2.

3.

4.

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

Mr. David Sassoon said he is from Brooklyn, Pacific Coast Stock Exchange, and asked if he could rent a building and have a gay gym in it.  President Hirsch said he did not understand the question, but he supposed that anyone could rent a building if the owner was willing to rent it.  Mr. Sassoon asked about the government property.  President Hirsch said the Pacific Stock Exchange is not government property, as far as he knows.  Mr. Sassoon asked where he would go to rent buildings that have not been rented a long time.  President Hirsch said he presumes Mr. Sassoon would rent from the owners of the building.  Mr. Sassoon stated President Bush keeps talking about social security and asked who is paying the taxes on empty businesses that are not paying the taxes, because he is not.  President Hirsch stated he is not sure this is within the Building Inspection Commission’s jurisdiction.  Mr. Sassoon asked when does it talk about that stuff, and he said this is supposed to be real estate, and then he asked what this meeting was.  President Hirsch said this is the Building Inspection Commission.  Mr. Sassoon asked when does the Commission bring in OSHA to inspect empty buildings from Brooklyn.  President Hirsch said he truly did not understand Mr. Sassoon’s question and thanked him for his comments.

Mr. John Kelly said in January the Commission made a negative decision on a complaint that he presented, and his comments have to do with that decision.  Mr. Kelly stated the Department of Building Inspection, AB-29, requires minimum standard living conditions in the City’s homeless shelters, including 50 square feet of sleeping space for each occupant.  Mr. Kelly said in January, despite his complaint, the Commission affirmed the Department’s decision that AB-29 did not apply at the City’s two largest homeless shelters, MSC South and the Episcopal Sanctuary.  Mr. Kelly said for reasons stated in his letter to the Commission, this decision is wrong, but in January instead of a discussion about the points raised in his December letter, the Commission threw up two smoke screens to divert attention as to why it was wrong.  Mr. Kelly said the first smokescreen was to insult him by questioning his motives for bringing his complaints, and since he was not asked his motives he will now state them.  Mr. Kelly stated two years ago while working with the Homeless Seniors Task Force he learned elderly, disabled, physically, mentally, and many other unfortunate people, live in San Francisco’s homeless shelters in very poor conditions.  Mr. Kelly said they sleep on rubber mats on the floor, on small plastic cots, small wooden bed frames and in bunk beds, all under very crowded conditions.  Mr. Kelly stated he learned that MSC South and the Episcopal Sanctuary were in violation of AB-29, including the 50-foot rule.  Mr. Kelly said his motivation in bringing complaints against these two shelters to the Department was to seek some improvement in the living conditions at these shelters.  Mr. Kelly stated Mayor Newsom has called the living conditions in the City’s shelters disgraceful and he is right.  Mr. Kelly said unfortunately the Department and now this Commission is contributing to these disgraceful conditions by refusing to enforce the law in the shelters.  Mr. Kelly stated this brings him to the second smokescreen utilized by the Commission to avoid discussion of the merits of his complaints.  Mr. Kelly said he was told if AB-29 was enforced many homeless people would be thrown out on to the street, and this is an illegitimate argument, a red herring.  Mr. Kelly stated if enforcement of regulations, requiring minimum standard living conditions would require more housing and shelters for homeless people, then build more housing and shelters, but do not allow the continuation of illegal conditions in the shelters.  Mr. Kelly thanked the Commission.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said DBI, which is the best run Department in the City, as evidenced by the bottom line, it is the only Department that has money, has not raised its fees, unlike the Planning Department which has raised its fees as high as 300%, for instance to get a negative debt which costs $3,000 a year ago, and six months ago, costs $23-25,000.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated the real insult to injury is the Planning Department tells customers it will take several months before their plans are assigned to a planner.  Mr. O’Donoghue said this is the first step and if the planner goes on vacation or has a backlog, it could take another five months more to review.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated what this means is it is ill foreboding for the productivity level of this Department and means DBI will have to adjust its revenue expectations despite what is in the backlog.  Mr. O’Donoghue said one of the reasons the Department of Building Inspection has been so judicious in cost is from the private sector, and the Department has been able to tell the Commission and staff as to what is behind the figures.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Business Times ran an article that showed housing in the pipeline and what has been built.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that very few of those units will be built because of a number of factors, and some of those are already coming to light.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that last week Mr. San Jachimo who was ready to build 1,500 units of housing at 11^th and Market Street and 490 units of low cost housing, sent a letter to the Mayor’s office threatening to withdraw his 1,500 units because of interference from the administration.  Mr. O’Donoghue said a lawsuit was filed a week or two ago, by a developer in the Bayview Shipyard, which means that project is now going to be caught up in litigation.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated there was Jack Myers’ project that was the biggest project west of the Mississippi, but has already been pulled off the drawing boards.  Mr. O’Donoghue said this means that there will be less housing and that this Department will have to give Jack Myers $1M back in fees that he prepaid.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated recently a downtown developer and some architects approached him and asked how the Mayor could correct it.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the Mayor was not the problem; the problem is the Chronicle, which is not properly reporting events.     Mr. O’Donoghue stated that people need to go to the big builders downtown as well as the Chronicle and say they will pull their ads if the newspaper will not get true, accurate reporting as to what is happening in this City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said one of the reasons for the builders’ success is that they look objectively at the political model, and bring this to the Commission’s attention. 

 

5.

President Hirsch said at the current time, the Litigation Committee has only one member and that is Roy Guinnane, who unfortunately was not present.  President Hirsch stated the Commission would welcome Commissioner Guinnane’s input as to how he sees the committee functioning, and how many members the Commission should appoint.  President Hirsch said his own feeling is that the committee would probably require three members, at minimum.  Commissioner Fillon stated the committee requires a maximum of three members.  President Hirsch asked if there were any other comments from members of the Commission.  Secretary Aherne said she spoke with Commissioner Guinnane the day before, and he would want to be on the Litigation Committee again, should the Commission so appoint.  Commissioner Ting asked Secretary Aherne if she could explain what the committee is doing right now.  Secretary Aherne said currently the Litigation Committee is not meeting because they do not have a quorum.  Secretary Aherne stated the committee hears cases that have gone through the Director’s Hearing, are in litigation and have gone through all the processes, and end up mostly at the City Attorney’s office.  Secretary Aherne said then the committee gets together and discusses these cases in Closed Session and also to decide about penalties and fees.  Secretary Aherne stated the committee has to also decide whether to take a certain case to trial, and they have been very successful:  There have been a few very large dollar amounts where fees and penalties have come back to the Department.  Secretary Aherne said she believes the Sainez case was one of the largest cases for a scofflaw landlord that was ever in any City, so the committee has been very successful. Secretary Aherne stated she thought Commissioner Fillon was on the Litigation Committee for a while, and asked if he could elaborate on this.  Commissioner Fillon said yes he was and Secretary Aherne said that the committee met once a month and it was a very productive meeting. President Hirsch asked if the committee reported back to the Commission as a whole.   Secretary Aherne said the committee reports back on certain things, but it cannot report back on items that are discussed in Closed Session, so they can possibly report on dollar amounts and things like that, but not the specifics of a certain case.  Secretary Aherne stated the committee is very active, does a lot of work, and is very involved.  President Hirsch asked if the Litigation Committee deals directly with the City Attorney’s Office.  Secretary Aherne said this was correct.  President Hirsch asked if anything the committee recommends goes to the City Attorney’s Office. Secretary Aherne stated this was correct and Department staff meets with the committee as well; including Acting Director Hutchinson, Assistant Director Lee, and Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque who at times bring forward cases and discuss them at the meetings.  Secretary Aherne said a lot of times Commissioner Guinnane and former President Santos would try to do everything they could, as far as having the City Attorney write letters to make people act, rather than spending money on trials, and they always watched the budget.  President Hirsch said the Commission could either nominate members or they could see who would be interested in serving on this Committee.  Commissioner Romero volunteered to be a member of the Litigation Committee.  President Hirsch said Commissioner Romero would join Commissioner Guinnane on the committee, and asked Commissioner Lee if he would like to be the third member.  Commissioner Lee accepted the position.  President Hirsch asked if there was any comment or discussion by the rest of the board and then he thanked both Commissioners Romero and Lee for volunteering.  Commissioner Fillon said the Commission appreciates their joining the committee and he stated the Litigation Committee is one of the most important committees and he is sure the Commissioners will do well.  President Hirsch said the new Litigation Committee consists of Roy Guinnane, Criss Romero, and Frank Lee.  President Hirsch called for public comment.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said by way of background what led to this committee was under the old system the City Attorney’s Office was charging the Department in excess of $600,000, and no billing was coming forth.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated worse than that, there was no enforcement of the Building Code and the Housing Department could not get enforcement through the City

Attorney’s Office.  Mr. O’Donoghue said cases were not litigated and they were being settled.  Mr. O’Donoghue said to show what this Commission did as a result of the Litigation Committee; the Sainez Case is a direct case that is a great example.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the City Attorney’s Office recommended that, that case be settled for $20,000, but this Commission with Roy Guinnane refused that settlement.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated after discussion among the Commissioners, it was decided that the Department would proceed with this case.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated it went to the appellate level and they appealed it further than that, at the instigation of this Commission, at the objection of the City Attorney’s Office the case was settled for $1 million.  Mr. O’Donoghue said this Commission got the $1 million, which then went to the housing section, which has been subsidized by the builders’ permits.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated now the Department has the money for true enforcement at the housing division.  Mr. O’Donoghue said worse than that, what happened was there was interest accumulated of $190,000 and the City Attorney’s Office grabbed that money and would not give it to this Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Roy Guinnane, over the objection of all other Commissioners, went to the Mayor who went to Ed Harrington who ordered the City to pay this Commission the $190,000 in interest.  Mr. O’Donoghue said there was a conflict between the City Attorney’s Office, who many times had a conflict to represent both the Board of Supervisors and the Departments who are both looking for money.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated like in any law firm, a person could never be represented by the same attorney on opposite cases.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the AIMCO case resulted in the largest settlement of $3.5 million, and he can guarantee it was over the reluctance of the City Attorney’s Office that the case was pushed forward.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated the Department was criticized for involvement of outside contractors but this was the largest settlement ever.  Mr. O’Donoghue said this Commission and the people responsible never got the credit for that great settlement, and John Kerley, a Housing Inspector, was put in charge of this case because he had a background in the construction industry.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated Mr. Kerley presented the facts that the opposite side knew they could not win if the case went to court. Mr. O’Donoghue said that is why the independence of this Department is so important, and that is why the builders will go to the ballot to insure the separation of powers in November when they will have their own City Attorney hired by this Department and every other Department will have the same.    

President Hirsch asked if there were any further comments, and reminded everyone that this portion is public comment on the Litigation Committee.

Mr. David Sassoon asked who he sues if he does not get an OSHA sticker to open up his business. President Hirsch re-stated the question.  Mr. Sassoon said he heard a lot of businesses did not get OSHA 2005 handbooks.  Assistant Director Lee said as she mentioned OSHA is in California, and the jurisdiction is the state, so she encouraged Mr. Sassoon to go to the State Building.  Ms. Lee stated the Building Inspection Commission does not enforce state regulations.  President Hirsch thanked Ms. Lee for her assistance and stated there would not be any further discussion on this issue.

6.

President Hirsch asked if the Commission could have some background on the committees. Vice President Hanrahan asked if there was a list of the positions that need to be filled.  Secretary Aherne said she could tell the Commission a little bit about what each body is and she read a description of each of the committees:

Access Appeals Commission (AAC) The purpose of the Access Appeals Commission is to serve the City and county of San Francisco and the general public by hearing written appeals regarding actions taken by the Department of Building Inspection for access to public accommodations by physically handicapped persons as well as actions taken by the Department in enforcement of the disabled access and adaptability provisions of this code. The mission of the AAC consisting of five members is to conduct hearings to approve or disapprove the Department’s interpretation and actions taken by the Department to enforce said regulations and abate violations. The AAC shall establish reasonable rules and regulations for its own procedures; choose its officers, conduct public meetings, designate and official reporter and make decisions and recommendations by resolution.  There are five members, four members that are currently serving and their terms have expired but they continue to serve until the BIC appoints someone else. There is one vacancy on the Access Appeals Commission, which is a Construction Industry Seat.  

Board of Examiners (BOE) The Board of Examiners is a group of experts created under section 105.1 of the San Francisco Building Code.  The purpose of the BOE is to hear and determine requests by the public as to whether new materials, new methods or types of construction comply with standards of safety, which include the San Francisco Building Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical, and Mechanical Code.  The BOE has the power to determine reasonable interpretation of the provisions of the San Francisco Building Code and hears appeals from the director’s condemnation order involving construction methods, assembly, materials, or where safety is involved.  All of the member’s terms have expired, but there are two seats open and they are very particular:  One is a Registered Fire Protection Engineer Seat, which the Commission has had a very hard time filling and the other is a High Rise Sprinkler Building Owner Seat.  These two positions need to be filled.

Code Advisory Committee (CAC) The Code Advisory Committee is a very active committee and the mission of the CAC is to preserve and promote health, safety, and welfare of the public through the regulation of the built environment with codes and standards that are clear, concise, consistent and enforceable recognizing unique characteristics of San Francisco and striking a balance between scientific knowledge and real world conditions.  The CAC consists of 17 members who are qualified by training and experience to deliberate and make recommendations on matters pertaining to the development of the San Francisco Building Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Plumbing and Housing Code, as well as related rules and regulations or proposed ordinances that the Director or BIC may determine to have an impact on construction permits.  Specific recommendations of this committee are directed to the Building Inspection Department for further action.  Items are often referred to the Code Advisory Committee for them to review and they come before the Commission to be passed.  There are two vacant seats on the CAC:  Member At Large Seat and Residential Project Contractor Seat.

Unreinforced Masonry Building Appeals Board (UMB) The purpose of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Appeals Board is to hear applications for variance from or interpretation of code requirements for unreinforced masonry committee to hear applications from or interpretation of code requirements for unreinforced masonry buildings. The UMB recommends approval or disapproval of types of new methods or types of construction for unreinforced masonry buildings, hear appeals from the Director’s Abatement Order of UMBs, review UMB retrofit alteration permits, and cost estimates for demolition permits assist seismic safety bond program and advisory boards pursuant to authority granted to the board under Chapter 16B and 16C of the San Francisco Building Code.  There are four vacant seats on the Unreinforced Masonry Building Appeals Board:  A Bond Board Seat, Civil Engineer Seat, Contractor Seat, and a Tenant Seat. 

President Hirsch asked if the Building Inspection Commission’s committee that would appoint and recruit potential members, is it the same as with the Litigation Committee or do they come back through the Commission as a whole with their recommendations.  Secretary Aherne said the Commission would select a committee and they would have applicants come before them and if they perhaps had three candidates for one seat, they could also appear before the Commission and the Commission could question those people, and decide on who is finally appointed.  Secretary Aherne stated typically the Commission is lucky if they can get people to volunteer.  Commissioner Fillon said he was on the committee for quite a while and the way they handled the process was to find the people, interview them, and then the candidates were brought back to the Commission.  Commissioner Fillon stated it was hard to find candidates, so usually the committee was only choosing between one or two candidates that the Commission was lucky to find.  Commissioner Fillon said next the candidates would be introduced to the Commission to present their qualifications, and the Commission makes the final approval.  President Hirsch asked if the committee still existed and if Commissioner Fillon was still serving.  Secretary Aherne said Commissioner Fillon was not serving.  President Hirsch repeated that there were no members on this committee and Secretary Aherne said he was on that committee along with Rodrigo Santos.  President Hirsch stated there was a committee of two, and asked Commissioner Fillon if he would care to serve again.  Commissioner Fillon said he thought it would be a good idea for some of the new Commissioners to serve on the committee, because it is a good way to learn what the subcommittees are, and he has pretty much tapped out his resources.  Secretary Aherne stated this committee would not necessarily meet every month: They would try to do recruiting, meet to review applications that are received, and make recommendations.  Secretary Aherne said until there are either vacancies or it is time to reappoint again, then the committee would have to meet, but it would not be ongoing as the Litigation Committee.

Commissioner Lee asked what kinds of requirements were needed for the members of these committees, and asked if they have to be San Francisco residents.  Secretary Aherne said yes they have to be San Francisco residents and that is part of the problem because there were some good candidates who applied and worked in San Francisco, but lived out of the City and the Commission could not avail of their ability.  Vice President Hanrahan asked if Secretary Aherne could repeat the list of open seats for the Unreinforced Masonry Building Appeals board.  Secretary Aherne stated the open seats are:  Bond Board Seat, Civil Engineer Seat, and a Tenant’s Seat.  Commissioner Ting said he wanted to thank Secretary Aherne for putting this information together.  Commissioner Ting stated he originally brought this topic up a few meetings ago because he was approached by a member of the public who was concerned, and noted that a number of the seats were not filled and some of the terms had expired.  Commissioner Ting said he is glad the Commission put this issue on the table.  Commissioner Ting asked Secretary Aherne how many positions there were total on the Board of Examiners, as well as the UMB.

Secretary Aherne said on the Board of Examiners there are currently nine people serving right now and two more are needed, so that would be 11 positions.  Secretary Aherne stated on these boards that have quite a few people, she could mention there was 17 on the Code Advisory Committee and they could meet because if they have nine people, they have a quorum.  Secretary Aherne said one of the committees that is very hard is the Access Appeals Commission since they only have five people and it makes it very difficult if somebody is missing because they do not have a quorum.  Secretary Aherne said unfortunately she does not have the information for the UMB but she could get it.  Commissioner Ting thanked Secretary Aherne. 

President Hirsch said it sounds as if the Commission should really act on this issue and stated that Commissioner Ting expressed some interest in serving on the committee.  Commissioner Ting said he would be happy to serve on the committee.  President Hirsch asked Vice President Hanrahan if she was interested in serving but she declined at this time.  Commissioner Fillon said he would serve on the committee.  President Hirsch thanked Commissioner Fillon and stated he had the experience that he could bring to the committee.  President Hirsch called for public comment.

Mr. Frederick Freund, Chair of the CAC, said he believes the CAC has three vacancies at the moment not two, and those vacancies have existed for much too long from his perspective.  Mr. Freund said not only is there the CAC but there are about six or more subcommittees that meet basically once a month, as well as the CAC meeting.  Mr. Freund stated all of the code amendments are reviewed by the CAC before they come to the Commission and it is work well done from his perspective.  Mr. Freund said he would be delighted to see any of the members of the Commission at any meetings, because the CAC feel that they are out there all alone and historically they have had visits from the chair or members of the Commission, but not in recent years.  President Hirsch thanked Mr. Freund and asked him to notify the Commission of the meetings, and said they would endeavor to be there.  Secretary Aherne said she would like to let Commissioner Ting know that there are nine members on the UMB.  Commissioner Ting thanked Secretary Aherne.

Mr. Ken Cleaveland of BOMA said he is representing the building owners of San Francisco.  Mr. Cleaveland stated they represent 300 office buildings, almost 72 million square feet in downtown San Francisco, primarily Class-A office buildings.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that

BOMA is a huge stakeholder in the City and the reason he is speaking on this issue is the residency requirement; he thinks there are so many bodies that are underneath this Commission that need the expertise that we simply cannot find in people living in San Francisco.  Mr. Cleaveland said perhaps the expertise is there but the individuals do not have the time or the inclination.  Mr. Cleaveland stated the Commission should throw out a wider net and he would like to see the Commission pass a resolution urging the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors to amend that restriction that members have to live in San Francisco.  Mr. Cleaveland said that he knows of a lot of people that are engineers who have a lot of expertise regarding codes and are willing to serve, but they cannot because they do not live in the City.  Mr. Cleaveland stated he would highly recommend the Commission to select people with expertise, regardless of their residency so that they can have a committee or advisory body of fully staffed volunteers. 

President Hirsch asked for a comment from the City Attorney’s Office.  Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said the Commission actually does have the power to waive the residency requirement if no one that lives in the City wants to serve.  President Hirsch re-affirmed Ms. Boyajian’s statement and asked that the Commission keep this in mind.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said in the past the Commission tried to waive the residency requirement, but was told by the then Acting City Attorney that this was not possible.  Mr. O’Donoghue agreed with Mr. Cleaveland’s statement and said the Construction Sector is not interested in writing the codes, they merely implement them but BOMA has had incredible expertise in working on the Code requirements and restrictions.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated the fact that many of BOMA’s members have been excluded because they live outside of the City so this has hurt the process internally and it is reflected by the vacancies on the various committees.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the Commission should get the City Attorney’s statement that they can waive the residency requirement in written form so the vacant positions can be filled.

Commissioner Ting asked what was the City process for waiving this requirement and what steps does the Commission need to go through if they can not find anybody.  Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said she needs to actually research that and there needs to be a record that the Commission has tried to find San Francisco people and have not been able to.  Ms. Boyajian said she thinks the track record of not being able to fill these positions is a good indication, but she will research what the Commission needs to do.  President Hirsch said it sounds like the Commission does not really need to pass anything and that the mechanism is already there.  Ms. Boyajian stated it is already in the law and the Commission just needs to make a factual showing. Commissioner Ting said he thinks these listings have been posted for quite a while, and Secretary Aherne has made her best effort to do this.  Secretary Aherne said the listings are already posted on SFGTV’s bulletin board, and she thinks candidates will be found through association or somebody actually asking somebody to serve on these committees.  Secretary Aherne stated she would be glad to talk to anyone who could help by serving on one of the committees.  Secretary Aherne said if the person has a mailing list, she would be happy to send out information to BOMA, SPUR or anybody that could give her some help.  President Hirsch said that Mr. Freund’s and Mr. Cleaveland’s assistance would be welcome.  President Hirsch called for public comment, and there was none.

7.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, said he was in charge of the Technical Services Division and one of their functions is to prepare Administrative Bulletins, which guide the Department and inform the public as to how the Department will conduct business.  Mr. Kornfield stated these bulletins are written through an extensive public process where the Department brings the idea of the bulletin to the Code Advisory Committee, and they typically send it to one of their subcommittees.  Mr. Kornfield said the Department conducts what seems to be a long and extensive public debate on the issues, typically going through half a dozen drafts.  Mr. Kornfield stated that right now what the Department is looking at is draft number one of an Administrative Bulletin, which is prepared in accordance with the regulations passed by the Board of Supervisors last year, which require the Department to take permits in the order in which they are received for plan check purposes, except where the Department can establish written procedures for giving priority to certain types of permits. 

Assistant Director Amy Lee said before Mr. Kornfield continued she just wanted to bring the Commission’s attention to the actual legislation that was in their packet, Attachment 7b, which is part of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code that was passed.  Ms. Lee said there were two problems, requiring the Ethics Commission to draft a Permit Process and Code of Conduct.  Ms. Lee stated that Attachment C was a difficult process for the Ethics Commission to do, and she wanted to applaud them for this difficult task but they adopted this legislation on January 10^th.  Ms. Lee said Attachment 7b requires the Department of Building Inspection, the Planning Department, and the Department of Public Works to enforce these rules.  Ms. Lee said if the Commission looks at Section 3.400b, it states what the government code wants the Department to do, and Mr. Kornfield is attempting to implement what the code is asking the Department to do by writing this draft Administration Bulletin.  Ms. Lee said as the Commission discusses the whole draft, she wants to highlight some points:  It is a very difficult task because honestly speaking the members, with all good intentions of trying to make sure that the Department does things that are transparent and done in a fair manner, they did not clearly understand the permit process and how DBI reviews its applications and plans.  Ms. Lee stated the Department had a very difficult time trying to ensure that we could still process plans in a timely, effective, and safe manner, and at the same time honor the intent of this code so she wants to make sure the Commission is aware of this particular section that the Department is required to implement.

Mr. Kornfield said draft number one was prepared following discussion of this with DBI staff, and said he believes this was brought up at the Public Advisory Committee meeting which is held monthly.  Mr. Kornfield stated this draft bulletin has been distributed to probably a hundred different people for their comments and he has received a half a dozen or more written comments. Mr. Kornfield said now the Department is bringing this before the Commission for its comments

as well.  Mr. Kornfield stated this is a big issue for the Department and a lot of employees are concerned because the legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors says if an employee does not follow the rules of proper priority of permits, then they would be in violation of misconduct.  Mr. Kornfield said the employees want rules as to what this actually means and one of the things Ms. Lee and he have talked about is that there needs to be flexibility to deal with real world situations, for instance if someone brings in a minor revision that takes five minutes to review do they want to put it at the bottom of a big stack of other revisions, which might mean it is a two week wait to get to it.  Mr. Kornfield stated the Department needs to write rules that reflect how it really does business and they are attempting to do that.  

Commissioner Lee asked if Assistant Director Lee could explain why on Case B – Item 2,3,4,5,6 and 9 they would be considered a priority and if they were legislated.  Ms. Lee said it is not, sometimes it is legislation depending on the project and in those instances where there are public funds and there is a public interest in trying to expedite the problem in coming to fruition, it is a government necessity and the Department is a government agency, so that would be in the public’s best interest.  Ms. Lee stated the Department wanted to make sure that would not get delayed because if it is done by the time that it comes in, it would get delayed so the Department sets out specific cases that they thought were an everyday honest part of our business in how we handle our permits.  Ms. Lee said the difficulty is that real or not there was a perception out there that the Department provided preferential treatment, so now we are required to change what we do entirely.  Ms. Lee stated there is a disciplinary attachment to this and if an employee supposedly does not follow the process then they are breaking the law.  Ms. Lee said that the Department needs to make sure the employees feel empowered to do things that make common sense, and they do not want to take away common sensibilities in processing DBI’s permits.  Ms. Lee stated it would perhaps be helpful for this discussion if Tom Hui, Laurence Kornfield, or Jim Hutchinson explained to the Commissioners how permits are processed, what an addendum is, what a revision means, and so on.  Ms. Lee said some of the examples we find may be troubling in setting these guidelines.

Acting Director Hutchinson said he believes with these potential enactments going in place and new regulations that the Department of Building Inspection is one of the most heavily regulated departments in the City.  Mr. Hutchinson stated he is saying this because the Department is looking at priority guidelines.  Mr. Hutchinson said the Department has a Code of Conduct which they worked on with the Controller’s Office, and the Department is subject to public disclosure acts by City and state law which requires certain staff to document properties they own or loans they have obtained.  Mr. Hutchinson stated the Department has civil service regulations and he maintains these guidelines are appropriate for every City agency, yet the Department has been singled out because of politics.  Mr. Hutchinson said he cannot fight the Chronicle and he has given up trying because common sense has gone out the window.  Mr. Hutchinson stated employees are going to be facing situations when they take in a permit, that any member of the public that might be upset can make a complaint saying their permit was processed incorrectly and this will lead to an investigation with the Ethics Commission.  Mr. Hutchinson said the Department has to post guidelines saying employees are subject to official misconduct and everything that goes along with that.  Mr. Hutchinson stated in fairness now that the Department is on the verge of adopting this legislation, that the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors should extend similar guidelines to every agency within the City and county of San Francisco because potential conflicts of interest exist in every department.  Mr. Hutchinson said he is proud of the Building Inspectors and all of the other inspectors who tried to work with these guidelines and gave their input by coming forth with a meaningful discussion on this issue.  Mr. Hutchinson stated when the Department read the Civil Grand Jury report and wrote to the judge and asked them about documented instances of preferential treatment they would not provide this information and there was no response.  Mr. Hutchinson stated if the Department is dealing with 50,000 permits a year and there is not once instance brought up, then preferential treatment must be non-existent.  Mr. Hutchinson said the DBI also had a Controller’s Audit, they spent two years with the Department, and there was a non-biased survey of DBI’s employees and the public we serve and 85% came back with a favorable rating and employee morale was higher.  Mr. Hutchinson stated he asked the Controller to do this for every agency and said that he was proud of the honest and hard working employees at DBI

Assistant Director Lee said despite her concerns as well as the staff’s concerns with this legislation, this government code was implemented and effective December 15, 2004, so knowing that the Department must implement this, she would like to encourage the Commission to give their comments since this is a draft.   Ms. Lee stated that she and Mr. Kornfield think the guidelines will incorporate more comments and come back to the Commission for their final approval before it is adopted.  Ms. Lee stated that BOMA, the R.B.A., and the A.I.A. are present and she thinks this is important because the Department has to implement this and we all have to live with it, so it is important to have as many comments as possible in the draft process.  Ms. Lee said she wanted to encourage all members of the community, DBI staff, agencies that the Department serves, customers, and permit expediters to give their feedback and comments as well in order to come up with something that the Department can implement and the staff can work with, without fear of discipline.  Ms. Lee stated for the Commissioners benefit, if they need some discussion on the permit process and the revision she could have Mr. Laurence Kornfield or Mr. Tom Hui give them some real examples.  Ms. Lee stated that she and Mr. Hui discussed some examples of where it would not fit if there is a minor revision to change in some of the rooms or sometimes revisions are submitted because they mislabel the rooms, bathrooms instead of sink, a kitchen, or whatever so it is a revision.  Ms. Lee said the Department’s draft stated the revisions will also be handled in a separate category, but in the order we receive it so you have two piles.  Ms. Lee gave an example of having an application pile and it is received let’s say March 1,2,3,4 and you have a revision that is marked March 1,2,3,4; The one you receive in March may not match the revision order so you will see some unnecessary delays in projects because the revision is in the bottom of the barrel, or the last one to be reviewed but the initial application is the first one, so you will have to wait.  Ms. Lee stated this is one of the many examples so if the Commission had any questions she would be glad to answer them. 

President Hirsch asked how the Department would handle these five-minute revisions and where does that appear in the draft.  Mr. Kornfield said it is listed in Case C, Item 4 – revisions, corrections, and other submittals are minor and do not delay the processing of such materials.  President Hirsch asked if this would fall under the category of other submittals.  Mr. Kornfield stated he thought it would.  President Hirsch asked if this would include the initial submittals as well.  Mr. Kornfield said the Department did not put that same exception in there for initial submittals original permit applications, and are still struggling with how to address that.  President Hirsch said that is the issue; If somebody comes in with a simple over the counter request, it is an initial submittal, would it fall under Category A or C.  Mr. Kornfield stated no, that would be for revision and an original one would take its place.  Mr. Kornfield said the concept is there are many different piles and if it is an original permit for a minor homeowner remodel, it would go in a stack of all permit submittals, but the Department is still trying to work out the details.  President Hirsch asked if there were different kinds of stacks of submittals.  Mr. Kornfield stated this was right and these would be difficult to track unfortunately because the Department is not set up to track these kinds of things.  Commissioner Fillon asked Mr. Kornfield a question regarding Item B4 and said this is a kind of applies to most of these; There seems to be some guidelines that are very general and there seems to be holes where things could slip in.  Commissioner Fillon said on Number B4, permits for work consisting solely of disabled access improvements, he could see situations occurring – A high percentage of the projects in San Francisco remodeling require some accessible upgrades.  Commissioner Fillon said he could see people turning those in to get to the front of the list and turning in the rest of the work as an addendum or revision, and asked how the Department would deal with that.  Mr. Kornfield said that was an interesting question and point, so he would make a note of that.  Commissioner Fillon said sometimes the left hand does not see what the right hand is doing. 

Assistant Director Lee said the Department does need to implement this and try to do a good job at doing so, but they want the flexibility for DBI’s staff to do what is best for the public interest as well.  Ms. Lee stated it would open a Pandora’s Box for example, Case C2 if people complain about missed or lost plans, despite the Department’s efforts to lock down the building and the staff in the cubicles.  Ms. Lee said she sees a host of many spots that can be abused, so the Department is faced with how to balance its ability to review plans in a timely and effective manner with implementing this, or implementing the legislation and government code.  Commissioner Lee said he thinks this is a good start and that the Commission should move forward with it, but in addition he asked if the Department could report back to the Commission after this is implemented, as to how many cases in each category were submitted per period or something like that.  Commissioner Lee said he would be interested in knowing how people are viewing the projects, and what type of cases are being presented as priority.  Ms. Lee said the Department is a little behind, so our hope was to come before the Commission and try to receive more comments.  Ms. Lee stated she had another meeting to attend as well, and she would gather comments and come together for a final draft, while incorporating other comments, and once the Department does that, they will keep track.

Acting Deputy Director of Permit Services, Tom Hui, said first of all he appreciated Laurence Kornfield preparing this document since it was a difficult one to prepare.  Mr. Hui stated a lot of staff are worried because the legislation says any wrongdoing would be reprimanded and as he sees it he believes about 90% of the staff would possibly get reprimanded, because the root of the problem is there is not enough staff to do the work.  Mr. Hui stated this is why there is a delay and backlog in processing the permits.  Mr. Hui said if staff are worried about permit processing then they would probably cause delays in trying to follow the new rules.  Mr. Hui mentioned different projects and addendums and stated it was harder to pinpoint the process.  Mr. Hui stated there are different types of permits and some are simple revisions and there is not any structural work, yet certain problems could arise due to the site condition or during construction.  Mr. Hui said strictly going by the date would delay the process and could also cause a penalty.  Mr. Hui stated the addendum is usually applied to a bigger project.  Mr. Hui said he urges the Commission to review this legislation and also discuss it with union members, because they represent the inspectors.  Mr. Hui said he believes these guidelines will mostly affect the Plan Check program, and the problem is staff will try to follow this legislation strictly and then it will cause delays.

President Hirsch asked if any members of the Commission had any further comments.  Vice President Hanrahan said she would like to bring up the topic of the Bayview Hunters Point project, which was discussed about two meetings ago.  Vice President Hanrahan said this project was going to utilize more resources, and it seems to, under Case B, Number 2, just immediately

authorize that at the Acting Director’s discretion, and she asked how this relates.  Acting Director

Hutchinson said the Department would fast track it if possible, because they have set aside provisions for City projects or City-owned projects.  Mr. Hutchinson stated Biotech has been in the news lately and those would be private industry projects, so the Department would not consider setting up a fast track for them.  Mr. Hutchinson said he appreciated the support of the industry and that the Department has a fast track for checking office tentative improvement plans, but he doubts the Department would be open to setting up something for Biotech.  Vice President Hanrahan said what she was referring to was the Department was under staffed for the Bayview Hunters Point project, and there was tension that it be 1600 units, et cetera and she asked how this specific project or any project that the Department does not have the funding for relate to this.  Mr. Hutchinson said once the Department has the supplemental, then we would have the staff and it would allow us to treat those differently and fast track them.  Mr. Kornfield said he inserted Item B3 with the hope that it might address issues like the Hunters Point project, where he believes it is not paid for with government funds, but using City-owned land.  Mr. Kornfield stated Item B3 says where there is a specific written agreement with the Department or another agency, and part of the agreement then would be they are helping us; we have funding for staffing, and then we provide certain types of priority services. 

Assistant Director Amy Lee said another example of the Department’s grappling on this is B9, for which there is a significant public benefit or necessity.  Ms. Lee stated housing is a necessity and a public benefit, so does that mean anyone who is building any sort of high rise building gets a little more priority.  Ms. Lee said she thinks childcare centers are also a benefit, so does that get a priority.  Ms. Lee stated as Executive Directors, she and other staff get calls from agencies trying to expedite projects that have a public benefit, in their interpretation, yet at the same time she does not ant to get disciplined for the work that she does, in responding to City Hall and other agencies requests.  Ms. Lee said at the same time this legislation opens up a whole host of problems for her, and asked if the Commission could suggest language that would give the Department some flexibility for the honest and very real good of this City.  Ms. Lee stated we have such a housing shortage, but there are also other needs which are very subjective, because one person may see child care as a public benefit and another may not, so it is a difficult issue and she would like the Commission to give the Department some guidance.

President Hirsch asked if economic issues like Hunters Point qualified under this as being the City’s benefit, and does it bring jobs.  Commissioner Fillon said that is a public benefit for the City of San Francisco.  Commissioner Lee said that is why he asked if these items were legislated because the Board of Supervisors or the Building Inspection Commission could feel that an issue should be expedited, but it may not be just.  Assistant Director Lee said if the Department carefully follows the legislation, the application process, if we follow the strict Section B we are going to stop everything that we do and we are going to stop permits.  Ms. Lee said we are honestly not going to have buildings built and the Department needs to try to implement this part, but at the same time try to do what our mission is.  Commissioner Romero asked if the Department keeps a log of special requests that come in from the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor’s Office.  Ms. Lee said she does try to maintain a log and she has asked many agencies to centralize all the calls to the Director’s office, but we still get calls going to line staff.  Ms. Lee stated she tries to have the line staff report back to her or the Director’s office, but it is difficult to track.  Commissioner Romero asked if it was possible to maintain a list, just so the Commission can have an idea of how many times a month this happens.  Assistant Director Lee agreed and said she can try to gather a list that the Director’s office has, her office has, or whatever line staff has, but they usually do not keep track of it.

Vice President Hanrahan asked if this policy supersedes that, because any exception to the tracking would have to be a Director’s approval.  Ms. Lee said yes, so that really does eliminate the ability of line staff to accept those calls and act on them.  Acting Director Hutchinson said he deeply appreciates Ms. Lee’s assistance, because most of the calls are coming through his office and Ms. Lee receives them.  Mr. Hutchinson stated this is how business was done for years and now with this overregulation and these laws being implemented specific to this Department, we need to stop and rethink.  Mr. Hutchinson said this is why he has come before the Commission in the past and stated that the Department would not defer fees for City Agencies because the law does not allow it.  Mr. Hutchinson stated people are very upset with that, but they cannot have it both ways.  Mr. Hutchinson said this is the only Department that is being treated this way.  Mr. Hutchinson stated DBI’s employees are being generous in embracing this legislation, because the consequences of not following it are very severe.  Mr. Hutchinson stated when you talk about official misconduct, any City employee will make sure that the process from A to Z is fulfilled and that will grind the process to a halt because common sense is being taken away from this agency.  Mr. Hutchinson said to keep in mind the majority of DBI’s employees are professional people who have gone to Berkeley, they are accredited, structural engineers, civil engineers, and architects.  Mr. Hutchinson stated there are also some blue-collar guys like him and asked if they want to treat people with structural licenses like this.  Mr. Hutchinson said this is outrageous, because we work for the City there is no common sense judgment.  Mr. Hutchinson stated this is like trying to have a standard procedure for a heart transplant.  Mr. Hutchinson said everyone is different and the ones that are going to die will die:  The permit process is dying and the Department has to work through this. 

President Hirsch said line staff should refer everything back to the Director.  Ms. Lee said we do keep a log and she is happy to furnish that.  Mr. Kornfield said this Administrative Bulletin includes a form that gets filled out every time the Department gives someone priority treatment, so we can keep track of who asks and under what circumstances we consider it to be in the public interest.  Mr. Kornfield stated the regulations adopted by the Board of Supervisors also has language that says take them in the order in which they are filed, unless there is a written finding of a public policy basis for not doing so, such is the involvement of public funds in the project for which the permit is sought or response to the delay caused by earlier procedural error.  Mr. Kornfield said they are not mandating the Department put that in but are suggesting that be one of the guidelines for our policy of priority treatment.  President Hirsch called for public comment.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said this is insane and this does not affect all members.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the Residential Builders Association (RBA) does 300 permits out of 55,000 a year, and if all permits are processed in 72 hours, where is the priority, where is the undue influence – It is non-existent.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated he totally disagrees with Amy Lee and her recommendations and the Commission should tell the Board of Supervisors or whoever came up with this insane proposal that it does not work.  Mr. O’Donoghue said it is not about a lack of common sense; it is about taking a process that has been productive, cost effective, and based on rumor, now changing the whole system.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated this legislation is going to impact BOMA and every remodeling job, and to show the stupidity of this, how would you give priority to public funds over those in the private sector.  Mr. O’Donoghue said public funds do not have to meet bank deadlines, and this is going to affect the private sector completely, and the priorities are absolutely out of scale.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated it is the function of this Commission, and he would challenge the boards to come and dictate to this body how to process permits, when under the charter, the delegation of powers that was given by the charter to this body to set the rules and regulations, to set the procedure; it cannot be done except through a charter change.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the City Attorney’s Office is in collusion with the Mayor’s Office and the Department needs an independent body to come in and show that this document, as it stands is not legal.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated first it constitutionally could be attacked under separation of powers; second it is not going to work, because there is not one single case of priority nor is there an establishment of proof.  Mr. O’Donoghue said he agrees with what Tom Hui and Assistant Director Hutchinson have said, and it is going to set every human member subject to abuse from the public and from filings of complaints by any disgruntled member of the public.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the Department needs to open an entire hearing for the industry to come forward because most of them are unaware of this, and contractors are going to be upset.

Mr. Ken Cleaveland, representing the Building Owners and Managers Association, said he shared Mr. O’Donoghue’s frustration but we have to deal with reality and move forward.  Mr. Cleaveland stated this bulletin was an excellent first step, and their association’s code committee has reviewed it.  Mr. Cleaveland said there are obviously things that are not on here that should be, but there is a documentation sheet, and there is a way to track this.  Mr. Cleaveland stated there is a way to have the Department report back to the Commission on just how it is working.  Mr. Cleaveland said he believes Commissioner Lee is absolutely right, and the Department should get this train on the track and the Commission can check it every month to six months to see just where these exceptions are, who is calling them, and what reasons are behind the exceptions.  Mr. Cleaveland stated he believes the majority of these are probably coming from the Board of Supervisors or others in the Mayor’s office, and that is where the exceptions to the process are going to be most noticeable.  Mr. Cleaveland said the 250 staff at DBI needs some guidelines so that the process does not stop.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that BOMA are big stakeholders and they have many projects such as office tenant improvements going through the process every day.  Mr. Cleaveland said BOMA spends millions on remodeling their downtown office buildings, and they cannot afford to have a process that stops, even for a moment or a day.  Mr. Cleaveland stated the leadership is absolutely correct; their line staff needs some guidelines to say how do we comply so do not get ourselves in trouble with the law. 

8.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, said the Building Code allows the Commission to annually update the cost valuation.  Mr. Kornfield stated the purpose of the cost valuation schedule is not to try and provide a clear, correct, and accurate cost of what a building or construction cost is; but rather to set a level playing field against which all permits are charged the same relative amount of money.  Mr. Kornfield said the fact a customer’s brother-in-law is doing the work for free does not mean they should get a lower price, because it requires the same services for the Department to provide inspections and plan check.  Mr. Kornfield stated the purpose is for the Commission to consider adopting this updated schedule, based on the Marshall-Swift data, which the Department receives at the end of every year.  Mr. Kornfield said the Department gets the annual update early in January and there are some increasing residential construction costs in this, because Marshall-Swift had not made those increases over the past couple of years.  Mr. Kornfield stated other than that, the fees are not substantially higher, rather the valuation is not higher.  Mr. Kornfield said the percentage of increase in valuation, which averages 9.4%, does not mean that permit income goes up 9.4%, that is just an increase in the valuation.  Mr. Kornfield stated permit income will increase in some small proportion with respect to that, because the fee schedule looks at valuation, but it is not a one to one correlation percentage-wise, and he cannot tell you what that increase would be, and perhaps Amy Lee could address that.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield said this is an annual update that DBI provides the Controller’s Office, in one of their reports and in years gone by, said it is critical that the Department provide this information to the Commission.  Mr. Kornfield stated he recommends that the Commission adopt this because if not that means the next time we come along, the Department will be significantly further along in its fee schedule updates and pretty soon it will be very difficult to try to bring us back in line with the National Standards for valuation.  Mr. Kornfield said he understands that perhaps over the next year, the Commission may be having some kind of a fee structure analysis done, and that may be the appropriate time to look at how the Department is valuing our buildings with respect to how much fees are paid.  Mr. Kornfield stated the Department could change the code saying we are no longer based on Marshall Swift, but some other report.  President Hirsch asked how is it there is not this direct linear relationship.  Assistant Director Lee said because the Department’s fees are set at the table, for example, if a construction project is valued from $1,000 to $5,000, then there is a $27 fee but if it is a $5,000 to $10,000 project, there is a $57 fee.  Ms. Lee stated because the fee table works with the cost valuation, even though you are increasing someone’s cost from $2,000 to $2,400 they are still within the same guidelines.  President Hirsch stated it is a bracketed rather than linear relation.  President Hirsch called for public comment.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said it is nice to talk about bureaucratic procedures, but that is one of the reasons why this City is in bankruptcy and why business is leaving the City, and you should be talking as a Commission, not just adhering to the schedule as to where the Department is headed, but also talking about what is going to be the cost of operating this Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated he is asking the Director, and one of the Commissioners if none of this Commission decides to ask him to start reviewing the productivity level as of today.  Mr. O’Donoghue said six months from now when the Department looks at the various Marshall and Swift reports, to see just where it is in relation to actual productive costs and the cost of operation today versus six months.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated contractors in this City are going to be outraged because the cost of doing business in this City is going to double.  Mr. O’Donoghue said this Department is headed towards being run inefficiently as the Planning Department, and there is going to be a written protest from different people because a new myriad of problems within the efficiency level is going to be created due to politics.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated the Commission needs to talk to the big developers downtown who are furious about the delays and about the fact they can not get permits through.  Mr. O’Donoghue said they are also talking about the increase in costs as a result of doing business in this City, and the Commission is setting a new trend by just taking what has been proposed by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office, as gospel, and taking it that they are the experts.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated the Building Inspection Commission is supposed to be the experts.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the Residential Builders Association would start bringing all members to the BIC meetings because the Commission is not doing the job that it has done in the past.

Assistant Director Lee said she wanted to give the Commission a status of the fee study, and the Department worked with the Controller’s Office and they selected a vendor.  Ms. Lee stated the vendor would come before the Commission to do a presentation of what they are looking for, and as some of the public comment and some of our staff comment about our expenditures about the cost of doing business, she asked them to focus on that and recommend a baseline.  Ms. Lee said the cost of doing business changes every year unfortunately because of the budget cycle, which is not an appropriate public policy way, but at minimum DBI should establish what is our minimum cost as required by our mission.  Ms. Lee stated she has asked the vendor to make that recommendation, and therefore get an accurate cost of what we need in terms of expenditures to run our Department.  Ms. Lee said this is moving forward and she expects the vendor to come to the next meeting or two to make a presentation, and the Department will provide them with the information:  The Marshall Swift Valuation and the Department’s fee table.  President Hirsch asked if that was independent of this cost valuation and Ms. Lee replied yes.  Vice President Hanrahan asked what does the percent increase have to do with relationship to homeowner’s fees. Ms. Lee said the cost would be $5,000 and now we are saying it is $5,040 so that would bump the person up to the next fee.  Vice President Hanrahan said just a comment, you are someone who has used Marshall Swift for past valuation, and she assumes this is standard in terms of baseline.  Commissioner Ting stated this is common practice in the industry that they use for cost methodology.  President Hirsch asked if there was concern that the 9.4% is an unreasonable amount to go up, and is there a question regarding using Marshall and Swift and potentially switching them to using different baseline data.

Mr. Kornfield said three or four years ago, the Department did a valuation of the other available services and brought it to the Code Advisory Committee and everyone decided that this as a national standard represented something that was reasonable for us.  Mr. Kornfield stated it does have a local adjustment factor and gives the Department a variety of construction quality classes and we pick among the higher classes, but it is a National Standards Index so people who are building from other parts of the country understand what we are talking about.  Commissioner Ting said the 9.4% increase can be increase in cost of labor or cost of materials and that would be factored into the valuation process.  Mr. Kornfield said that is right, they do not break it down how they arrived at it, but they give us numbers for hundreds and hundreds of individual items and that is how it averages out.  Commissioner Ting said they have a broad methodology where they are looking at it from the national standard.  Mr. Kornfield said that is right, they are not looking at just San Francisco or New York, they are looking at what are costs nationwide, what are the costs of purchasing wood, steel, et cetera.  Mr. Kornfield stated a lot of this number is driven not necessarily by what is going on here locally, but what is going on nationally in different products that we have absolutely no control of, just the cost of building a building.  Mr. Kornfield said they have a correction factor but it is not adjusted; it is a standard multiplier.  President Hirsch called for public comment.

Mr. David Sassoon said he is from Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, part of the United States Navy and he was just wondering since this discussion of the Building Inspection Commission BIC, Department of Building Inspection, in light of the current war with Iraq and Afghanistan, is there any involvement in the United States Military with this meeting.  President Hirsch replied no, and Mr. Sassoon stated this is such a small agenda.  President Hirsch said this item is on the building valuation, not the Marine Corps of Engineers.  Mr. Sassoon said the country is in a war, and has the Commission read the paper.  President Hirsch replied no and thanked Mr. Sassoon for his comment. 

President Hirsch said there is a request before the Commission for possible action to adopt the 2005 Cost Schedule.  President Hirsch stated he appreciates the fact that cost of construction has gone up, that the cost of a permit is tied to the cost of building construction, and he thinks it would be prudent for the Commission to adopt the Cost Schedule.  President Hirsch called for a motion on this item.  Commissioner Romero made a motion seconded by Commissioner Lee to adopt the 2005 Cost Schedule.  President Hirsch asked if there was any discussion on the motion.  Commissioner Ting said if there are concerns regarding the fact that the permit fees are tied to costs, and if costs go up, then the Department may want to look at adjusting those ranges, at some point.  Commissioner Ting stated obviously if the ranges have not been adjusted in a while and we are working on 1994 ranges in 2005, he thinks the Department needs to take a look at that.  Commissioner Ting said the Department can not leave the ranges static as costs continue to rise.  Commissioner Ting asked Acting Director Hutchinson if he knew whether the Cost Schedules are adopted every year or changed.  Mr. Hutchinson said he would get back to Commissioner Ting with this information.

Secretary Aherne called a roll call vote on the motion to adopt the 2005 Cost Schedule.

 

 

The motion passed unanimously.      

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 010-05

9.

Discussion and possible action to adopt Proposed Code Revisions as follows:
       [Laurence M. Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Technical Services Division]

San Francisco Building Code (8)

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*

*

Section 106.3.2 - Submittal Documents
Section 109.1 - 109.8 - Certificate of Occupancy
Section 209-H - Height of Building (definition)
Section 419.1.2.1 - Depth [of balconies, decks and porches]
Section 1043.5.1 –Veneer
Section 1403.6.1 –Veneer
Section 1506.1 - Roof Drainage
Section 2312.3 - Decay and Termite Protection
Plumbing Code (2)
Section 306.2 - Roof Drainage
Section 1014.1 - Grease Traps and Grease Interceptors
San Francisco Housing Code (1)
Section 504 (c)  - Mechanical Ventilation

 

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector stated he is requesting that the Commission adopt or approve certain proposed code changes, which will go from here to the Board of Supervisors for hearing, and hopefully adoption.  Mr. Kornfield said he is going to give the Commission a little background on where the Department is in the current codes and code cycle.  Mr. Kornfield stated under state law, the state is required to adopt a new building code and related codes every three years.  Mr. Kornfield said the Department is currently using the 2001 California Building Code, and they have been talking about what the next code is, so they have missed the three-year deadline.  Mr. Kornfield stated since 1984, the City of San Francisco has been required to use the state code with local amendments, so in 1984 the Department took what was then our local code and tried to translate our local amendments into the code that the state of California uses, the California Building Code.  Mr. Kornfield said gradually over the years the Department has tried to bring these two codes together so that there are fewer amendments, and they become more standardized because there is a big dispute at the state level as to which should be used, either the National Fire Protection NFPA-5000 Code, or the International Building Code, which most people in the country have adopted other than California.  Mr. Kornfield stated the Building Standards Commission might know because they have certain new members in Sacramento.  Mr. Kornfield said the Department does not know, and we cannot really move forward with a major code revision package.  Mr. Kornfield stated normally what the Department does is wait for the three year code cycle from the state, they say here is your next code and we make a major push with the Code Advisory Committee to review our local code, to make sure they get integrated.  Mr. Kornfield said we are in the mid-point and are bringing forward eminent serious issues or minor technical modifications, to take advantage of one sort of interim package before the next three year cycle comes along, which could happen at the end of this summer, but we are not sure when.  Mr. Kornfield stated most of the changes are minor corrections to the code, and there are two issues people have been concerned about:  The first has to do with pressure-treated lumber, which has been required in the San Francisco Building Code, to be under stucco and the other item is the Department deferring from a local definition of building height to the building height definition that is in the California Building Code.  Mr. Kornfield said since the 1989 earthquake there were a lot of failures in facades due as a result of nails rusting under the stucco, so there is a code requirement that all plywood under stucco be pressure-treated.  Mr. Kornfield stated recently a problem has developed because the treatment for pressure-treated lumber changed to a new type, which is highly corrosive to fasteners, nails and so forth so it is difficult to find the right kind of stainless steel fasteners.  Mr. Kornfield said the Department wants to take our local requirement out of the code and supersede that with requiring double layers of paper and other specialized requirements.  Mr. Kornfield stated there are multiple definitions of building height in the City because the Planning Department has one definition and the Building Department has another.  Mr. Kornfield said the Department is trying to get rid of a basically unusable and difficult to interpret local definition and defer to the state definition, which is quite clear.  Mr. Kornfield stated architects, engineers, and contractors all over the state understand what building height means. 

Mr. Kornfield said another issue the Commission may find interesting is Section 1506.1, Roof Drainage, and the Department has been working with the Department of the environment and other green building groups, through the Code Advisory Committee to make our building codes friendlier for sustainability and environmental cause issues.  Mr. Kornfield stated instead of requiring all storm water to go into combined storm and sanitary sewer systems, under this code you would be allowed to discharge your roof drainage to another approved location, if it is properly designed.  Mr. Kornfield said this is one small step toward green buildings.  Commissioner Lee asked regarding roof drainage, how would this be handled after the system is in place, meaning if the Department allows a homeowner to build a separate system that does not connect to our storm sewer – when that drainage system does not work and it causes a problem on adjoining neighbor’s property is the Department obligated to do something.  Mr. Kornfield said the code change that the Department is proposing says that it has to discharge to an approved alternate location, and DBI sets the conditions of approval and the language says that the person has to maintain the system, as well as fix any problems that arise.  Vice President Hanrahan asked if this discussion was talking about gray water systems.  Mr. Kornfield said they are talking about roof drainage only, storm water at this point.  Mr. Kornfield stated the Department has been discussing issues about gray water but we have not come to grips with that one yet.  Commissioner Lee asked if there was any way to tie these systems into the property’s title report, so that homeowners know that they are responsible for this drainage situation.  Mr. Kornfield said there is a way that the Planning Department often uses called a Notice of Special Restriction, that is recorded against the property and this could be part of DBI’s approval.  Commissioner Lee stated in most buildings there is no way for the water to run out, except through somebody else’s property.  Commissioner Lee said the Department has to go through a process of educating the public that this is the property owner’s responsibility or there will be problems.  Mr. Kornfield stated one way the Department could address this was to write another administrative bulletin so that current and future owners are aware of the conditions.  President Hirsch called for public comment.

Mr. David Sassoon asked if the Commission has been discussing China and the Thailand flood, and said it is an immediate health care matter.  President Hirsch said the issue at hand is code revisions, not the Pacific Stock Exchange.

Commissioner Lee asked about the depth of balconies and porches, and said it was his understanding that if there was a habitable room below that the furthest anything could extend is 7 feet.  Mr. Kornfield stated that has been in the code for a long time, but it has not clearly indicated that anything that extends over that can not extend more than 7 feet.  Mr. Kornfield said before it was balconies or decks but sometimes there are cantilevers and buildings, and the Department is just trying to clarify that.  Mr. Kornfield stated this code was intended to cover any projection over a habitable room.

Mr. Frederick Freund, Chair of the Code Advisory Committee, said the CAC and its subcommittees have been through each of these sections and have worked very closely with the Technical Services Division and he thinks everybody has done their best and they highly recommend their approval.  President Hirsch called for a motion to adopt the code revisions. 

Commissioner Romero made a motion seconded by Commissioner Lee to adopt the proposed code revisions to the San Francisco Building Code.

Secretary Aherne called a roll call vote on the motion to adopt the proposed code revisions to the San Francisco Building Code.

 

 

 

The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 011-05

10.

Discussion and possible action to approve the Application of Draft AB-056: Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation. [Laurence M. Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Technical Services Division]

Mr. Laurence Kornfield said the Department has sent this administrative bulletin to the Mayor’s Office on Disability and other groups, and they have received some comments back.  Commissioner Ting asked if the disabled community was notified.  Mr. Kornfield said yes and the disabled community is concerned about anything that reduces day-by-day review of disabled access, but the Department has tried to assure them that this does not reduce disabled access in any way.  President Hirsch called for public comment.

Mr. Ken Cleaveland, representing the Building Owners and Managers Association said he had the pleasure to share a task force that put this bulletin initially on the track to being written.  Mr. Cleaveland said he wanted to applaud Laurence Kornfield for his stewardship in getting this into a reasonable final version and he also wanted to congratulate Neil Friedman, Ron Tom, Spencer Gosch, Amy Lee, and everyone involved at the Department.  Mr. Cleaveland stated this bulletin does not, in any way, dilute disabled access or requirements for disabled access in San Francisco; It is a way for people in the industry, particularly those with multi-tenant office buildings, who pull permits many times during the year for office tenant improvements, to reasonably and efficiently document the public access route from the garage or the main entrance up to the tenant space without having to resubmit very costly and expensive paperwork.   Mr. Cleaveland said he has several copies of what is called a Letter of Compliance and this is what gets attached to the tenant improvement permit – This is simple, efficient and something that has been needed for a long time.  Mr. Cleaveland said he thinks that San Francisco should be proud to have created this document and he hoped that the Commission would approve it unanimously. 

Mr. Frederick Freund of the CAC said he wanted to add that Lee Phillips has been working with the BOMA Committee, the Disabled Access Committee, and the Code Advisory Committee.  Mr. Freund said the CAC is heartily in favor of this and he can assure the Commission that they are extremely concerned about handicap access and all of its ramifications, and they recommend the approval. 

Mr. Jeffrey Feldman said he is an architect with Interior Architects in San Francisco and he stated what the Commission has before them is a BETA test that they had agreed to work with one of their clients, a building downtown.  Mr. Feldman said he worked on the committee to help prepare the bulletin and they are very appreciative of the fact that the Department and staff worked tirelessly to help the committee “hammer this out” with them.  Mr. Feldman stated the staff were very cooperative in the process of submitting this as a BETA test, an application with all of the documentation that they had traditionally prepared for all permits, was submitted for permit applications in this particular building, and the result has been that they have a clear document.  Mr. Feldman said there is a clear set of graphics that reside in the Building Department’s offices, along with a letter that would be attached to any future permit, so that the plan reviewer at the counter can quickly ascertain the degree of compliance of the public facility or public areas of the building, and it helps streamline the permit application process.  Mr. Feldman stated this eliminates any kind of arbitrary reinterpretation of the codes as it applies to the plans that are before them for plan review.  Commissioner Ting asked how does the unreasonable hardship section work.  Mr. Feldman said there are some elements of most large buildings that either fall under the other bulletins that are currently in effect, that require an unreasonable hardship to be attached to the future plans.  Mr. Feldman stated it reiterates the condition, the code section that applies, and any decision given by the Appeals Commission, so they needed to be included in the application documents at that time.  Mr. Feldman said they became memorialized in effect, so they would not have to be resubmitted again and it is sort of a basic set of documents that wraps up all of those issues in a single package.

Ms. Lee Phillips said she is an architect in San Francisco and she sits on the Code Advisory Committee and is the chair of the Disabled Access Committee and she has been shepherding this process through.  Ms. Phillips stated they have had a lot of public hearings and meetings in the subcommittee, and the disabled access community has attended.  Ms. Phillips said the Mayor’s Disability Council has been briefed and had the opportunity to discuss and influence how the shape of this program would end up, and in general their comments have been good and supportive.  Ms. Phillips stated the number one reason why is although it is attempting to see this program as an attempt to reduce paperwork and it also has a more serious thrust to it, which is to improve the quality and caliber of compliance for large buildings.  Ms. Phillips said the reason the CAC hopes this will work is under the current tenant improvement process, every time you come in with a different T.I. permit someone has to design a path of travel and they do it differently and talk to different plan checkers.  Ms. Phillips stated as a result it becomes very disorganized and is not the best delivery process, so the idea is to have one road map for the group path of travel for all elements of the building, it is reviewed by the Department all by itself on its own merits, and will get the attention of people with more experience in disabled access code review.  Ms. Phillips said in the end there would be a higher caliber of plan review, documentation, and implementation and the disabled access community strongly supported this.  President Hirsch called for a motion to adopt AB-056 the Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation.

Commissioner Romero made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lee to adopt AB-056 the Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation.

Secretary Aherne called a roll call vote to adopt AB-056 the Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation.

 

 

 

The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 012-05

14.

Review Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

• 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

There were no inquiries to staff.

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

President Hirsch said the next meeting of the Building Inspection Commission would be on March 21, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.  Vice President Hanrahan said she would like to add a Closed Session regarding personnel, to that meeting.  Commissioner Fillon said he would like to confirm with Secretary Aherne if there was an ethics workshop that Commissioners are required to attend.  Secretary Aherne said yes the meeting was that evening, 03/07/05, at 5:00 p.m. and if the Commissioners could not attend the meeting they could watch it directly on the website or they could watch the DVD after the meeting.  President Hirsch said he had to be excused because he had a BCDC Design Review Board Committee Meeting this evening. Secretary Aherne stated all Commissioners have to see it by April 30, 2005.
 

15.

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

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said the Commission has not taken any action regarding a very costly issue that is impacting the industry and affecting the City, which is a lack of funding now coming into the general fund.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated the Mayor had to take $4.5 million from the general fund and give it to the Planning Department; in addition their fees have gone up.  Mr. O’Donoghue said he has not studied the Planning Department’s budget yet, but he estimates that they are in excess of 300% to 1000% in some fees.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated this situation does not spell well for the Building Inspection Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the Planning Commission meetings were taken off the air but the RBA and the public objected loudly and fortunately it is now back on the air.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated the RBA has asked for a special meeting regarding the Planning Department and at that hearing they will illustrate the various problems of the industry, in addition to putting the Building Inspection Commission under scrutiny because of the highly political direction the Commission has taken compared to how it was run in the past.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the industry is deeply concerned because they are the innovators of the over-the-counter processes that expedited permits that took care of the backlog. Mr. O’Donoghue stated they are also innovators in terms of many of the changes in this circuit that happened to stop the bureaucratic delays.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the current Commissioners should attend some of the hearings at the Board of Supervisors, because in the past there was active involvement by various Commissioners.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated it is not enough for the Commissioners to sit through the staff reports at the BIC meetings and read the documents; instead it is more important for the Commissioners to understand the problems and the dilemma that the industry is undergoing.  Mr. O’Donoghue said Commissioner Romero might be interested in the fact that the RBA will be bringing up the issue of third party sourcing for subcontractors to the industry.

 

16.

 Adjournment.

Commissioner Ting made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lee. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 013-05

The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,



________________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary