that to clear up the confusion. President Fillon said that before the Department does this he wanted to know if Director Chiu had seen the survey. Director Chiu said that he did not personally see the new survey results, but Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson and Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau actually saw the new survey results. President Fillon asked Director Chiu about the older survey. Director Chiu said that he would have Deputy Director Hutchinson speak to the Commission as he did not personally see any of the surveys, but it was his understanding that the neighbors were concerned, so the Department went back and checked and found that the buildings were within the property line. President Fillon asked if Director Chiu would be willing to meet with the parties to review the surveys to see where the discrepancy is before the Department does anything else. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to meet with them and look at the surveys personally, but stated that he wanted to respond to Vice-President Hood's suggestion. Director Chiu said that he could transmit a memo to Director Ed Lee at DPW and let him know that DBI is concerned about the public right of way to make sure that the property is built not encroaching onto City property. Director Chiu said that he would personally go back and look at the two survey results and report back with his findings. Vice-President Hood said that she would like Director Chiu to copy her on his letter. President Fillon said that it is common in Bernal Heights to have houses over property lines and garages over property lines and in the street, as it is the nature of that area. President Fillon said that maybe it is time to take a new look at the situation. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to forward the memo to Director Ed Lee about the Commission's concern and ask him to send someone out to verify that people are not building onto the City property. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to be kept in the loop about this and if there were anything she could do such as meeting with the neighbors, she would be happy to do that. Director Chiu thanked Vice-President Hood for her offer.
Mr. Bill Ausseresses said that he wanted to comment on item 3b of the Director's report. Mr. Ausseresses stated that he was one of the owners of the property at 769 North Point. Mr. Ausseresses said that on May 3, 2001, as a result of his complaint about this drainage problem, four representatives of the Building Department came to his home to inspect the situation. Mr. Ausseresses said that the four individuals were Mr. Tom, Mr. Farrow, Mr. Hill and Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Ausseresses said that if he understood the Director's report correctly, he is saying that there is nothing wrong; however this drainage problem continues to drip on his property and is a damn nuisance because water drips down and enters his garage and runs through his garage out through the sidewalk. Mr. Ausseresses said that this makes the garage damp among other things. Mr. Ausseresses stated that he personally paid for a well known roofing expert to go up on the roof and take photographs which he previously submitted to President Fillon to show the problem that exists up there. Mr. Ausseresses said that he wanted to comment that not one City Building Inspector ever got up on the roof, but have always inspected the property from the ground and came to the conclusion that there is no problem. Mr. Ausseresses stated that he took enormous exception to that kind of an inspection. Mr. Ausseresses said that he would not be satisfied with this report and stated that it forces him to take additional action either against the City or the incompetence on the part of the representatives from the City. Mr. Ausseresses said that this has been a long and protracted situation and the other owner had some difficulties with the owner of that property, but they were legal matters that were resolved in the California Court of Appeals and had nothing to do with the drainage problem that he was speaking about. Mr. Ausseresses said that he had photographic evidence of this leak, one on a digital camera where you can watch the water drip; it ponds up on the roof and just drips, drips, drips until it just finally dries up. Mr. Ausseresses said that this is nothing but a damn nuisance and it was going to stop one way or the other. Mr. Ausseresses stated that he did not know whether he had to have litigation against the people that own the property there now, or if he has to involve the City in that litigation for not doing there job. Mr. Ausseresses said that Mr. Chiu was alleging that DBI did do their job and they found nothing wrong. Mr. Ausseresses said, not be redundant, but he takes exception to that and thanked the Commission for listening to him. President Fillon asked how long Mr. Ausseresses had lived with this situation. Mr. Ausseresses said that the problem began in 1998. President Fillon asked if Mr. Ausseresses had observed damage to his roof because of this leak. Mr. Ausseresses said that it was not damage to the roof, as the roof had been replaced, but it is in the drainage itself as the house is a typical row house and the two roofs come down with the 767 roof being a little lower. Mr. Ausseresses said that the 769 address had made a parapet that runs all along the property and as a result of installing some dormers, in violation of the existing City codes which require that they be set back three feet and can't be larger than eight feet, they were moved down to within four inches of the roof line. Mr. Ausseresses said that this left no room for a parapet so the Building Department authorized the removal of the parapet and flashing was installed along there. Mr. Ausseresses said that naturally when it is raining all of the water just drips off of the flashing and comes down the side of the neighbor's building, and the problem is, having built those dormers as they did, they have no way to service them. Mr. Ausseresses said that the neighbor would always have to come to him in the future if they want to do any maintenance or paint them. Mr. Ausseresses stated that the dormers are only half painted because they couldn't get to them. Mr. Ausseresses said that he found that incredible, that the City would allow this kind of construction that involves another property owner. Mr. Ausseresses said that the attorney for his neighbor now alleges that they have created a dominant easement and he has a serviant easement and the neighbor can come in any time they want to and do whatever they want to do in the way of maintaining those dormers. Mr. Ausseresses stated that he was not going to sit still for that kind of nonsense because the Building Department or the Planning Department has no right to involve his property in someone else's problems. Mr. Ausseresses said that this is not settled at this point and stated that he respected Mr. Chiu's statement. President Fillon said that it sounded like Mr. Ausseresses problem wasn't with the damage of the leak so much as the easement. Mr. Ausseresses said that it was the leak and the creation of the easement. Commissioner Guinnane said that he and Commissioner Santos would go out and look at the problem and bring back their findings to the Commission at the next meeting. President Fillon said that would be fine as long as a staff person accompanied the Commissioners. Director Chiu said that he wanted to put it on the record that a number of staff have been involved with this situation and did do a hose test of the roof and at that time it was draining properly. Director Chiu said that the Department did not want to get involved with the easement issue or the size of the dormers, but just with the drainage issue. President Fillon said that the easement would be a Planning issue. Director Chiu said that it would be a legal issue. Vice-President Hood said that she did not think that Planning Department ever granted easements. President Fillon said that if it involved the dormers to be built outside of the allowable envelope that would be a Planning issue and is what triggered the easement. Vice-President Hood said that the Planning Department couldn't grant an easement on another person's property. Mr. Ausseresses said that the Planning Department did as a matter of fact ask to rescind the permit that permitted them to make that horizontal additional to the building, but unfortunately the Building Department had already allowed the neighbor to build it, so they couldn't back up then and make them start over. Mr. Ausseresses said that he found this amazing because he had a property in Daly City, and they are pretty ridged on their building instructions, and they wanted a fire escape put on from the second floor from the ground. Mr. Ausseresses said that he put it outside the building as he thought it would be better to have it outside so people could get out and go down the stairs on the outside, and Daly City made him tear it down and put it inside. Mr. Ausseresses said that he had to do that, so he said that if things are wrong they could be corrected. President Fillon said that the two Commissioners had volunteered to go out to the property. Mr. Ausseresses said that he appreciated this. Commissioner Santos said that the offer was related to the drainage and only to the drainage. Commissioner Santos said that he and Commissioner Guinnane would not be getting into the dormers, the litigation and problems with old neighbors. Mr. Ausseresses said that the litigation had nothing to do with this nuisance problem. Commissioner Santos said that he and Commissioner Guinnane would meet at the property to deal with the water only.
4. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Mr. Randy Shaw introduced himself as Director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and asked the secretary to pass copies of a letter to the Commissioners. Mr. Shaw said that those Commissioners who had been on the Commission from the start know that it has always been the practice, particularly in the Housing Code Enforcement area, that every decision, every policy and every procedure ever adopted for Housing Code Enforcement since 1995 has been first either discussed at a meeting among all of the various interest groups at the Department, as well as at the Commission so that it was clearly a public process. Mr. Shaw said that unfortunately since Chief Stansfield retired he has seen a series of actions taken by Housing that the Commission has never approved, has never been informed about, or that neither landlords nor tenant groups have ever been consulted about. Mr. Shaw said that one of the issues is on the agenda, which is the cancellation of Director's Hearings. Mr. Shaw stated that what he found astonishing was that on Monday he was handed the document dated June 4th that stated that these things were all starting and he wondered where it came from. Mr. Shaw said that it is even on the agenda for the Commission and stated that he had talked to Deputy Director Hutchinson about all of this stuff and Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Commission would decide. Mr. Shaw said that he did not know what happened after that conversation and why something would come out on Monday. Mr. Shaw said that everyone has to operate in a way where the people are consulted and there is the kind of collaborative process that has been done, and in this case that hasn't occurred. Mr. Shaw said that he hoped the Commission would make it clear that the Department needs to go back to that because first of all, even though there is an item about the Director's hearings on the agenda, there can't really be a discussion at a Commission meeting because everyone gets up to speak for two or three minutes. Mr. Shaw said that this type of discussion should occur at the Department with real estate groups, tenant groups and all of the stakeholders involved and then come to the Commission to see if there is conflict or agreement. Mr. Shaw said that staff couldn't be just unilaterally changing policies affecting groups without any Commission input, as this is why the Commission was formed. Mr. Shaw said that this is a real problem and stated that he wanted the Commission to tell Director Chiu to make sure that this is what should occur in the future.
Janan New introduced herself as the Director of the San Francisco Apartment Association and stated that rarely do she and Randy Shaw agree on anything. Ms. New said that she couldn't have expressed herself better than Randy just did. Ms. New stated that she addressed a letter to the Commission earlier this month stating that since Chief Inspector Stansfield left her group has had some concerns about the operation of the Department. Ms. New said that she was not sure why there is a requirement for title reports by the Department now and why the Director's Hearings have been suspended. Ms. New stated that the San Francisco Apartment Association has worked very well with the Commission and Director Chiu and think that he is great as there has always been an open door policy. Ms. New said that clearly some meetings need to be convened with Housing Inspection Services about why the change in policy and the increase in cost that her members will ultimately bear because of this. Ms. New said that she represented rental property owners and if title reports are going to be required now Ms. New said that it would be the property owners that would be paying this increased cost of at least $150 or more. Ms. New said that she did not think that this was bad policy, or good policy, but she just doesn't understand where it is coming from and the group needs to understand.
Mr. Keith Packer introduced himself and said that his partner was Jeff Maready. Mr. Packer stated that he and Jeff appeared before the Commission in early April at a regular meeting to speak about the construction project at 4733 - 18th Street next to their home. Mr. Packer said specifically his house is now out of code because the new house was built too close to the chimney. Mr. Packer said that as an update, they had met with Commissioner Santos to discuss potential options for modifications to their fireplace and/or chimney and have met with an architect twice and believe that they may be able to develop a solution that is acceptable. Mr. Packer said that he and Mr. Maready were feeling good about that and were appreciative of Commissioner Santos and his efforts to help them resolve the issue; however Mr. Packer said that his optimism was guarded after receiving a letter from the owners and their attorneys (Mr. Packer passed a copy of this letter to the Commissioners) threatening to sue them because they requested a hearing with the Department of Public Works. Mr. Packer said that in early February, at the suggestion of the Department of Public Works staff and after receiving neighborhood notification, he did request a public hearing and the owners and their attorneys sent him a letter dated April 30, 2001 regarding that hearing request. Mr. Packer said that the letter indicates that the request for a public hearing delayed the project for three months and threatens that if the request for hearing were not dropped, the owners would hold Mr. Packer and Mr. Maready responsible for damages caused to them as a result of the delay. Mr. Packer said that construction has been delayed, but stated that he did not know why so there appears to be more going on at the project than what he is aware of. Mr. Packer said that no correspondence has been received from the owners that indicate that they are willing to pay for modifications to his home or chimney to solve the problem so until that happens he and Mr. Maready felt that they needed to provide an update to the Commission. Mr. Packer said that he and Mr. Maready are continuing to work with other City organizations. Mr. Packer stated that there are other significant issues associated with this construction project, one being a fifth story penthouse stairway that was constructed without being included in the original permit. Mr. Packer said that he had learned from Inspector Carla Johnson that the original permit was modified in the spring of 2000 to include the stairway; however, neighbors were not notified. Mr. Packer said that individuals at the counter in the Planning Department have indicated that these changes should have been review by Planning and flagged for neighborhood notification. Mr. Packer stated that this was consistent with his understanding of Administrative Bulletin No. 53 that states that permits containing exterior changes, removals and changes should be reviewed. Mr. Packer said that the owners told him that the footprint of the original earthquake cottage would not be exceeded, however, the new structure does exceed the original footprint by more than ten feet in the back and certainly impacts the view from the back of his property. Mr. Packer said that he had passed a sketch and photograph to the Commissioners and said that a sketch was sent to the neighbors in the original and only notification, and did not include any depiction of a fourth story, nor the now constructed fifth story penthouse stairway. Mr. Packer said that he wanted to bring these additional issues forward and ask for the Commission's help and guidance in where he might be able to go to resolve them.
Vice-President Hood said she would like to ask the Director if the Department had received any complaints about work done without a permit and if he could look into that issue. Mr. Packer gave the Commissioners letters written by other neighbors that could not attend the meeting.
Mr. Chris Sims said that he wanted to speak about a complaint that was made to the Building Department back in January 2001 regarding no heat in a unit for eight years. Mr. Sims stated that this had gone unabated for the past five months. Mr. Sims said that there was a person living in this unit who is five months pregnant and the whole building at 333 Webster Street is pretty much in very bad condition. Mr. Sims said that the Housing Inspector had been out and Building Inspector Carla Johnson had cited the property owner for doing major renovations without permits in the building. Mr. Sims said that since the complaint was initially made there has been retaliation by the landlord who is now putting eviction proceedings against the tenant who complained. Mr. Sims asked what sort of steps could be taken in order to get a heater in this unit. Mr. Sims stated that he spoke with Housing Inspector Patrick McKenzie yesterday about this issue and Inspector McKenzie told him that there was an access problem and that people were not being allowed access into the unit. Mr. Sims stated that this was not true and said that there has been access to the unit every time that anyone has come there to try and fix anything. Mr. Sims said that there was an old heater that the owner tried to put in the unit that had been used as a fish stand for four years and tried to repair it to make it look like there was always a heater and it didn't work. Mr. Sims said that he wanted to complain about the inspection process and the expedience of having this issue resolved. Mr. Sims thanked the Commission.
Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that he wanted to let the Commission know that the Department has been looking into this problem and there are a lot of issues involved. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he spoke with Inspector McKenzie last night and stated that he was in conversation with the City Attorney's Office to try and reach a solution, but on the face of this issue it is not quite that simple. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that there is a whole list of issues that the Department is prepared to deal with in this matter. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that after he has met with the City Attorney and after he was able to review this case, he would prepare a report. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he wanted to assure the Commission that the Department has been out to the property numerous times and the police have also been there numerous times. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he has been told that the repairs have been done, perhaps under police supervision, and he is unclear as to why there is still a problem, but the Department is going to stay involved until this gets resolved. President Fillon asked why police supervision was necessary. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he has asked for a copy of the police report and staff is attempting to get a copy of the incident report from the Police Department so that he can read it and be clear as to what the circumstances were. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that apparently his staff people and the repair people were involved, or at least that is what he has been told, and he would like to find out. President Fillon said that the public member wanted to know what steps he could take. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that the Department clearly has a complaint at this time, apparently the heat is not working and the Inspector has visited the property. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that because of what he was told by Acting Chief McKenzie and given all the serious charges back and forth, he has opted to deal with the City Attorney towards a resolution. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this was more involved than just sending somebody out to do a posting and making sure it gets fixed. Vice-President Hood said that her understanding of the Housing Code is that when there is a Notice of Violation regarding heat then somebody has to provide heat within 24 hours. Vice-President Hood said they could just plug in an electrical heater until they get the other heat fixed. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that there are a lot of things that the Department can do and his understanding is that there are allegations that the heat has in fact been fixed at a point in time and the Department is unsure why it is not working again. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this is an ongoing problem that the Department would like to resolve. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that it might be more involved than sending someone in to fix a heater; if the Department sends someone in to fix the heater, will it be operational and will it remain operational. Commissioner Walker asked if this could be brought to the Litigation Committee because it has not been on the list of problem properties, but sounds like it has been an ongoing issue. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he wanted the Commission to have confidence that the Department has been trying to deal with this. Vice-President Hood said that it would be good to have Deputy Director Hutchinson report back on this in a month. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Department would continue to work with the tenants as there needs to be heat in the property. Vice-President Hood said that there needs to be both a temporary and permanent solution and stated that there are plenty of safe units that can provide heat and the cost is such in electricity that maybe this would be an encouragement to the landlord.
Mr. Sims said that he did not want this to sound like an indictment towards the Building Inspection Department, but he wanted the Department to know that he is dealing with a very sticky situation with the landlord; the person in question in the unit helped the owner to buy this building. Mr. Sims said that later the tenants found out that the owner did six months in jail last year for destroying property down in Santa Cruz and it was in the San Jose Mercury News. Mr. Sims stated that somebody needs to look into this as there are some very criminal activities going on at the address and he would appreciate some sort of investigation. President Fillon said that if there is criminal activity Mr. Sims should go to the Police Department.
Mr. Todd Wilson said that he wanted to speak about the property at 4733 - 18th Street. Mr. Wilson referred to the sketch that was handed out to the Commission earlier and said that this was the sketch that was submitted by the project sponsor to the neighbors three weeks before the 311 notification was sent in the mail. Mr. Wilson stated that the sketch clearly shows a three story building and what is being constructed is a four story building with a fifth floor penthouse roof access. Mr. Wilson said that he was wondering how to stop this project as even the plans don't show a fourth floor and it seems that the project sponsor violated something. Mr. Wilson said that he is not an architect or a lawyer so he does not know what was violated, but this property is half built and the neighbors are requesting a request for jurisdiction with the Board of Appeals to open up the hearing process again. Mr. Wilson said that all of the neighbors looked at the original sketch and thought that it was a delightful building that would fit in. Vice-President Hood said that it was unfortunate, but perspectives don't tell what is actually intended because if the vanishing point is taken the right way, the fourth floor would not be visible as it is set back. Vice-President Hood said that as part of the notice, the neighbors should have gotten elevations of all facades. Mr. Wilson said that the elevation did not show a fourth floor and passed drawings to the Commissioners. Vice-President Hood said that all four sides of the building should be shown and the elevation. Vice-President Hood said that if Mr. Wilson thought that construction had been done beyond the permit, he should file a complaint with the Department of Building Inspection and an Inspector can be sent out; if construction has exceeded the permit, the construction can be stopped and any illegal construction can be removed. Mr. Wilson said that parts of the plan do show a fourth floor and parts don't. Vice-President Hood said that it is hard if it is shown somewhere on the plans to be so clear about it, but the neighbors needed to have received notice and this sounds like a complicated thing. Vice-President Hood said that the first thing to do is to file a complaint with the Building Department if Mr. Wilson feels that there has been a violation of the permit. President Fillon said that in looking at the plans, it is very evident from the North and South elevation that there is an upper floor and it is just on the 18th Street elevation that it is not shown. Mr. Wilson said that the neighbors are trying to say that they have been duped by someone who was very sophisticated. President Fillon said that if the neighbors had all of the pages, it could be easily seen. Mr. Wilson said that he was not an architect. Vice-President Hood said that it was at least ambiguous. President Fillon said that the project sponsor provided the information and it is up to Mr. Wilson to decipher it somehow. Vice-President Hood said that Mr. Wilson might have a very good claim, as she believed that the different drawings were contradictory and felt that Mr. Wilson could make a good argument for that. President Fillon asked if the neighbors were at the Board of Appeals with this issue. Mr. Wilson said that yes, the neighbors are going to the Board of Appeals. President Fillon said that this issue was not on the agenda and he appreciated Mr. Wilson's comments and sympathized with the situation.
Mr. Steve Donovan said that he was also going to comment on 4733 - 18th Street. Mr. Donovan stated that he lived directly behind the property and is also not an architect and received the elevation and thought that this was an excellent idea and did not raise an appeal against this particular property. Mr. Donovan said that from his perspective, which is some ten feet below the property, it looks like a New York skyscraper and from the side of the building it looks like a docked cruise liner. Mr. Donovan stated that this is not in conjunction with the plans that were submitted. Mr. Donovan said that half of Noe Valley was in the room this afternoon to say that they have been duped, as the plans are not clear and they would like some recommendations from the Commission as to how to continue and move forward to have this rectified. Mr. Donovan thanked the Commission.
Mr. Philip Malone stated that he lived on the 4700 block of 18th Street and would make some brief comments. Mr. Malone said that his primary concern was that the original and only notification that was received by the neighbors certainly did not make clear a fifth story stairwell. Mr. Malone said that the project was described as a three-story building and there is now a fourth story as well as a fifth story stairwell; this project really does tower over everything else in the neighborhood. Mr. Malone said that from his perspective, which is seven or eight houses up the street, well above this project, it still significantly blocks his view. Mr. Malone said that at the time of the notification when he saw a three-story building there was no reason at all to be concerned, but as built without any further notification, it is in fact very different and is much higher than anyone had reason to expect and it does in fact block his view. Vice-President Hood said that if there was an ineffective notice, she thought that the neighbors had a very good claim; however, the BIC does not have jurisdiction, the Board of Appeals has jurisdiction. Vice-President Hood suggested that Mr. Malone take all of his information to the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Jeff Dama stated that he owned the house at 4745 - 18th Street and was present to speak about 4733 - 18th Street. Mr. Dama said that he hated to beat a dead horse, but said that he took his time to come to the Commission and would like to at least go though a list of issues that have arisen. Mr. Dama said that he just moved into his house last year and feels that there could be some significant impairment to the neighborhood when looking at all of the disclosure information provided to the neighborhood, whether from the owners, the architects or from City disclosures, they were led to believe that this would be a neighborhood enhancement, that would provide appropriate visibility and appearance and fit in, blend in and enhance the neighborhood and the value of the neighborhood. Mr. Dama said that these were words used by the owners in a letter to all of the surrounding property owners. Mr. Dama said that he looks back at the process and begins to question the notification that was provided, or not provided, and looks at the tremendous amount of time that neighbors have taken to go to various City Departments to try and inquire what is it that was supposed to have happened. Mr. Dama stated that unfortunately the construction began about eight or nine months ago and now it has stopped, which the neighbors are grateful for, but are stuck in a sense of what to do to move the project forward. Mr. Dama said that he has had multiple conversations with Carla Johnson and has requested her, to review when she goes out for her inspection, to look at things such as measurements that are to scale and measurements that are not to scale on the same drawing. Mr. Dama stated that he has asked Carla Johnson to explain this to him as in one case he thought there should be a 21 foot set back and Ms. Johnson will tell him that there are no measurements on the page he is looking at and he should refer to another page that shows the set back to be only 14 feet. Mr. Dama said that this is the first time he has looked at these kinds of drawings and said that the drawings do not represent what is actually being presented to the neighbors. Mr. Dama said that in speaking with Mark Leno's office, he has become aware that one of the structural engineers on this project is a board member for the Building Inspection Commission. Mr. Dama said that this is something that was not disclosed as a related party, and stated that he felt extremely duped that everything that the neighbors have been led to believe always seems to have a second story behind it. Mr. Dama said that he can't point to one thing in particular and say that it is illegal as everything he has asked the Building Inspector about, he has been told has been built to code. Mr. Dama stated that he asked about the penthouse and was told that it was fire code. Mr. Dama said that if it is fire code for a building of four stories or over 40 feet in height, and this was known at the beginning then why wasn't it on the original plans; why is it something that came in after the fact, after it was constructed. Mr. Dama said that there is not a day that goes by that someone doesn't stop in front of his house and stare in amazement at this structure, as it is truly a monstrosity and completely out of context with the neighborhood. Mr. Dama said that he would simply ask if there is any opportunity at the Building Inspection Commission for a complete review of the plans, as the neighbors do plan to reopen public comment for any potential alterations that could be made or required of this plan. Mr. Dama submitted a picture of the new structure.
President Fillon said that given that this item is already going to the Board of Permit Appeals and they have a higher jurisdiction than the BIC, it would be prudent for the BIC to wait and see what comes out of the Board of Appeals. President Fillon stated that in terms of the legality of the plans, the Department can take a look at them to make sure they are code compliant and that the process was followed correctly. President Fillon said that there was enough people present at the meeting to protest and the Commission were very impressed by that fact. President Fillon said that obviously the neighbors are feeling duped, so the Department should look into this issue. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to know if the Planning Department approved the addition of the stair enclosure because that is like pouring oil on the fire. Vice-President Hood said that she felt that this was not required for exiting purposes. Mr. Packer said that by going up Kite Hill with a pair of binoculars it appears that the fourth level has been prepared such that after the building is built, the owners will be able to add a deck on the fifth floor of the house and that kind of thing would be so obtrusive beyond what's already there to think that something further could be added. Mr. Packer said that certainly nothing about the project has been straightforward so the neighbors would not be surprised if the owners tried to put a fifth floor deck on the house. Vice-President Hood said that she would also suggest that the neighbors look into getting some legal advice about whether or not there was misrepresentation in the original permit that could have been misrepresented to the Planning and Building Departments, as well as to the neighbors. Mr. Packer asked if there was any issue regarding the disclosure from the homeowner's standpoint, for example when he hears that a property is being developed and built to know that an engineer or an architect or someone involved in that project, is a member of the Inspection Commission that oversees and reviews that project. Vice-President Hood said that Rodrigo Santos is the Commissioner who is a structural engineer and Vice-President Hood said that she sits in the architects seat and is an architect. Vice-President Hood stated that the intent of the legislation that created this Commission would be that the Commission have active people in the City who are serving in these various capacities; the tenant is a tenant, the contractor is a builder and so on. Vice-President Hood said that this particular Commission is exempt from not being able to do any public work, unlike a Conflict of Interest, and it is unusual in that respect. Vice-President Hood said that if there was an issue that came up and if 18th Street was actually on the calendar or if was a project that she worked on, she would have to leave. President Fillon said that Commissioner Santos would have to recuse himself from voting on something like this. Vice-President Hood said that the BIC never reviews permits as that is done by the Building Department; the Commissioners know nothing about them. President Fillon stated that there is nothing illegal about Commissioner Santos working as an engineer on projects in San Francisco. Mr. Packer said that he was not present to assert blame, but was trying to get a better understanding of the process. Mr. Packer stated that when he goes to talk to someone he is told it meets code and this Department signed off on it, you need to go talk to someone else. President Fillon said that this was not an agenda item and the Commission could not spend any more time on it. Commissioner Walker said that it was outside of the BIC's jurisdiction. President Fillon stated that the Director has agreed to look at this again to reexamine the permit. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to send an Inspector out again, even with a Senior Inspector, to make sure that the project is being built according to the approved set of plans that was reviewed and approved by both Planning and Building Department. President Fillon asked that Director Chiu look at the building height.
Commissioner Marks said that she wanted to bring up an item that was brought up by several people and there was an agenda item specifically for the title search, but said that she would like a response from the Director about the issue of when there are changes of policy in the Department and reportedly it is discussed first with interested parties. Director Chiu said that since he has not had a chance to look at the issue, he would not be able to respond at this time, but would be happy to report back at the next meeting. Commissioner Walker said that perhaps the Commission could deal with this when agenda items for the future was discussed.
President Fillon said that as agreed to at the beginning of the meeting, the Commission would now discuss Item #8.
8. Report, discussion and possible action to continue or discontinue expansion of 1660 Mission Street.
Director Chiu said that this project has been ongoing for the past two and one-half years where the Department has been trying to build an annex to have more space. Director Chiu said that one of the reasons he strongly supported this at that time was because the Department had a surplus and the economy was quite strong. Director Chiu said that after nearly three years, the Department has spent over $1.2M and as of today there is still not an approved set of permits to move forward. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Guinnane was very concerned about the ongoing expenditure and asked for this item to be on the agenda. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to answer any questions, but wanted to let the Commissioners know that any time a City project is involved with doing any building or remodeling legally by Charter the Department has to retain the Bureau of Architecture to act as the project manager. Director Chiu said that the Bureau of Architecture takes over in terms of design and this is why in the report dated June 4, 2001 it shows that DBI has paid $732,000 to the Bureau of Architecture. Director Chiu said that he wanted to clarify that DBI has no choice, but to work with DPW with the project management and design. Director Chiu stated that he was concerned about the amount of money that has been spent so far and about the time that this has taken. Commissioner Guinnane said that his biggest concern about this project is that it has been going on for so long and the massive amount of money that is being spent. Commissioner Guinnane said that he knew that the Department had a fairly large surplus, but his concerns are that in the future there will be a slowdown in growth and revenue income and this extension would not be needed at this time. Commissioner Guinnane said that a lot has happened in the last couple of years with the economy and the way things are going in San Francisco and when he sees $1,230,000 being spent and there is not even a permit to date, he gets really alarmed about that. Commissioner Guinnane said that if the Department keeps going on with this project, the $12M surplus will be gone and the Department will be in the hole, as it is not tied to the General Fund. Director Chiu stated that he did not believe that there was a $12M surplus and said that he thought it was a lot less than that. Director Chiu said that he was concerned about spending all of this money on changes, even though he welcomed ideas, and wondered when it was going to stop in terms of additional costs that keep coming up. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was any projection on future numbers. Director Chiu said that he did speak with Gerald Green and his outlook is that everyone knows that the .dot com has gone away and there are fewer and fewer large projects coming into the pipeline. Director Chiu said that the economy has a domino affect and it may take another year or two for it to hit DBI, but there are few large projects in the pipeline and the Department needs to start looking at how it wants to spend this money, for an expansion or for staffing. Director Chiu stated that he and Assistant Director Amy Lee have been talking about how the Department can tighten its belt now. Commissioner Guinnane asked Assistant Director Amy Lee to comment on the financials for the Department. Assistant Director Lee said that DBI's revenues are still somewhat solid and are not plummeting, but in the past two months the Department has seen a significant decrease in revenue from prior months and prior years, so the Department is seeing the slowdown even though later than other departments and companies. Assistant Director Lee said that regarding the project itself, the Department had to let the contract bid die and could not renew it so the cost is sure to increase regardless of any changes, even if DBI does not go forward with the suggestions of a roof garden there is still going to be increased costs because the project has been delayed for so long. Assistant Director Lee said that there is an increase in expenditures and the Department is seeing reduction in revenues.
Assistant Director Lee said that she wanted the Commission to know that the Department has leased a significant amount of space at 1650 Mission Street for the Department's concerns in terms of spacing and staff have been relocated to different areas. Assistant Director Lee said that initially one of the reasons the Department was going forward a couple of years ago for this expansion was because space was tight, but now with the new 1650 lease, the Department is sufficient in space allocations. Commissioner Guinnane asked how many square feet were leased at 1650 Mission and what personnel were there. Assistant Director Lee stated that she was not sure of the square footage, but said that right now more of the administrative personnel are at 1650 Mission; that included Administration and Finance, Personnel, Technical Services, Records Management and most recently more space was added for Code Enforcement and Special Projects, as well as additional staff. Assistant Director Lee said that there is still a substantial amount of vacant space and will be moving current 1660 staff over to 1650. Assistant Director Lee said that is still vacant space for 15 to 20 people. Commissioner Walker asked what was the term of the lease. Assistant Director Lee said that she was not sure of the term, but was sure that the Department was not going to get bumped off of the lease. Vice-President Hood asked what was the current construction cost that is known for the annex. Assistant Director Lee stated that initially it started at $4.6M and increased subsequently to $5.2M and is still $5.4M and that would increase as well. Commissioner Walker asked if that was on top of what the Department spent for prep work. Assistant Director Lee said that was correct. Vice-President Hood asked if there were going to be any additional parking spaces and Assistant Director Lee answered no. President Fillon said that it was going to be built over the existing parking lot. President Fillon stated that he felt there was sufficient reason to put this project on hold especially since additional space has been secured and financially no one knows where things are going. President Fillon said that he would like to see the project put on hold.
Vice-President Hood said that she was going to play the devil's advocate and said that she thought that the City went through a time last summer when there was a huge demand for space. Vice-President Hood stated that she thought that the best time to add new space is when you don't need it. Vice-President Hood said that when you have to go all the way outside and go up to the other Department that there is going to be a perception on the part of those people that they are sort of out of the loop with the rest of the Department. Vice-President Hood said that she could see a sort of golden opportunity here that may not come again, and certainly if the Department did try to build the expansion five or ten years from now, it would probably cost double what it would cost now and everyone will be kicking themselves for not going ahead with it while the opportunity is here. Assistant Director Lee said, to address one point, she was told that if the Department did move forward with the expansion, the number of spaces that it would create would still not be sufficient to house the entire Department in 1660 and some sort of space will still be needed at 1650. Vice-President Hood stated that this did not make sense to her and said that she would really like to see the space studies that come to that conclusion. Vice-President Hood asked if the $1.2M had been spent with the Bureau of Architecture (BOA). Director Chiu said that $732,000 was spent with the BOA. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that this amount was very questionable and said that she would like Assistant Director Lee to show what the difference is in mortgage cost. Vice-President Hood asked if the City built with mortgages. Assistant Director Lee said that the Department would just pay for it outright. Vice-President Hood said that she would suspect that since that is the case that it would be much more cost effective to build your own space and figure out a very economic way of using it than it would be to continue to lease the 1650 space, because the lease over time is going to go up whereas if it was built at this time there would be a fixed cost forever and typically that is a much better strategy. Vice-President Hood said that this is especially true because it is not likely that DBI will decrease significantly in the future. Vice-President Hood said that those were her ideas and she felt it was a very good idea to go ahead with the project and said that the Department should tell the Bureau of Architecture that they have enough money and they haven't really given the Department what it needs. President Fillon said that he would like to hear from the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Marks said that she was curious, as the issue of expansion has come before the Commission only in reference to the use of the employee open space and said she wondered why there has been such a delay. Assistant Director Lee said that there were protests made to change the building scope to include a roof garden. Commissioner Marks asked if it was just that one issue that held the project up. Director Chiu said that the actual construction starting date was supposed to have been October of last year and then because of the encouragement of everyone, including himself, the Department thought that everyone could come to a quick resolution to resolve the open space issue. Director Chiu said that this has been dragging on for over seven months and he said he was disappointed that no agreement could be reached in a timely manner.
Commissioner Guinnane said that the Department had spent $1,230,000 to this point and asked Assistant Director Amy Lee what it would take to get the permit today, what would be the final number, $1.5M? Director Chiu said that it was his understanding the Bureau of Architecture came in with a bill of $1.3M for the service and said that the Department would be questioning the bill. Vice-President Hood said that over 20% in architecture fees, never, never happens in the private world and it should only be about 10% for this kind of straight forward building and maybe even 15% if there is a really good designer, such as Ian Pay. Assistant Director Lee said that there was also some project management fees incorporated with the BOA fees, not just architectural design, but it includes project management and contract management. Commissioner Santos said that it would also include structural drawings. Commissioner D'Anne asked if there was a time certain that the Department could get this project going. Assistant Director Lee said that the Department did not know because there was going to be a hearing. President Fillon said that the forces out there that continue to protest are still there and still holding the project back from happening. Commissioner D'Anne asked if they had a legal right to protest. President Fillon answered that of course they do, but the Department also has the right to say that the opportunity to move this project forward has already passed. Commissioner Walker said that it was the Union for the Planners that have been asking for open space that weren't satisfied and that is when the Commission started hearing about it. Commissioner Guinnane asked Assistant Director Lee if the Department could wind up the soft costs and get the permit at $1,750,000 and if it costs $6,000,000 to build it, where would the surplus be at that point. Assistant Director Lee said that she would have to go back to the Board of Supervisors for the difference and reduce the surplus accordingly. Commissioner Guinnane asked how much the difference would be. Assistant Director Lee said that the difference would be at least $1M on top of whatever has been put aside already as the $5M has already been put aside in an account. Commissioner Guinnane said that most of the problems that he sees with the project has been with Lois Scott from the Planning Department that had the most problem with the project design. Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not see Ms. Scott at the meeting, but it seemed that she was the one that was really holding it up. Commissioner Walker said that it was the Union and stated that she did not know the history of the negotiations with the Union, but it may have helped a little bit more if the Department was more accommodating early on in the process. Commissioner Marks said that was what was shocking to her as she followed it for the year and a half that she has been on the Commission and stated that she did not realize that by not coming to an agreement with the Union it would mean that the contract expired because it does seem like there were long periods when the Union felt that they were being ignored. Commissioner Marks said that it looks that way from the documents that the Commissioners were getting. Commissioner Marks said that she felt if the Commissioners knew that the deadline was October they would have insisted that there be an agreement by October. Vice-President Hood said that she did not think that the Commission had all of the information on the table today to make a decision about this and said that she would like to know the following; the first thing is what would it take to make the Union happy and what is feasible. Vice-President Hood said that she felt that this question had not been answered because there have been a lot of design studies, but no one has sat down and said that the problem had to be solved and some conclusions had to be made. Assistant Director Lee stated that she was under the impression that the Union would be happy with an open space, roof top garden and that was what they were seeking because the Department had made adjustments to get open space, but it was not satisfactory. Vice-President Hood said that if they got the roof garden it would have been a done deal. Assistant Director Lee said that the roof garden in itself, because of the changes, on top of the increased costs for the building, would add another $1.4M so that would add up to $2M. Vice-President Hood said that the Department should just do it. President Fillon said that Vice-President Hood was talking about using the whole surplus and stated that he felt it was unwise to do so at this time. Vice-President Hood said that she did not agree and thought that this would be a good investment. Assistant Director Lee said that she had not been doing the Administration and Finance for a while, but thought that the current unearned income account which is money that the Department has not earned yet, but will earn, is approximately $4M or $5M and the surplus is still only about $3M so the Department is not looking at a $12M surplus that Commissioner Guinnane mentioned. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought the Department had $12M, but based on the numbers and all of the discussion that has been going on he has been very concerned about money flowing out of the Department. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would put the motion forward to discontinue this project until something changes in the future. Commissioner Santos asked Commissioner Guinnane if he wanted to suspend the project for a certain period of time. Commissioner Guinnane said yes, that what the Department currently had could stop right now and if the Department wants to pick it up a year or two down the road, the Department could pick up whatever the design is at that time and whatever the modifications are in the code. Commissioner Santos asked if Commissioner Guinnane was making a motion on that. Commissioner Guinnane said, absolutely and Commissioner Santos seconded the motion. President Fillon asked for discussion on the motion.
Commissioner Marks said that if the project was going to be suspended she was concerned about the report that even if the expansion were built it would not be large enough to accommodate all of the staff in one location. Commissioner Marks said that if there were time to rethink this issue, what would be another alternative that would accommodate all of the staff in one location. Commissioner Marks said that she would like that pursued. Assistant Director Lee said that would mean that the Department could occupy the entire building versus sharing with other departments. Assistant Director Lee stated that DBI is now accommodating more staff for Bureau of Streets and Mapping on the first floor, the Department also accommodates Fire Department staff, the Board of Permit Appeals and Planning occupies floors four and five. Commissioner Marks asked if with the expansion, the Department was planning on bringing in other department staff. Commissioner Walker said that this staff was already there. Assistant Director Lee said that she was addressing the question of what it would require for the Department to be housed in one building. Assistant Director Lee stated that initially when it was decided to go forward with this building the Department had only 200 - 220 employees and now there approximately 270 - 280 employees so that changes the plan and the number of employees that were increased was not projected. Assistant Director Lee said that she was just speculating as she was not involved in those discussions, but at that time the annex would accommodate the existing employees at 1650 and a small increase for new employees, but no one could predict that the Department would increase the number of employees this rapidly. Commissioner D'Anne asked if the increase in employees had anything to do with the building boom and what was going to happen when there is no building boom. Assistant Director Lee said that absolutely, all of the increases in employees were due to the building boom and increases in services. Assistant Director Lee said that the Department never had temporary salaries before and now the Department is able to hire people very quickly to help with the building boom and Assistant Director Lee said that she can understand where Commissioner Guinnane is coming from because the Department may not even need the space; the Department may lay off people or stop hiring because of the economy. Commissioner Marks said that she wanted to go back to Assistant Director Lee's comments about the other departments that moved in and clarify that with the expansion there would not be enough room to house the DBI employees. Commissioner Marks asked Assistant Director Lee if she talking about other departments coming in at the same time. Assistant Director Lee said no she was not, she was only speaking about the employees at 1650, but her comments were about what it would take to have one building that would house the entire Department. Assistant Director Lee said that other department have asked, for example BSM, that in order to assist DBI in the permit approval process they need to have staff housed at 1660. Assistant Director Lee said that DBI has tried to work with other departments to improve permit delivery and some DBI employees have been moved aside, made the cubicles smaller so that two more staff could be fit in from BSM, and those examples were not calculated in when going forward with the extension. Commissioner Walker said that she was very concerned and stated that she agreed with Commissioner Guinnane that the Department has spent already $1.3M and don't have anything that has support enough to proceed. Commissioner Walker stated that it doesn't necessarily seem to be the direction that if the Commission sat and reassessed what was needed would be the solution. Commissioner Walker said that she would tend to support a halt on the current project and an extreme reassessment as to whether it is the direction to go that might include some of the building professionals on the Commission and include some of the people who have expressed opposition ongoingly. Commissioner Walker said that she would therefore support Commissioner Guinnane's motion to delay, halt or postpone, not discontinue, but at least stop and do a reassessment that doesn't cost any more money. Commissioner Walker said that she was talking about internally assessing. Assistant Director Lee said that the Commission should keep in mind that the funds that were already allocated to this project will stay in that project account and interest is accruing. Assistant Director Lee said that if revenue was stopping tomorrow and the Department needed to fund some salaries then the Department would have to seek the Mayor or Controller's Office approval to move that money from the capital project to the operating budget, so there is always an oversight in terms of the money that is remaining. Assistant Director Lee said if the Department wanted to move forward next year, then that money could be used along with any additional funds that would be needed. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to do a friendly amendment that says there will be a reassessment process that reports back to the Commission and maybe includes a couple of Commissioners. President Fillon asked if that were acceptable to Commissioner Guinnane. Commissioner Guinnane agreed. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to put a deadline on it, say within two months and would like the assessment to have specific information. Vice-President Hood said that she knew that it could not be predicted how many employees there were going to be, but assuming that the Department filled up however many people the new building plus the existing building would hold, and stated that she still sees unused spaces in the building, then do an economic analysis of what it is going to be like over a period of ten years between leasing the space and the way commercial rates have quadrupled in San Francisco over a ten year period and what it would be if it was done now. Vice-President Hood said that if all of the space was not needed next door what kind of income could the Building Department get if it had that building and it leased it out. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to see some extensive economic analysis of this and said that she was understanding that the motion means is that all of these running costs, like some of the costs such as the construction prep has already occurred and is a one time thing, but the $204,000 for half time Building Inspection on this doesn't need to keep on going because this is not a Building Inspection item. Assistant Director Lee said that this employee also served as kind of an internal project manager for the Department because the Department needed someone to go and meet with BOA. Vice-President Hood said that she would definitely stop BOA and stop the internal project manager. Commissioner Walker said that the motion was to stop everything until there is a reassessment. Assistant Director Lee asked if with the reassessment that is being requested is the Commission looking for the Department to meet with Planning, Lois Scott and the Union members and would some of the Commissioners need to be invited as well. Vice-President Hood said that there needs to be a Committee of the Commission that goes through all of the material as this is a huge item and is probably the biggest thing that the Commission has had to decide since she can remember as this is a really big ticket item and not just buying a Honda. Commissioner Hood said that the Commission really needs to kick the tires and stated that she wanted to know what the economic strategies are. Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to know that if this got written about tomorrow in the newspaper could the Commission cover it completely that this is the best economic strategy for the City. Vice-President Hood said that she thinks the extension would be a really good idea, but just doesn't know until she sees what the alternatives are. Vice-President Hood said that no table was available that could compare one course of action with another. President Fillon asked that an allocation for public open space be included. Assistant Director Lee said that the sub-committee could do that, but she would provide an economic analysis.
Vice-President Hood said that the Department should give the Union whatever they wanted because it is a fait accompli in San Francisco that they get what they want and it is part of the building cost. President Fillon said that the sub-committee might recommend that the Department find a totally new site and that is the kind of assessment that the Commission is looking for. Assistant Director Lee said that she would certainly provide that. President Fillon said that he wanted the assessment to provide information about what is the best thing given the current situation with projections for staffing and budget.
Commissioner D'Anne said that she was in agreement as long as it was not delayed too long and that there be a study within a couple of months. Vice-President Hood said that it would be two months. Commissioner Guinnane asked if that study could be done in two months. Vice-President Hood said that it should be done in a lot less than that. Assistant Director Lee said that she could do an economic analysis tomorrow, but she was concerned about the discussions of how to build out more and should there be a roof garden and the technical issues. Vice-President Hood said to assume that the Department is going to build that roof garden, as there is no other way but to make Lois and the Union happy. Vice-President Hood said that the Department has already almost lost the project over that and said that the Department should forget arguing about it. Director Chiu said that the Department definitely has to address the roof garden and stated that the Planning Commission has sort of put their discretionary review on hold depending on whether the BIC would agree to spend $1.5M for that item and regardless of what was done, the Commission should move forward with the Planning Commission and let them deal with this. Director Chiu said that legally the Department is not bound to say that they have to build a roof garden. Vice-President Hood said that the Department hasn't been able to do the extension in a year and a half without it and the Department has lost $1.3M. Commissioner Walker said that spiritually the Commission is committed to do it. President Fillon said that specifically the motion is to bring back an assessment within the two months. Commissioner Walker asked if the Commission could call the question. President Fillon asked if there was any public comment on this item.
Randy Shaw said that this was going to be a long meeting, but stated that he would like to comment to say that there is staff time involved in this project in just seeing how much time Assistant Director Amy Lee is putting into it. Mr. Shaw said it is not simply the $1M and said that he would assume that this did not include any of the staff time. Mr. Shaw said that with the responsibilities and headaches he was sure there were more important things that Amy and others could be doing rather than this project that would look kind of odd that just when everyone is seeing the boom kind of declining and talking about the vacant space and all that, why is the Building Department adding. Mr. Shaw said that this is kind of a strange element and said that he understood Commissioner Hood's point. Mr. Shaw said that he thought it was important to bring this to a close as soon as possible.
President Fillon asked for a vote. All Commissioners voted aye and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC-030-01
5. Update on Unlawful Demolition Committee Meeting. [Commissioners Hood, Santos & Walker]
Vice-President Hood said that the Committee was continuing and trying to get more of a dialog going with a small group of people who represent diverse interests who have a stake in this. Vice-President Hood said that some people in the Department are working with a group of interested citizens that have come up with a very, very detailed proposal that is really the text that they want, but some of the underlying principals don't meet what the neighbors said that they really wanted to get. Vice-President Hood said that now a smaller group of people has been formed and are meeting on a regular basis to represent all of the stakeholders and they are going back to sort of basic concepts that they want to make sure people have. Vice-President Hood said that these include such things as clarity of the notice and what triggers the 300-foot radius notice. Vice-President Hood said that these things are sort of the basic fundamental principals and there is sort of a direction on that; one of the main things is that when people are doing something to expand the outside of the envelope it triggers the 300-foot radius notice and like some of those things that the Commission heard today, when the stair tower was added the requirement for notice will be much, much more specific. Vice-President Hood said that she felt that there is a smoother working relationship and things are moving forward. Vice-President Hood said that Rodrigo Santos has been serving with the neighborhood committee and there was a meeting with Larry Badiner that Frank Chiu attended and was very helpful in helping to narrow the issues as to where they come up as the Department reviews them. Vice-President Hood said that the Committee is trying to make it easier to describe and enforce and get these basic principals right. Vice-President Hood stated that there is another meeting on June 19th from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Santos said that the smaller group is meeting on Friday, June 8th. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that the Committee was making a lot of progress and said that she felt people feel encouraged. Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to give the President an update, but had tried to call him a couple of times and they kept missing each other. Vice-President Hood said that she had asked the Secretary to please write to Supervisor Newsom to let him know how deeply committed the BIC is to involving the public and the various venues that the Committee is doing that in. Vice-President Hood and Commissioner Guinnane left the meeting at this point.
6. Update on Litigation Committee Meeting. [Commissioners Guinnane, Santos & Walker]
Commissioner Walker stated that the Committee met on Monday and continued to get updates on the outstanding projects that have been referred and are considering referring to the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Walker said that there were two representatives from the District Attorney's Office present to talk about the types of cases that the Committee might consider referring to the District Attorney's Office instead so that is something that will likely be put on a future agenda in order to get an assessment from staff. Commissioner Walker said the Commission would review what the criteria might be for referring items to the District Attorney as opposed to the City Attorney for action. Commissioner Walker said that staff is preparing a set of criteria and the Litigation Committee will review that and bring it to the full Commission. Commissioner Walker said that this is ongoing and the Committee is going to get a current update as to the monies outstanding that have been won and are in route to the Department in one form or another so that there will be a dollar amount. President Fillon asked when that report would be coming to the Commission. Commissioner Walker said that it is supposed to be at the next Litigation Committee hearing which is July 9th so the Committee will get a report and come back to the Commission with some financial figures. President Fillon thanked those Commissioners who have served on these two Committees.
7. Discussion and possible action to require notification of repair work to tenants of burned out multiple units especially to tenants of residential hotels. [Deputy Director William Wong]
Deputy Director Wong said that at the May 2nd regular meeting of the BIC, Commissioner Walker reported that she was asked by the tenant community to look at the notification process for burned out buildings especially for residential hotels. Deputy Director Wong said that there was concern that as residential hotels burn down and when the permit review for major repair or demolition is in progress, the tenants feel that they are left out of the loop and would like to be notified so that there can be some sort of participation on their part. Deputy Director Wong said that he would like to explain the current process that is in place at this time and provided a handout to the Commissioners as part of his presentation. Deputy Director Wong said that then the Commission could talk about how to modify the process to include some of the areas that the Department may have missed. Deputy Director Wong also had copies for the public. Deputy Director Wong stated that the first page showed the governing Code Section, Section 106.3.2.3, which deals with substantial alterations and the notification requirements. Deputy Director Wong stated that this came out of Ordinance No. 417-86, which was made effective January 15, 1987 which was some time ago. Deputy Director Wong said that essentially it applies to building code occupancies R-1 that would be five or more apartment units or residential hotels as defined in the Administrative Code, which would be six or more units, so those are the two areas to which it would apply. Deputy Director Wong said that this particular ordinance and its related code section do not define substantial alteration; it does give the Director the authority to define substantial alteration. Deputy Director Wong referred to the second page of his report and said that it is what the Department is currently using as a form that is available at the counter as the permit application is screened. Deputy Director Wong said that first, it talks about the ordinance and then it goes into some of the examples of what substantial alterations are. Deputy Director Wong said that he would read off a couple of them; one of them would be removal of illegal units where the tenants would have to be notified; adequate exits lacking, electrical hazards, structural hazards such as fire damage or land site instability and anything to do with the loss of foundation, or if the whole building is destroyed. Deputy Director Wong said that it would also include anything that would have to do with gas or electrical hazards, lack of heat and miscellaneous conditions, and of course the whole building demolition. Deputy Director Wong said that basically as the permit is being screened at the counter, staff asks the applicant questions to see if this particular code section applies and the Department would have the applicant sign at the bottom of the second page whether they need to post a sign for fifteen days or whether the work is not of a substantial nature and not require a sign posting. Commissioner Walker asked what happens if the building is demolished or the tenants are elsewhere. Deputy Director Wong said that he felt that this was an area that the Departments needs to work on; with the demolition of an entire structure there is a whole different process that deals with that. Deputy Director Wong said that if the whole building is going to be demolished they would need to file for a Form 6 demolition permit and there is another section in the Code that covers that area. Deputy Director Wong said that essentially for whole building demolition, when a permit application is filed for the Department notifies a 300 feet radius and this is done at the beginning, at the time of filing. Commissioner Walker asked if it was owners that were notified and Deputy Director Wong said that it is the owners of record for the addresses. Deputy Director Wong said that at the time the permit is issued, the Department holds that permit and notifies again, so for demolition the Department notifies at the beginning and at the end. Deputy Director Wong stated that with respect to burned out units where the whole building is not destroyed; this may be where there are some problems because if the tenants are not there it is difficult to post it in the building, as they would not see it. Deputy Director Wong said that what this particular law says is that the location of posting, if it is required for fifteen days, is that it is posted in a conspicuous common area and generally that is in the lobby area. Deputy Director Wong said that if the posting were required the Department would flag the application, note it on there and would not issue the application for fifteen days and allow the posting to occur. Deputy Director Wong said that the form shows what information needs to be put on the posting, for example, permit application, what the scope of work is and what the appeal rights are and that information should be posted. Deputy Director Wong said that after the fifteen days, the posting has been done and the tenants have exercised their rights to either appeal it or request additional information, the Department will then issue the permit after they have signed the affidavit for the lobby sign. Deputy Director Wong said that essentially that is the current process. Deputy Director Wong said that the Department would not issue any permits over the counter if any of these substantial alterations were in progress, as the application would have to held for fifteen days. Deputy Director Wong said that as expressed by Commissioner Walker, the community's concern is what happens when there is a building and the tenants are not in the building and the posting is done according to the ordinance. Deputy Director Wong said that there is no mechanism in place right now to notify the tenants who have been relocated to other places as the Department would not have their addresses and with the current process they are not being notified. Deputy Director Wong said that the Commission may want to discuss ways to change the process to notify the tenants, but anything that would be changed would have to go through a code change process.
Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to hear from the tenant community as to recommendations as to how to deal with this lack of notification in these situation where the Department does not know who the tenants are and asked to hear from the public.
Mr. Randy Shaw of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic said that he was sorry to be speaking on so many items, but this was a very long agenda. Mr. Shaw said that if there is a fire in Noe Valley in a three or four unit building and the tenants are displaced when the owner comes in to do the rehabilitation and wants to get a demolition permit they have to fill out a form that actually asks if there are any tenants in place. Mr. Shaw said that the form should say "were" there tenants in place or was there a fire, instead the form asks "are" there tenants in place and the owner checks, no. Mr. Shaw said that these tenants never get notice and the reason this is relative is because there is a State law that says if they get a demolition permit, the tenants do not have the right to return so they can lose their affordable housing, but if there is a substantial rehabilitation they do have the right to return so it affects the tenants rights, but they don't have the chance to challenge whether it should be a demolition or not. Mr. Shaw said that all the Department should do is ask the question on the form if there was a fire and ask for the addresses. Mr. Shaw said that the owners have the addresses because the tenants obviously give the owners the address because they have to be notified for relocation. Mr. Shaw said that he was involved in a case where the landlord had all of the addresses, but was not under a legal obligation to notify. Mr. Shaw said that if it is going to be changed, it should be to all addresses within 250 square feet, but said that he has not had that issue come up where the tenant did not get notified about an adjacent property because the tenant generally doesn't care because their rights aren't affected. Mr. Shaw said that clearly the tenants in the building should get noticed. Commissioner Walker asked if it were a legal requirement of the owner of the building to get those addresses and what triggers the owner knowing the addresses. Mr. Shaw said that generally the tenants have to give the owner the address. Mr. Shaw said that he felt that the current situation is probably a due process violation because there is a procedure where someone is getting a demolition permit and it affects the tenant's property rights and they don't get any notice at all. Mr. Shaw said that the current procedure probably would not hold up in court. Mr. Shaw said that he had never heard of this until he was involved in a case last December and he did not know that this was the procedure. Mr. Shaw stated that he called Commissioner Walker and said that he has spoken with the Residential Builders and they don't have any problem with it and felt that it was just a question of fairness and it may only happen once every couple of years or more frequently with all of the fires that have been happening. Mr. Shaw said that all this would require would be for form 6 to require the owner to state if there was a fire, who lived in the building at the time of the fire and what are their addresses and then they are notified.
Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she lived in Noe Valley and stated that she had attended several life safety meetings of the Code Advisory's sub-committee on fire and life safety and this was one of the areas that she was very concerned about which is why she made it her business to come to the meeting. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that Randy Shaw had mentioned that the name of the tenants be known to the landlords so that the landlord can tell the tenants when the repairs have been made and they can return. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that this is what really messes people up when there is a fire and they are displaced and they are dispersed all over; how are they going to know when the repairs are made? Ms. Yovanopoulos said that Deputy Director William Wong has said that the building is posted and the posting is supposed to stay up for fifteen days, but said that when something gets posted at her building at 3718 - 24th Street, that notice that is posted comes down immediately so none of the other tenants know what is going on. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that it is critical for people that have been burned out to have this linkup to know when things get repaired and what kind of input they can have about the fire. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she thought it was really important to set up some kind of linkage with the Department and with the owners. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that personally she knows from going to a meeting about the King Street Hotel fire when the burned out people met for a spaghetti dinner; she happened to go there as she was in the neighborhood, and said that she was very upset about what was happening to these people who were dispersed and didn't know when they could return and this is really critical as places are burned out and there needs to be communication.
Commissioner Walker asked if there was any history of the Department coordinating with any tenant associations to notify these displaced people. Commissioner Walker stated that she did not know if the Department could deal with the logistics of following up with tenants and making sure that they are notified about the process of the rebuilding or the repairing. Commissioner Walker said that this is a real issue and has happened in a lot of cases where people hang out there and asked if DBI had the jurisdiction to do that or maybe the Department could coordinate with the rent board. Commissioner Walker said that it seems like there is a big hole there. Director Chiu said that if it is not in the Building Code then the Department does not enforce it, but said that he thought Commissioner Walker was asking if there was anybody coordinating between the rent board requirement or the owners responsibility to the rent board, versus to DBI's requirements. Director Chiu said that the Department is not doing this kind of coordination for the tenants. Commissioner Walker said that she knew that there are tenant organizations that work with DBI on tenant issues and stated that this is one of the issues that she would like to see really focused on as to how to make sure people don't fall through the cracks when buildings are damaged and are being repaired or rebuilt. Commissioner Walker said that it sounds to her that if the building is actually being demolished and rebuilt there is a whole different set of issues than if it is just being repaired, but in all cases these people are being put in temporary homes or are not dealt with at all and to her that is a problem in the system. Director Chiu said that he agreed, but in doing research on the code there is no code that addresses this issue. Director Chiu said that there is a big concern and said that in talking with Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian he thought that the Code could be amended to do what Randy Shaw stated. Director Chiu said that in the past it was always a problem to figure out if the tenants moved away or where they were, but if there is a way to ask the owner to provide addresses then the tenants could be notified. Director Chiu said that he thought the Code could be easily amended by having the section that Deputy Director Wong addressed include that the Department could ask the owner to provide the tenants' addresses and require the Department to notify those tenants. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to work with Judy Boyajian on the Code changes and said that he agreed that there was a gap right now that could be fixed. Director Chiu said that he could work with Director Joe Grubb from the rent board as well to see how this could be coordinated. Commissioner Walker said that there should also be input from the tenant community to expand this because there is that period of time when people are out of there homes and don't really know what is going on and the Department is dealing with the nuts and bolts of permits, but this is about people's lives. Director Chiu said that if it were okay with the Commission he would be happy to start working with the City Attorney's Office, tenant's associations and the rent board to see if there could be a code to cover these kinds of issues. President Fillon said that the Commission should maybe set up a committee. Commissioner Walker said that she would be happy to be part of that committee.
Mr. Ron Gross said that he worked for Mission Agenda and also the Mission SRO Collaborative working with tenants after fires. Mr. Gross said that this is a problem and said that he heard of cases where a landlord would not let a previous tenant back into the building because the tenant did not have the proper identification. Mr. Gross said that it really makes a lot of sense if you are a landlord to let a building sit after a fire because the longer the building sits, the less likely it is that a tenant will come back and claim his legal right to have his room back at his old rate. Mr. Gross said that it is really a good idea to let a hotel just sit there and blight the City of San Francisco for two years because there is a good chance that those tenants might not come back and claim the rooms that can go back on the market at a much higher rate. Mr. Gross said that his organizations try to track these tenants after a fire and try to keep them together and tell them that when the place gets rebuilt they have a right to go back and claim their room that they were burned out of. Mr. Gross said that there are so many issues that go on with tenants that are burned out in a fire as people lose everything in a fire; they lose their identifications, their medication and have nothing left. Mr. Gross said that these people just disappear and landlords are well aware of what happens to tenants regardless of all the efforts of these community based organizations put into keeping these tenants together after a fire and trying to get them to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. Mr. Gross said that he hoped the Commission would get a sub-committee together to cover these questions, as it is long overdue. Mr. Gross said that this is not just hurting the tenants, but is hurting the City of San Francisco. Mr. Gross said that if someone is a capitalist or a landlord it makes a hell of a lot of sense to just let that building sit there for a while. Mr. Gross thanked the Commission.
Mr. Paul Hogarth introduced himself as being with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic on the Code Enforcement and Outreach Program. Mr. Hogarth said that along with his co-worker, Sam Dodge, he has actually been working with some of the tenants that were burned out of the Raymond Hotel on Howard Street. Mr. Hogarth said that it is definitely a huge problem in terms of notifying former tenants because a lot of these hotels, like the Raymond where the entire hotel has been burnt down, they sit there for two, three, four or five years and with the transient population in the Tenderloin and South of Market area, these tenants may not only be long gone, but may have moved from hotel to hotel to hotel after they have been burnt out. Mr. Hogarth said that the tenants at the Raymond were given four-week vouchers through the Red Cross and Mr. Hogarth said that there have been a lot of allegations of tenants being told that they had to move out before 30 days so they wouldn't get new tenancy at their new hotels. Mr. Hogarth said that he was encouraged that this Commission was going to be working on this and said that he would be glad to be of any assistance as his agency tries to keep in contact with a lot of these former tenants, but anything else that DBI can do would be helpful.
President Fillon said that he would like to start a Committee on this and what role the Department would play, especially a more active role, in notifying tenants of burned out buildings as to what their rights are. Commissioner Walker asked if she could make a motion to do that or would it have to be done at the next meeting. President Fillon said that it was not on the agenda. Deputy City Attorney said that possible action could deal with it. President Fillon said that it would on the next agenda to appoint a committee.
9. Report on number of hotels that have been inspected, number of NOVs issued and expanded list of "worst" hotels in the City. [Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson]
Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson passed out reports to the Commissioners and said that he wanted to first talk about what the Department is doing with the worst hotels in the City. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that recently he had met with staff and decided that it was a good idea to go ahead and rate hotels based on the number of violations and come up with criteria that describes the best and worst. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this is kind of a new idea and years ago when he dealt with some of the media, the media always pushed the Department to identify a core group of worst hotels and the Department was always hesitant to go there because of legal ramifications. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that now the Department has decided to go ahead and target the worst hotels and this was done by coming up cumulatively with the most violations over a period of time. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that Inspector Jamie Sanbonmatsu, Dave Gogna, Pat McKenzie, who is the acting chief, Rosemary Bosque and a whole group assisted in doing this. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the group went ahead and got two volunteers, John Kerley and Danny Shiu and stated that he was impressed with the staff's attitude of coming to him to say that they would be happy to take this task on along with these two Inspector's regular assignments and without new staff. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that staff did a fantastic job. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that the list has been expanded and in line with some of the comments today, he wanted to make sure that with everything that is done there is public input. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he would like to expand the list even further by bringing it to the Code Enforcement Outreach Program and for them to tell this group what hotels might have been missed to make this a very cooperative approach. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he would like to utilize the people in the non-profits and in Code Enforcement Outreach so the Department will be moving forward with that. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that one of the other things that the Department has decided to do is to take a look at staff and will probably have John Kerley return to his district as he has many other duties besides his district. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that John Kerley was really pressed, but he did a great job. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that he brought in Inspector Jamie Sanbonmatsu, a person who formerly worked for the non-profits and has intimate knowledge of the community, was an organizer and was very well respected; Inspector Sanbonmatsu is going to be the Department's representative with the Code Enforcement Outreach Committee and is also going to be in charge of SROs. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he is going to go ahead and use Jamie on the enforcement end for these cases so that the cases that the Department decides to bring forward to the Litigation Committee have a very diligent road to prosecution; Jamie will be the point person assisting him in that. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he believed that the Department is making great strides in looking at these hotels, holding people to a higher standard and making sure that the Department has the dedicated personnel to stay on top of it. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that having a point person putting a focus on these hotels would hopefully result in good things. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he would continue to keep the Commission informed and will be bringing cases forward to the Litigation Committee.
Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that regarding the number of hotels that have been inspected, he submitted a short report that Acting Chief Pat McKenzie helped him to put together, which shows that the Department has had a very good inspection record in looking at Residential Hotels in general. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that on life safety violations, the Department will try and get out on the same day, or the next day; inspectors go out on complaints within 48 hours and that is not going to change. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he knows there are a lot of misconceptions and a lot fears that the Department might be reverting back to a system of routines, and the complaints will eclipse again, but wanted to assure the Commission that DBI is complaint driven. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Department is committed, as it always has been, to doing a job in the SROs and doing a better job, but at the same time the Department has to do the routines and Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he will continue to work with staff to get that balanced because there is a mandate from the Commission to go ahead and perform routines quicker than within a five-year window. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this is still something that he would like to bring back to the Commission as hopefully soon there will be a Chief Housing Inspector in place, and when that happens and collectively working with Code Enforcement Outreach, the Department will be able to come up with a program to do both. Commissioner Walker said that she had a question on the memo that was distributed as it states that there is a total of 521 Residential Hotels. Commissioner Walker wanted to know if this was a typo where it states that 937 have been inspected. Deputy Director Hutchinson asked Patrick McKenzie to come forward to answer questions on the report. Inspector Patrick McKenzie said that there are 521 Residential Hotels, but the hotels are inspected on a regular basis and multiple inspections are done so this was the reason for the discrepancy in numbers. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this was aside from the list of worst hotels where room-by-room inspections have been done for the past two months. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that the first thirty were previously identified and now ten more have been added. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Department has gotten good cooperation and will see where this goes, but typically these hotels resurface and the Department wants to be very aggressive in its enforcement of these violations and move these cases forward if the owners are uncooperative.
Mr. Paul Hogarth of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic stated that he has been working with Inspector Kerley on some of these hotels and has actually been giving input in terms of the lists. Mr. Hogarth said that he thought that this was the right way to go by targeting the worst of the worst. Mr. Hogarth said that he personally does not always agree with the good, fair and poor ratings of the hotels because that is kind of subjective and that is why he feels it is important to have some input from members of the community who have intimate knowledge of the hotels. Mr. Hogarth said that it is not just the conditions of the hotels, but also the general attitude of some of the landlords; some landlords are better at responding to complaints and do a more adequate job than others. Mr. Hogarth said that he felt it was a real question of targeting and prioritization to get the job done.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she was grateful that Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Kerley and Mr. Sanbonmatsu are now going to be doing some work with the hotels. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she feels that the owners don't have infractions and misdemeanors written or issued to them, however the process works. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the thing is that the owners can get away with things and there is nothing in the Civil Codes that hold them accountable. Ms. Yovanopoulos said this is what was brought up when she was home watching Supervisor Newsom asking how can the City do anything, someone came from the one of the offices over at 1390 Market Street and was talking about these owners infractions and a misdemeanor is illegal so what needs to be done is to put something in the Civil Code that would address this urgent need.
President Fillon said that he had one question for Deputy Director Hutchison and asked if the list that was prepared by the Department was being sent to anyone. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the expanded list was for the Commission and the Department, but it is a public document and he has had public members request it. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the list was prepared simply as a tool to go ahead and target buildings based on numbers of violations. President Fillon asked if there was any way of letting these owners know that they are on this list. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that the Department has contacted the owners and informs them when they go out to the hotels why they are doing a room-by-room. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this is one of the reasons why there was no list published before because of the fear that the owners would be uncooperative, but now based on the numbers, the Department can demand access and have a right to do a room-by-room. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that a lot of these buildings are wasting far too much of the Department's time because what is found in San Francisco now is that with the rates that are being charged, or what some of the owners are telling him that they are charging per week for these rooms, there is no excuse for not going through these buildings and performing simple repairs. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that is beyond belief what the cash flow is that comes from these buildings even though it is a difficult business. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that DBI is charged with making sure that these rooms are safe and sanitary and said that he has gone in a room where there is carpet that cannot be cleaned and the owner opts not to spend $100 to put VAT down, where the vinyl could be clean and sanitary, it is beyond belief to him as to why the owners will not make expenditures. President Fillon said that he did not want to harass the owners, but he kind of did want to harass them. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that the list is out there and is a public document that people have asked for. Commissioner Walker said that this would keep the public aware.
10. Discussion and possible action on the requirement that title searches be obtained for Code Enforcement Cases prior to a Director's Hearing. [Commissioner Walker]
Commissioner Walker said that she asked that this item be put on the agenda as she was notified by some of the representatives of tenant organizations that there had been Director's Hearings suspended and the concern from the tenant community is the effect of these types of delays on the tenant community. Commissioner Walker said that one of the issues was that the initial hearings were suspended, but there is also a concern about, as was pointed out to the Commission by Mr. Shaw, a policy change that seems to be enacted without properly notifying the public or discussing it with the Commission. Commissioner Walker stated that she was certain that it was sort of an overlooked communication, but there is a requirement that a Director's Hearing happens within 30 days and both the tenant community and the landlord community is served by making sure that this happens. Commissioner Walker said that she asked for this to be put on the agenda so people could talk to the Commission about it and the Commissioners could be informed.
Mr. Randy Shaw of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic said that a number of people were present to testify about this as there are two issues; one being that changes should not be made without the process and two, Mr. Shaw stated that he felt this was a really, really, bad, dumb change. Mr. Shaw said that if it were just some trivial thing he would not be waiting for three hours to testify on this item. Mr. Shaw said that it was a shame that Commissioner Guinnane had left as he had tried to discuss this with the Commissioner and stated that he had also written a letter to the Commission just on the specifics of this change. Mr. Shaw said that the Building Code does not say that you cannot have a Director's Hearing without a title report; it says that there cannot be an order of abatement on a property without a title report and those are two different things. Mr. Shaw said that people will testify that there is no reason to delay the Director's Hearing and stated that if Commissioner Guinnane has the technology that the information can be retrieved from the computer right away then there is not even an issue and the title reports can always be checked, but Mr. Shaw said that he wondered if it was that easy. Mr. Shaw said that if it is free and it takes one minute, as Commissioner Guinnane says, than obviously it ought to happen, but while it is being installed, and it sounds a little too good to be true, all the Department has to do is proceed with the Director's Hearing and then before any order of abatement, staff checks to make sure that everyone got noticed and if not, then there is another Director's Hearing. Mr. Shaw stated that the vast majority of cases are settled because a Director's Hearing is imminent and then at the Director's Hearing the person will give an explanation quite frequently that some part is coming in, or they are going to get it done in five days and no order of abatement is put on. Mr. Shaw said that he would estimate that probably 90% of the cases are disposed of because there is a looming Director's Hearing, or soon after the Director's Hearing; orders of abatement are put on a very small number of cases just like so few cases are referred to the City Attorney. Mr. Shaw said that it seems to him, and there can be a committee to analyze all of the merits and all that, but there was no reason to make this change as the City Attorney's letter raising this issue is from 1999. Mr. Shaw said that somewhere out of nowhere, after Chief Stansfield leaves, the Department makes this change. Mr. Shaw said that he wanted to form a committee of those who don't think it is a good idea with those people in the Department who think it is, but keep the status quo until the Commission says otherwise. Mr. Shaw said that he was extremely alarmed when this had been calendared for at least a week or two weeks and Director Chiu had assured Mr. Shaw that things would not happen until the Commission hearing and then without him even knowing this memo is handed out on Monday, two days before the Commission, that effective immediately these procedures are going to change. Mr. Shaw stated that this was just mind boggling to him and said that is why people are alarmed. Mr. Shaw said that he wanted to say to Commissioner Santos that the person who spoke earlier was not making any accusations, but was not aware that everyone on this Commission is allowed to do their work. Commissioner Santos thanked Mr. Shaw for his comments, but said that there was no problem.
Mr. Paul Hogarth of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic said that he just wanted to echo Mr. Shaw's statements as he thought that this was a very disturbing change in policy that would jeopardize the effectiveness of this agency. Mr. Hogarth said that he wanted to talk from personal experience about how effective Director's Hearings have been. Mr. Hogarth said that they have been extremely effective in getting non-compliant, difficult landlords who have a bad history of abating problems to finally respond and correct them. Mr. Hogarth said that he just had a case recently on an apartment building on O'Farrell Street, where he has had to visit on numerous occasions because of tenant complaints, and had written letter after letter to the landlord and gotten nowhere. Mr. Hogarth said that DBI held a Director's Hearing where he went and testified and the owner finally got an order of abatement. Mr. Hogarth said that now he has written other letters on other issues and just today they responded back to him. Mr. Hogarth said that this is a success story of what a Director's Hearing can do and by removing the threat of the looming Director's Hearing for difficult landlords, or even for landlords that have a better compliance record, this is going to be a big step back to how things were here at this agency prior to 1994. Mr. Hogarth said that he would like to echo what Ted Gulickson's letter said about title searches being necessary, when and if the case actually goes to court. Mr. Hogarth said that if the title search can take only a few minutes, with no cost to the agency, that would be great and it should be properly integrated in the entire process from the beginning, but there is no need if it is only going to take a day to have to delay a Director's Hearing, and if it takes longer it should only be done after a Director's Hearing and the Department wants to put an order of abatement and potentially bring it to the City Attorney. Mr. Hogarth said that there is absolutely no need to cripple the effectiveness of this agency over this small legal technicality.
An unidentified speaker said that he wanted to get the story straight that the Director did not know what was going on and somebody that is on the job temporarily goes in and makes this decision that they are going to do a title search before there is a Director's Hearing. The public member read the following that said "if the unsafe conditions observed on this property have not been corrected within the time period provided, the matter shall be set up for a hearing within 30 days of the serving of such Notice of Violation and notice of such hearing shall be giving as hereinafter provided". The public member said that obviously a title search is going to delay that process and said that he did not know how any one in DBI could usurp this Commission, usurp the Director, and usurp the Community at large, as this was not right.
Mr. David Ho with the Chinatown Community Development Center said that last year they counseled over 1,000 tenants, many of whom are seniors and immigrants who speak limited English. Mr. Ho said that he hoped the Commission could bring back the Director's Hearings because many of these tenants do not even know what the Department of Building Inspection is, let alone what a title company is and stated he was present to represent his community today. Mr. Ho stated that he wanted the Commissioners, Director Chiu and the Department to remember that in 1995 changes to the Housing Code Enforcement were created because of community groups so he was urging the Department and the Commission to ensure an effective, prompt hearing process for tenant habitability cases and to ensure a minimum standard of living conditions in this City.
Mr. Tom Amicomimaka introduced himself as a Program Director of Counseling Programs at the Housing Rights Committee and said that he wanted to agree with everything that the four last speakers said and wanted to add a little bit about the kinds of cases that his organization deals with. Mr. Amicomimaka said that he deals with about 1,000 cases a year at the Housing Rights Committee and a good number of them are about habitability and repeat cases. Mr. Amicomimaka stated that he wanted to speak about the urgency of resolving cases quickly. Mr. Amicomimaka said that he was going to give two very recent dramatic examples of the kinds of cases that he sees and these are not atypical. Mr. Amicomimaka said that one case was a woman in an SRO who was living with two live rats in her mattress and he and another case worker went to the building which was a wreck, and the rats were bad enough, but the woman was living with an infestation of roaches as well. Mr. Amicomimaka said that there was some sort of insect in the rug that was leaving rashes on the back of her neck and back, which she showed to the caseworkers. Mr. Amicomimaka stated that he did not know what the bugs were, but said that he assumed that they were fleas or lice that were biting the hell out of her. Mr. Amicomimaka said that a second case was a Spanish-speaking woman, who spoke very little English and came into the office because she had a massive infestation of roaches that were literally crawling down one wall like a blanket of roaches and she also had a leak in the ceiling and peeling paint which is a lead hazard. Mr. Amicomimaka said that this woman had a five-year-old child living in this studio apartment with her and her husband in the Mission and these are the kinds of cases that do not need to be delayed. Mr. Amicomimaka said that what is being proposed will delay; will cause more suffering for these tenants who do not deserve to be suffering to begin with. Mr. Amicomimaka said that here are people living in this City, in this Country and they have a right to live in a habitable environment and that right is being taken away from them by landlords who are not taking care of the rats, the roaches, the leaks, the mold and the mildew. Mr. Amicomimaka said that what is being proposed is going to delay the process even more and 30 days is bad enough when someone is living with roaches and with rats in a mattress and having to wait even longer than 30 days is inhumane, cruel, immoral and unacceptable. Mr. Amicomimaka stated that he was asking the Commission to not delay the penalty process any longer and to fine the landlord within 30 days, in fact Mr. Amicomimaka said that he would like to see a landlord fined within five days.
Mr. Tan Chou said that he was speaking on behalf of the Chinatown Coalition for Better Housing, which is a coalition made up of different Chinatown organizations. Mr. Chou said that he was asking the Commission to not delay the penalty process and stated that one of the missions of the coalition was to improve the living conditions for low-income tenants in Chinatown and Chinese speaking tenants in San Francisco. Mr. Chou stated that by delaying the process or putting the title search in front of the Director's Hearing the Commission was making the organization's job more difficult and in the end it will be the tenants that will lose. Mr. Chou said that he wanted to give the example that if a tenant has a Housing or Code Enforcement problem they come to the coalition and the coalition will call the landlord first and after that they will write a letter on behalf of the tenant. Mr. Chou said that this process takes sometimes seven, fourteen or even thirty days and if the owner doesn't fix the problem, the coalition goes to the Rent Board and then DBI. Mr. Chou said that most cases are solved in the early part of the process and when the case goes to DBI those are usually the bad landlords. Mr. Chou said that the coalition did not want to give the landlords any more time. Mr. Chou said that he would strongly urge the Commission not to delay the process by delaying the Director's Hearing.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she participated in the last code cycle for getting the 1998 code authorized by the City and said that she believed that the Director's Hearings are right there in the codes. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she did not know whose idea it was to change this policy, but said that she disagreed with it as Director's Hearings are necessary. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the codes have to be followed and changes of policy like this really upsets the whole way that the Code Enforcement process works.
President Fillon asked Director Chiu to comment on the history of this change, how did this change happen and how did this memo go out. Director Chiu said that he personally was not aware that a memo went out canceling the Director's Hearing and said that he should manage his Department better and would make sure to do a better job on that. Director Chiu said that he was concerned about delaying any abatement or Director's Hearings, but at the same time he is concerned about following the process. Director Chiu said that he would have to apologize because there was a two or three week delay in Director's Hearings and said that he was just told by Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson and Senior Housing Inspector Patrick McKenzie that staring next week Director's Hearing will be resumed. Director Chiu said that there were two or three Director's Hearings set up and said that he hoped that regardless of how the Department is going to go on with the process, it should not have any impact on a future delay. Director Chiu said that he is concerned about the process and that there might be a potentially legal issue involved. Director Chiu said that he was in agreement with Randy Shaw's statement that there was an opinion issued back in 1999 and stated that he wanted the City Attorney's Office to revisit that policy. Director Chiu said that he wanted to continue to work with the City Attorney's Office to see if there is any way to deal with that. Director Chiu said that he did not want to talk about the process today because of the potential legal issues involved, but said that he would give his assurance that starting next week the Director's Hearings would resume. Director Chiu said that there is a series of Director's Hearings that will resume without any further delay. President Fillon asked about the title reports. Director Chiu said that this was the reason that he did not want to discuss this at this time, as he wanted to continue to work with the City Attorney's Office to clarify exactly what has to happen, as the Department believes that there are other ways to deal with that issue, but Director Chiu said that he did not want to address whether this is mandatory or not mandatory because of the need to work with the City Attorney's Office to revisit their opinion. President Fillon asked if in the mean time the Department requiring the title searches. Director Chiu said that he would let Deputy Director Hutchinson talk about that.
Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he appreciated the Commission calendaring this item because he knew it raised a lot of concerns. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he appreciated the comments by the public; it is difficult without a Chief Inspector in Housing as he has been trying to assume the duties with Assistant Director Lee assisting him and the seniors have been great. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that Patrick McKenzie was the Acting Chief now and still has all of his regular duties to do, so Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he must maintain a high presence to try and assist staff, as he does not want them to be overwhelmed. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that the most important thing staff could do is to keep doing the job that they are doing by going out and checking the housing and moving forward and not getting bogged down in the office. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he wanted to be clear in saying that the Director's Hearings have not stopped and Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he did not want to go beyond what the Director was able to explain, but wanted to say that the Housing Division was aware of the situation and was taking steps to revisit this issue with the City Attorney to make sure that everyone is in agreement. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that he deeply appreciated the public's comments and said that everyone wants to accomplish the same thing, yet in a way he was compelled to move forward on this item and after today he felt that by working with the City Attorney's Office and all of the groups present at the meeting there would be a constructive conclusion to this. Commissioner Walker said that the real issue is no delay that would affect the tenant community. Commissioner Walker said that she would suggest, as it is not about the title search, it is about the time delay and since it seems that this is about Residential Hotels it might be a good idea to ask for a current title search with the annual license requirement and make the building owner pay. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that certainly the Department could look at that and with the new program of aggressively going after Residential Hotels, part of this is that when the Department goes forward this must be iron clad and hopefully a resolution will be found by working with the City Attorney. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that this would also be a public process.
Commissioner Walker thanked the public for coming to the meeting.
11. Report on Special Assistants working at DBI. [Assistant Director Amy Lee]
Commissioner D'Anne said that this was an item that she asked to be agenda on Special Assistants, but did not want it brought up to get any report, but had specific questions. Assistant Director Lee said that the report was requested by Supervisor Aaron Peskin's Office and the Department was required to respond so the Commissioners received a copy of the letter. Assistant Director Lee said that she was responding to Commissioner D'Anne's e-mail and combined the two requests. Assistant Director Lee said that Commissioner D'Anne's request for information mirrored Supervisor Peskin's request. Commissioner D'Anne said that she did not specify what her questions were and Assistant Director Lee said that the questions were asked in an e-mail. President Fillon stated that Commissioner D'Anne could express all of her concerns and staff would answer any questions.
Assistant Director Lee stated that she did not know why this item was agendized, but said that it was a popular item right now with the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor's Office and among the Commissioners as well. Assistant Director Lee referred to an attachment that was the memo that she wrote in response to Supervisor Peskin's request for information; initially the request asked for resumes and names, but subsequently the City Attorney's Office informed the Supervisor that this information could not be released, so that request was removed. Assistant Director said that she would go over the seven Special Assistant positions that exist in the Department and stated that the Department is working with DHR to reclassify these positions. Assistant Director Lee said that currently there is one 1367 that is being reclassified to an 1823; DHR approval has been received for this position and the Department is moving forward with a JAQ.
Commissioner Marks said that the Commissioners had the information in front of them and did not need Assistant Director Lee to go over each position. Assistant Director Lee said that she would entertain any questions.
Commissioner D'Anne said that she wanted to ask about reclassifying the Special Assistants and asked if that was going to go before Civil Service. Assistant Director Lee said that it was part of DHR review. Commissioner D'Anne asked if the positions were open for bid. Assistant Director Lee said that it would have to be done by Civil Service process and the Department had been conducting interviews and going through DHR processes. Commissioner D'Anne said that she worked for the City for 30 years and said that she saw this situation time and time again. Commissioner D'Anne said that these positions are crafted solely so that only one person could apply and it is usually the person that is in that position. Commissioner D'Anne asked if the Department had an 1823 class at present. Assistant Director Lee said that the Department did not have the class at this time and initially DHR approved the 1823, but after Director Chiu and she approved it they realized that it was tailored to one person and the position was resubmitted to DHR so that it can be open for a general position. Commissioner D'Anne asked if this classification would be open to all personnel. Assistant Director Lee said that part of the reason why the Department uses Special Assistant positions is because these positions and the functions and responsibilities associated with them encompassed more than one position that existed. Assistant Director Lee said that the 1374 position, which is the Manager of Finance position, was an example, as normally under City classifications there is a budget manager who just does the budget and there are people who just do contracts or purchasing. Assistant Director Lee stated that there aren't too many classifications, except one that is tailored to Planning and tailored to specific departments that encompass all of those functions. Assistant Director Lee said that this is why DBI had to do a Special Assistant because of the problem that DHR is well aware of, they created a new classification called a 5105 which encompasses all of those functions, budget, finance, purchasing and contracts. Assistant Director Lee said that now DHR has given a classification for all of the functions and this is open Citywide. Commissioner D'Anne asked why all of a sudden these positions are needed when the Department has been in operation for so many years now. Assistant Director Lee said that these people have been with the Department for quite some time. Commissioner D'Anne said that it was her understanding that Special Assistants were temporary positions. Assistant Director Lee said that these positions are temporary for three years, and then the Department is supposed to reclassify them into a classified position. Assistant Director Lee stated that some of the Special Assistant positions had been with the Department for more than six months, but not more than three years.
Director Chiu said that perhaps he could give an example of the typical process and referred to Item #2 in the memo, the One-Stop Coordination Program. Director Chiu said that when the Department created this new program, the expertise that the Department was looking for did not fit the description of a Building Inspector, Plan Checker, Planner or Public Works employee. Director Chiu said that the idea was to bring together those people who had varied experience from Planning, DPW, DBI and the Fire Department and when the new program was created there was a void as to what kind of classification those people would fit into. Director Chiu stated that three years ago when the Department worked with DHR they discussed the problem and DHR agreed to use the Special Assistant position of 1372. Director Chiu said that ever since then, DBI has been working with Civil Service to come up with a permanent classification. Director Chiu stated that it took DHR a couple of years to come up with a classification, but it was an open process with an actual Civil Service test and application process. Director Chiu said that as a result of this, DHR came back with a list and classification 6266, which is a Senior Plan Checker. Director Chiu said that as soon as the Department conducts interviews and selects those people then the four 1372 Special Assistant positions would be eliminated. Director Chiu stated that the process does take some time. Director Chiu said that the Department has to work with the Civil Service process and the union. Director Chiu said that DBI has been working as quickly as possible to get away from the Special Assistant positions. Director Chiu said that once the Department is through with this 6266 classification then there would be two less Special Assistants in the Department.
Commissioner Walker asked if there were any other "at will" employees besides the Director. Assistant Director Lee said that the Deputy Directors are "at will", but aside from the Special Assistants and the Deputy Directors she said that believed all positions were permanent positions or provisional. Assistant Director Lee said that provisional positions are not permanent. Commissioner Walker asked Assistant Director Lee to explain provisional. Deputy Director Lee said that meant that there was no permanent list available yet; DHR creates an examination and if there was no examination then some people are appointed provisionally. Deputy Director Lee said that provisionals would also include Special Assistants because they don't have a permanent Civil Service position. Commissioner Walker asked if those positions were listed on Assistant Director Lee's report. Assistant Director Lee said that they were not listed as the question of provisionals was not raised.
Commissioner D'Anne said that she did not know why the Department could not use the veteran Civil Servants that are currently working for many years. Commissioner D'Anne said that one of the Special Assistants was a temporary agency clerk and is now a Special Assistant in the classification of 1367 who performs technical research and billing codes and related issues. Commissioner D'Anne asked if this person came out of DBI or how did this person get to the Department; was this a request by the Department or was this person put in this position from an outside source. Commissioner D'Anne said that she has been reading and hearing that a lot of people are just placed in these positions for political reasons and don't have any qualifications whatsoever. Commissioner D'Anne said that it looked to her like this person, at least in this area if she had the right information, was never qualified to perform technical research on Building Codes, etc., but yet that person is in that particular job. Deputy Director Lee said that this person actually went to law school and assists in assisting the code analyst. Deputy Director Lee said that in this particular case, one of the reasons a Special Assistant was used was because DBI was not sure what the duties of this position would be. Deputy Director Lee said that this person also assists a disabled manager and there is not a single position that just assists a disabled manager or just does legislative issues and technical research and that is why that was a Special Assistant classification. Assistant Director Lee said that she was not sure what Commissioner D'Anne was trying to ask and stated that this person had been with the Department for quite some time. Commissioner D'Anne asked if the Department had requested all of the people. Assistant Director Lee answered, absolutely, there was a need that the Department saw. Assistant Director Lee said that with the One-Stop Coordinators the Department created a new program as there were a lot of problems with public requests. Assistant Director Lee said that in the past year there was an increase in the number of public requests in addition to the fact that there was an increase in neighborhood complaints. Assistant Director Lee said that there was concerns about permits that were stuck in the process so this person functioned in both of those capacities. Assistant Director Lee stated that the Manager of Administration and Finance was created a couple of year's back, and Ms. Lee stated that she had been in this position, as there was a need because of the Controller's Audit that said there needed to be financial controls and she was hired to do so. Assistant Director Lee said that she subsequently vacated that position. Commissioner D'Anne asked if there was more than one candidate for these positions and were their resumes checked just the same as when any position is filled.
Director Chiu said that he would try his best to respond to this issue, particularly for Special Assistant position 1367. Director Chiu said that the Technical Services Division is headed by Laurence Kornfield and a few years ago the Division had requested a position of not a technical person, but a person with a little background that would be able to do research that would be higher than a clerical position, but somewhere in between. Director Chiu said as a result of this request, the Mayor's Office, the Board of Supervisors and DHR granted DBI a two or three-year provision to use this position until it could be classified to a permanent classification. Director Chiu said that in order to reclassify a position, whether it is an 1822 or 1823, the Department has to go through the Civil Service process and then it is up to Civil Service to put out the announcement letting anyone that fits the criteria know that there is a job available, so they can apply for the position. Director Chiu said that in this particular case he felt that the job description was written, as Commissioner D'Anne expressed concern, so narrowly that only one person could qualify and would close the door to others who might apply. Director Chiu said that he was not aware of this particular position, nor was the Assistant Director and as this process was happening and he was made aware of the situation, he and Assistant Director Lee decided that this was not an open process and went back to DHR and asked them to look at the JAQ and reopen the process. Director Chiu said that he is concerned about making sure that none of these positions are tailored for just one person. Director Chiu said that he felt in this particular case this was happening and that is why it was stopped and said the Department will try not to duplicate this situation again. Commissioner Walker asked if it would be a lot of trouble to give her a list of provisional employees. Assistant Director Lee said that she would provide that list.
Commissioner D'Anne said that in talking about an open process on some of the job descriptions it states that someone would have to have two years experience in a certain position so it is narrowed down to the person that is already there because if this is an unusual classification it would be very rare to find somebody who fits that criteria with two years experience. Commissioner D'Anne said that a person might fit other experience, such as college graduate. Assistant Director Lee said that in the criteria there is always experience and/or education or and/or similar experience so when the Department hires someone they certainly want that person to have experience in the responsibilities that they need to carry out so there has to be that criteria, but there is always an option to have and/or education, and/or similar experience. Assistant Director Lee said that as the Managers review the employment applications they certainly look for that and will not just eliminate someone because they do not have two years specifically regarding technical research, but they have other experience in another jurisdiction. Assistant Director Lee said that the Department does want the best candidate for the job and said that she knew that Commissioner D'Anne was concerned that there were people who were not qualified for these jobs, but these people, and Assistant Director Lee said that she is amongst them, have worked very effectively in this Department. Assistant Director Lee stated that she would urge Commissioner D'Anne not to say that these people are not qualified because it is hurtful to staff. Commissioner D'Anne said that she was not saying that these people are not qualified, she was just asking questions.
Commissioner D'Anne asked who determined the salary ranges, as some of the salaries were high. Commissioner D'Anne said that it was her understanding that the Department was spending some $800,000 per year on these Special Assistants and asked if they are usually hired at the first step or do they come in at the fifth step. Assistant Director Lee said that the positions range from step one to step five, as it depends on recruitment needs; it is sometimes difficult to recruit good people to do certain jobs as they can make similar dollars in the private sector. Assistant Director Lee said that the Director has the discretion to hire at a higher step and there is certain criteria set out by DHR as to the appointments made. Commissioner D'Anne asked that since these are not positions that are already established how did the Department determine the salary range. Assistant Director Lee answered that DHR determines the salary range.
Commissioner D'Anne said that it is her understanding that there are two vacancies and if these are supposedly temporary, or as needed positions, how is it possible to have a vacancy. Assistant Director Lee said that the question was how many Special Assistants the Department had currently employed. Assistant Director Lee said that there is one vacant 1372 that was initially requested in the budget last year as the Department thought it would be needed. Assistant Director Lee said that DBI was not sure of those needs so this position was not filled; it was supposed to be a project manager internally for the online permits and other responsibilities and since that hasn't been determined, no one was hired. Commissioner D'Anne said that her understanding is that Special Assistants are temporary people so if there is no need for one, why would it even be budgeted at all. Assistant Director Lee said that a budget is something that you look into the future for, what are the future needs of the Department, and at that time the Department believed that the future need would require one staff person to handle the online permits and other permit issues. Assistant Director Lee said that the Department is not sure of the need yet and that is why it has been prudent enough not to fill that position. Assistant Director Lee said if the Department does not act within the three years, then that position will be lost, but the Department is trying to be fiscally prudent in leaving it vacant. Commissioner D'Anne said that these in effect are not going to be temporary positions because there is no timeline for what is temporary. Assistant Director Lee stated that there was a three-year duration. Commissioner D'Anne asked if the particular skills were not needed would that position be taken off of the rolls. Assistant Director Lee said that it did not mean that the Department did not need those particular skills, but if this position is hired and that person does not find a permanent classification within the three years, then it will be released. Commissioner D'Anne thanked Assistant Director Lee. Assistant Director Lee said that she would provide the Commission with the list of provisional employees and asked if individual names were being requested. Commissioner Walker said that she just wanted Assistant Director Lee to take the organizational chart and circle the positions.
Mr. Peter Fries stated that he worked for the City for twenty-three years as a Civil Servant, eight of which have been for DBI. Mr. Fries said that during those years he served as the Commissions inaugural secretary. Mr. Fries said that regarding the issue of Special Assistants he wanted to record for the record, and report to the Commission, that for the period that he served as Secretary to the Commission he was a Special Assistant and was never paid for that period. Mr. Fries said that he did not need a comment on that, but just thought that the Commission should know. Mr. Fries said that he wanted to clarify something that Assistant Director Amy Lee said in response to Commissioner D'Anne that these Special Assistant positions, once they are classified, will be open competitively meaning that there will be ample notice for other people who are in the Department of Building Inspection or who have worked for the City longer to compete to fill the positions. Assistant Director Lee said that when the 1367 Special Assistant position was reclassified to an 1823 position she has made sure this past year, as she was overseeing Personnel, to list all opening positions in the FYI Newsletter and stated that she made sure that the Personnel Office provides notification of all openings internally, as well as City wide. Assistant Director Lee said that if a staff person who has for instance, been working for the City for ten years would like that position, but they are not on the 1823 list, by the nature of DHR's requirements, the Department cannot consider that candidate. Assistant Director Lee said that this is part of the permanent classification's process and as much as the Department might like to hire a particular person, if they are not on the 1823 list, the Department cannot look at their resume. Commissioner Walker said if the Department were creating a new position, no one technically would be on the list to be qualified for it so everyone is equal. Assistant Director Lee said that if it is a new position there is an exam that can be taken or there is an eligible list such as with an 1824 there is always a running eligible list. Assistant Director Lee said that certainly if an 1824 was to be reclassified, which recently occurred and there was a notice posted, staff can go to DHR and get themselves on the list by getting qualified. Assistant Director Lee said that process is very long and hard because the employee has to get letters from past employers to verify the date of employment as well as the responsibilities, to make sure that those are appropriately matched to the current 1824 requirements.
Mr. Fries said that he wanted to state his concern, and said that he knew a whole bunch about Special Assistants. Mr. Fries said that the people who are currently occupying these positions as Special Assistants have advance notice, and said that he can assure that they do as he sat next to the guy who filled out a JAQ to be prepared to get himself on a list; advance notice that these are going to be reclassified as a very specific Civil Service position is not being made available to everyone else in the Department so that they can prepare themselves and get on the list while this three years rattles by. Mr. Fries said that theoretically what would happen, and in fact it is happening because he watched it happen was special treatment in the Personnel office where the Personnel Officer coached and counseled the fellow who is doing this, and then only those people who occupy those positions will inherit them. Mr. Fries said that in other words, if a one, two or three year notice or not a formal notice, but information is given to these people who occupy these positions, it should be given to everyone in the Department. Mr. Fries said that if this is happening now then the clock should stop and exact, equal time should be given to everyone in the Department. Mr. Fries said that this particular position, at one point in time, was going to be for a Senior Administrative Analyst, which is a self-certification, and there is no test. Mr. Fries said that a person submits an application, a resume and job experience and then gets on list, which is a rule of the list. Mr. Fries said that he watched this individual do this and now he has accomplished it so he is ready to inherit the position. Mr. Fries stated that other people in the Department were not given the same opportunity, himself included. Mr. Fries asked if this made any sense and asked if he could get a ruling from the Commission that equal time be given everybody so that these people do not automatically inherit. Mr. Fries said that otherwise what Commissioner D'Anne stated is exactly true that these classifications are being crafted for the people who occupy them.
Commissioner Walker asked if it were possible as classifications are being applied for to put out some sort of notice, or is that precluded by DHR. Assistant Director Lee said that she wanted to give an example. Assistant Director Lee said suppose the Department has an employee who has been working for the Department for ten years and they are a 1408, which is a Principal Clerk, and this person has done a fabulous job for ten years, which would warrant a promotion. Assistant Director Lee said that the Department will try to reclassify that position to a 1410 so that person, Person A, would work with the Department to write the JAQ; but when the 1410 examination comes up to be processed there is a very real chance that this person will not get the promotion, and the Department may lose that person because another 1410 qualifies and is on the list or there is a bump. Assistant Director Lee said that the Civil Service system inherently has these checks and balances, but at the same time Management needs the ability to hire qualified people because sometimes DBI may have to take a person from the list that another Department has kind of fired. Assistant Director Lee said that the Civil Service process incorporates those issues and balances. Assistant Director Lee said that she tries to notice everyone in the Department by putting notices on all of the bulletin boards and has always urged the Personnel Officer to let people know about what is happening. Assistant Director Lee said that the position that Mr. Fries is talking about was sent back to DHR because of some of the very same concerns that Mr. Fries expressed. Assistant Director Lee said that the position has not been filled by that gentleman and stated that she sent the JAQ paperwork back to the Department of Human Resources because the qualifications were crafted for one person individually, and she did not think that was appropriate. Commissioner Marks said that she thought the answer to Mr. Fries question was yes; the Department does give notice go people once there is an application for the new classification. Assistant Director Lee said that once the Department gets the approval from DHR to get the new classification in DBI, then it is posted and the Personnel Manager hand walks openings to everybody. Assistant Director Lee said the Department couldn't qualify everybody on the list. Commissioner Walker asked Director Chiu to speak on the issue.
Director Chiu said that it is policy to notify, as soon as possible, whenever there is a new requisition that is going to be cut or requested through DHR. Director Chiu said that when the Department found out that this particular requisition did not follow policy procedure, that position was cancelled. Director Chiu said that the Department does its best to try and notify the world that there is a new position available, but when the policy was not followed the requisition was sent back and the procedure will have to start all over. Director Chiu said that this particular individual is working as a 1367 and the requisition for the 1823 was sent back to DHR and said that the Department felt there was a flaw in the process. Commissioner Walker said that she certainly understood about wanting to promote people, but it is kind of an odd situation that a new position has to be created in order to do that. Commissioner Walker said that this is not done in most companies and Director Chiu said that this is different because it is Civil Service. Assistant Director Lee said that when there are such positions she makes sure that an extensive interview is conducted and that the position is open to everybody. Assistant Director Lee said that in the past year she has stopped some requisitions or appointments because it was not done properly. Assistant Director Lee said that even if it is an opportunity for promotion, interviews are still conducted and the Department looks for the best candidate.
Mr. Fries said that he felt that he was completely misunderstood and stated that he was saying that he heard that there were at least two esoteric classifications that had never existed in the Department. Mr. Fries stated that he knew about this because when he was Commission Secretary he went with Frank, William and Sean to negotiate with DHR. Mr. Fries said now there are these new classifications that would not normally be in this Department, like a Building, Housing or Plumbing Inspector or the standard clerical classifications; these are very esoteric classifications that people who are occupying them have advance notice that they are being reclassified and the JAQs are being put together. Mr. Fries said that individuals in the Department are highly unlikely to accidentally trip on that information by going to the Personnel Office and going through a stack of job announcements. Mr. Fries said that he was really referring to those classifications that are self-certification that the minute you submit information to the Human Resources Department, you are on a list and can be chosen. Mr. Fries said that if someone else in the Department does not know this, then the person occupying the position is just appointed and that is the information that should be shared with everyone in the Department, where it is a self-certification and not a standard classification.
Commissioner Walker said that she agreed with Mr. Fries and said that this information should be available to all employees. Assistant Director Lee said that she would welcome any suggestions from the Commission, but so far the methods that have been used have been posting on each floor, a list in the Personnel Office at 1650 and staff drops off openings to every individual staff person and it is also in the Newsletters. Commissioner Walker said the Commissioner was talking about possible new classifications. Assistant Director Lee said that this was inclusive of those new classifications and that she has also instructed the Personnel Office to let staff know about permanent exams that are happening through DHR, even those that may not be in DBI.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she wanted to say that the person who made up the Organizational Chart did a great job as it gives a good picture of the Department. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she was concerned about the vacancies and said that she understood that Ms. Lee was doing a great job to get temps in as needed over the last year and the year prior to that. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that sounded great, but what concerns her are things like Pat McKenzie doing the job of Lesley Stansfield and he is also on the fire committee so this is too much work for one human being. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the vacancies are in areas where personnel is the most needed, one in Housing and plenty of vacancies under Peter Burns under One-Stop Permit Coordinators. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that there are regular positions that need to be filled and the Department has plenty of money, so the positions should be filled.
President Fillon said that there was a member of the public that had waited a long time to speak and asked if it were okay with the other Commissioners if he allowed her to speak at this time. It was agreed to let the public member speak.
Ms. Kathleen Mullen introduced herself as being with the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation and wanted to let the Commission know about a building violation in her neighborhood at 50 Mason Street. Ms. Mullen said that Building Inspector John Aires had posted a Notice of Violation on the building yesterday after a complaint that was filed for change of use. Ms. Mullen stated that the building is proposed to be a retail lingerie shop with live models. Ms. Mullen said that apparently the building is going to be opening soon and even though a notice was posted the previous day, workers continue to work, new lighting has been installed and tables have been brought in. Ms. Mullen said that she wanted to air this comment to the Commission saying that if there are any permits that come about within the next 30 days from the owner of the building the neighborhood would like to know what they believe are the intentions of the owner. Ms. Mullen said that there is a North of Market special code that there cannot be an adult entertainment establishment within 1,000 feet of another. Ms. Mullen said that there is already another adult entertainment facility at 141 Mason Street. Ms. Mullen said that the definition of adult entertainment is kind of open at this point, whether or not it is a retail lingerie shop with live models or a strip club is kind of open to interpretation. Ms. Mullen said that she was speaking because she wanted to make sure that if it does go forward and open without any permits that the group is on public record saying that they are protesting this. Ms. Mullen said that she was looking for help as to what the neighborhood can do with work orders and what would be the next step if construction continues and the shop is open within the next week or two. Ms. Mullen stated that it looked like things were moving pretty quickly when looking inside the windows. Commissioner Walker asked Director Chiu to look into this and answer the question of what kind of permits are needed and who is verifying use. Director Chiu said that Supervisor Chris Daley's Office had called and written a letter about this project. Director Chiu said the Department had received a complaint and had tried to get into the property previously and just two days ago the inspector did get in to verify that construction work was going on. Director Chiu said that as a result of that a Stop Work Order was issued. Director Chiu said that there were no permits on file. Director Chiu said that he was concerned about the report that there is still construction going on and stated that he would send another inspector to monitor the project and make sure that work has been stopped. Commissioner Walker asked what the process would be as it sounded as if there was a change of use to something that would not be allowed there because of the restriction on adult entertainment. Director Chiu said that the process would be to come in and apply at DBI for a permit that indicated a change of use, and then automatically this would be sent to City Planning and this is when the restriction would trigger. Commissioner Walker asked for Director Chiu to check into this. President Fillon asked what the previous use of the space had been. Director Chiu said that it was some sort of school. Ms. Mullen said that originally it was a barber's college and now stages have been constructed at the back. Ms. Mullen said that there are two private stages; with parquet flooring and brass poles giving the illusion that it is not going to be a retail lingerie shop, but a private strip club of some sort. Ms. Mullen said that it is definitely a change of use and stated that the Planning Department had been copied on the Notice of Violation. Ms. Mullen said that as of that morning someone had removed the violation and work was continuing.
12. Review of Communication Items. At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.
a. Memorandum from Director Frank Y. Chiu to Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian requesting advice on impact of ordinance proposed by the Citizens Advisory Committee
on Lead Hazard Reduction.
b. Motion No. M01-65 from Supervisors Newsome and Daly to set a special offsite meeting of the Audit, Labor and Government Efficiency Committee for the purpose of receiving
community input on the following items concerning Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels: File Numbers 00-1926, 00-1185, 01-0024, and 01-0526. (Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 3:30 p.m.
to 6:30 p.m., Seneca Hotel lobby, 34 - 6th Street).
c. Fax dated April 30, 2001 from Nick Palter, CAC Architectural Representative to Secretary Ann Aherne regarding CAC appointments.
d. Copy of May 9, 2001,letter addressed to President Tom Ammiano, Board of Supervisors
from the International Federal of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21 regarding "Unlawful Working Conditions at 1660 Mission Street, the City Office Building known as the Permit Center."
e. Ordinance No. 58-01 regarding amending Article III, Chapter 1 of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code by adding sections to update the list of designated employees who must file financial disclosure statements and to modify the applicable disclosure requirements.
f. DBI announcement of Brown Bag Lunch Talks.
g. Public Advisory Committee Meeting Notes of Thursday, March 22, 2001.
h. Thank you letters received from the public commending DBI employees and Director Chiu's response letters to the public.
Commissioner Marks said that in Item #12g, the minutes that were provided by the Public Advisory Committee, MIS was mentioned and when the Commission was reviewing the budget for this year the Department was at Phase 3 and 4 which would mean, in theory, that by the end of this fiscal year on line permitting and public use for complaints and permit tracking would be available. Commissioner Marks said that from the minutes she could not figure out what had been accomplished other than that the public could get plumbing and electrical permits on line, but said that she could not understand what else has been accomplished. Commissioner Marks said that she would like this item agendized for a future meeting to have Mr. Armstrong present what he has in fact accomplished.
President Fillon said that he would like to put item #a on a future agenda. Commissioner Walker asked if he were talking about the lead paint issue. President Fillon said that he wanted a report from the staff. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian stated that item #12a was a memo from Director Chiu asking for Ms. Boyajian's advice.
13. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC meeting of May 2, 2001.
Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marks to approve the minutes. The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC-031-01
14. Review Commissioner's Questions and Matters.
a. Inquiries to Staff. At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.
Commissioner Marks said that she thought it had been resolved about suspending Director's Hearings, but said that she would like to think that it was the policy of the Department when there are major policy changes within the divisions that it be made public and/or discussed with parties that would be affected before it goes into affect as it would make it easier for the person who has to implement that policy change. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to add that it should be brought to the Commission so that the Commission can make the public aware. President Fillon said that it would have to be a major policy change and it would not have to be every decision. Commissioner Walker said that she was talking about things that deal with the public. President Fillon said that everything that the Department does is for the public. Commissioner Marks said that she had faith that the Department would know what to bring to the Commission and obviously if it is something like changing the names of the doors of the bathroom, this is not something that needs to be brought to the Commission. Director Chiu said that he would do his best to bring things to the Commission and would speak about this as an agenda item at a future meeting.
b. Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.
Commissioner Walker said that she believed that she had expressed what she wanted on the agenda. Director Chiu said that he wanted to have a closed-door session on his performance evaluation as this time every year, by Charter, the Commission is mandated to do so. Commissioner Walker asked if this was to do the evaluation or to do the criteria for an evaluation. President Fillon said that the criteria had already been set. Director Chiu said that the criteria was set last year and now the Commission is supposed to go over those agreed upon goals. President Fillon said that the Commission would grade the Director.
Secretary Aherne asked the President about Administrative Bulletins that had been submitted by Technical Services Division and said that there were a number of them that needed to be reviewed by the Commission. Director Chiu said that they would be on a future agenda.
Commissioner Walker said that there would be a three-hour Unlawful Demolition Committee meeting on Tuesday, June 19th and stated that she would not be available for the June 20th meeting. Secretary Aherne reminded the Commission that there would be no meeting on July 4th due to the holiday. Commissioner Walker said that perhaps there could be a special meeting during the week of the 27th. President Fillon said that he would work with the Secretary regarding the next meeting.
15. Adjournment.
Vice-President Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santiago that the meeting be adjourned.
The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC-032-01
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
_______________________
Ann Marie Aherne Commission Secretary
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS
Director Chiu to write a letter to Director Ed Lee at DPW regarding Brewster Street, Copy to Vice-President Hood. - Vice-President Hood Page 5
Inspection and report back to Commission on drainage at 767-769 North Point. - Commissioners Santos & Guinnane Page 7
Report of no heat at 333 Webster Street - Vice-President Hood Page 10
Report on 4733 - 18th Street. - President Fillon Pages 8 - 14
Feasibility report on 1660 Mission Street annex. Report to be done within 2 months. - Vice-President Hood and Commissioner Guinnane Pages 17 - 20
Agenda Item - Select sub-committee to work on notification of tenants of burned out buildings. - Commissioner Walker Pages 25 - 27
Assistant Director Amy Lee to provide list of provisional employees. - Commissioner Walker Page 37
Update on 50 Mason Street. - Commissioner Walker Page 42
Report on status of MIS - Commissioner Marks Page 43
Report on Lead Paint issues. - President Fillon Page 43
Agenda Item - Policy changes made in the Department. - Commissioner Marks Page 44
Agenda Item - Closed Session for Director Chiu's performance evaluation. Page 44