Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

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

SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, August 22, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400
Aired Live on SFGTV Channel 26
ADOPTED JANUARY 23, 2006

MINUTES

The special meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 10:40 a.m. by President Hirsch.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ephraim Hirsch, President
Noelle Hanrahan, Vice-President
Alfonso, Fillon, Commissioner
Roy Guinnane, Commissioner
Frank Lee, Commissioner
Criss Romero, Commissioner
Debra Walker, Commissioner
Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary, excused

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Amy Lee, Acting Director, excused
Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director
Wing Lau, Acting Deputy Director
Sonya Harris, Secretary

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVE:

Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney

2. President's Announcements.

President Hirsch had no announcements.

3. 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 of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic said that in the morning's front page of the Chronicle there was an amazing acknowledgement about the sensational headline on August 4^th, which claimed an arrest on an employee, was part and parcel of widespread corruption and scandal in DBI. Mr. Shaw stated that this was the same day that fourteen American soldiers died in Iraq. Mr. Shaw said that the Mayor followed up in the Chronicle and KCBS radio and said that this arrest proved the claims of corruption and scandal of special interest groups and favoritism began in 1995 when this Department was created. Mr. Shaw said that he had written an article in Beyond Chron that reveals that this huge bribery scandal occurred when the person was working in Planning. Mr. Shaw said that the Chronicle does not state that fact until paragraph 44. Mr. Shaw stated that the Chronicle also did not report that the person who stopped the person allegedly giving the bribe from getting the allegedly illegal permit was Jim Hutchinson, the Chronicle's poster boy of evil. Mr. Shaw stated that the person allegedly at the centerpiece of this scandal was working at the Planning Department at the time and the person who allegedly bribed him ended up not having their agenda fulfilled because DBI would no go along with approving the permits. Mr. Shaw said that today the Chronicle was admitting that the entire scandal that the Chronicle and the Mayor jumped on was a scandal in the Planning Department and the people who stopped it were in DBI. Mr. Shaw said that he thought the Mayor and the Chronicle owed the hardworking people at DBI an apology because their integrity has been attacked. Mr. Shaw asked that everyone check out his article in Beyond Chron.

Mr. Charles Marstellar said that he was present to inform the Commission of an emergency situation on Turk Street between Franklin and Gough adjacent to Opera Plaza. Mr. Marstellar said that the emergency was due to the excavation of type two soil and improper shoring. Mr. Marstellar stated that there was a one to five degree tilt in the lobby resulting in the shutting down of the elevators. Mr. Marstellar said that he would urge the Department of Building Inspection to send out senior staff and structural engineers immediately. Mr. Marstellar disclosed that he lived in this building for 23 years.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Marstellar if he had contacted the Building Department regarding this problem. Mr. Marstellar said that he had tried to reach the Director and she attempted to reach him on Saturday morning, but said that he had not yet spoken with Ms. Lee.

Mr. Marstellar stated that he had spoken to President Hirsch and it was the President who suggested he appear at the meeting. President Hirsch asked Acting Deputy Director Wing Lau if he had any comments on this issue. Mr. Lau said that he was not aware of the issue, but would look into as soon as he got back to the office and would send someone out immediately. Commissioner Guinnane suggested sending someone out to the site immediately and not waiting until the meeting was over.

Chief Building Inspector Carla Johnson said that the Department was aware of this complain and that four Building Inspectors had been out to the site last week. Ms. Johnson said that the building was surveyed at the beginning of construction and has been surveyed periodically during the excavation process. Ms. Johnson said that the surveyor said that there was no settlement. Ms. Johnson stated that she would like to look at the new information presented by Mr. Marstellar. Ms. Johnson reported that staff was going to visit the site this morning. Ms. Johnson said that the Department would look at the interior of the building, as the exterior of the building shows no visible signs of settlement or cracking, but the tenants are complaining about doors not closing properly so the Department would look into those new complaints. Ms. Johnson said that the Department was aware of this problem and was investigating it.

President Hirsch said that he understood that an excavation was taking place at 837 adjacent to 835 and said that it would be the responsibility of the owners at 835 to underpin their own building. Ms. Johnson said that there was unpinning that occurred at 835 Turk Street towards the front of the lot where the majority of the excavation occurred and said that the underpinning had already been completed. President Hirsch asked about the sides and the rear of the building. Ms. Johnson said that she had gone to the property personally after receiving a referral from the Planning Department from Mr. Marstellar. Ms. Johnson stated that the excavation is occurring on only one side not two or three sides. Ms. Johnson said that the front of the building is eight stories high, but rear of the building is only one story as there is a little addition at the back.

President Hirsch asked if there was any sand running out. Ms. Johnson said that she did not observe any sand running out, but said that she was not a Structural Engineer. President Hirsch said that there were two conflicting issues going on in the Civil Code on this; the vertical underpinning is the responsibility of the owner of the building; the lateral retention of the earth is the responsibility of the party making the excavation

Commissioner Guinnane asked what was the depth of the excavation. Ms. Johnson said that it varied because the site itself is sloping and the excavation at the front of the building was about six feet and three or four feet at the rear. Commissioner Walker asked that the Department keep the Commission posted as to the condition of this building. President Hirsch thanked Mr. Marstellar for calling this to the Department's attention.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that the recent storming of DBI by the FEB, the DA and a clutch of reports and camera crews one would think that DBI was the den of the Taliban coming to get Osama Bin Laden. Mr. Karnilowitz said that this reminded him of the Keystone Cops and said that no doubt, many DBI employees did not find it amusing, but rather confusing. Mr. Karnilowitz stated that this was a slap in the face to DBI Acting Director Amy Lee and said that the image of DBI was forever tainted. Mr. Karnilowitz said that he sincerely hoped that when the dust settled, Mr. Gus Fallay would be vindicated. Mr. Karnilowitz said that the Chronicle keeps bringing up the same manta that there are builders that are connected, but these so called connected builders are waiting two or three years for their permits because they have to go through the same procedures as everybody else. Mr. Karnilowitz said that he thought it was really sad that San Francisco has a newspaper that prints information that is erroneous and puts DBI down because this Department does not deserve that.

Mr. Joe O'Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that regarding Mr. Marstellar's issues the Department should be looking at the plans that were submitted for this excavation. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that under Mayor Newsom corruption is happening at DBI and said that there is undue influence, but said that it is happening at the front end of the Plan Check. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that there are permits being submitted to DBI with no calculations for the vertical or horizontal load and there is no information regarding soil conditions so there is no way to determine how to calculate the load of the structure to be carried on the foundation. Mr. O'Donoghue said that these situations started with the James Li projects and said that Mr. Li was the special expeditor for Julie Lee and that is where the cover up is and it is continuing. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the RBA had 39 cases that would be handed over to the Federal authorities for investigation. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he would not take these cases to the District Attorney's Office because the reality is if you are Asian and a complaint is made and you are guilty there is a prima face case. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the District Attorney's Office would make the guilty innocent and then find a scapegoat. Mr. O'Donoghue referred to the Pius Lee case a few years ago where allegations were made that Pius Lee offered a bribe to someone and the person taking the alleged bribe was then arrested, but nothing happened to Mr. Lee. Mr. O'Donoghue said that it was never reported that Pius Lee had a daughter working as a special investigator in the District Attorney's Office and Mr. Lee was tipped off. Mr. O'Donoghue said that when Mr. Fallay was arrested the District Attorney's Office told the FBI not to take Mr. Fallay out through the back door, but to bring him out the front where the photographers and reporters were waiting. Mr. O'Donoghue said that this was clearly a publicity stunt for political purposes regardless of innocence or guilt. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that he was actually encouraged by the Chronicle story today because it has gone away from the old Chronicle with its political agenda, which demoralized people. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he was one of the people demonized by the Chronicle because there was a vendetta there because he had helped get the public contractor for the Independent Newspaper. Mr. O'Donoghue said that this was good reporting today because there is no case as Fallay was at the end of the feeding line. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the problem is still with Plan Check and the fact that this administration has not changed anything. Mr. O'Donoghue said that with the recent changes in the DBI administration the services are worse and contractors are backed up and it is an absolute disgrace. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that the RBA would beholding a press conference Thursday and said that heads would roll.

Commissioner Hanrahan said that she wanted to make a short statement. Commissioner Hanrahan said that she was really disturbed by the Augustine Fallay arrest and the inherent publicity surrounding it. Commissioner Hanrahan said that she was not saying that this particular District Attorney and the FBI were politically motivated in this particular incident, but said that she did believe that the FBI is a political police force in this country that is used in a deeply disturbing way. Commissioner Hanrahan gave specific experiences for her comments saying that when she was 10 years old her father was arrested and indicted by a grand jury and later exonerated, but this had a severe impact on her family. Commissioner Hanrahan stated that her father was indicted because he refused to where a wire for the FBI because where she grew up the FBI had enormously strong relationships and ties with the Mafia. Commissioner Hanrahan said that she believed that Mr. Fallay was innocent until proven guilty, but said that his family is destroyed by this possibly politically motivated experience. Commissioner Hanrahan stated that in 2002 she was involved in organizing a civil right's victory to the tune of $4.4M against the FBI in the case of Judy Barry versus the U.S.A. Commissioner Hanrahan said that Ms. Barry was falsely arrested in May of 1990 and was slandered by the FBI in the course of seven or eight weeks. Commissioner Hanrahan said that a Civil Grand Jury in Oakland determined that Ms. Barry was illegally accused and arrested and said that this is the FBI that we live with in Northern California, the FBI that is a political police force, as this is how they exist in our community. Commissioner Hanrahan said that she was not saying that she believed in corruption or did not think that it should be rooted out in the Department, but said that she wanted it noted that this person's family was destroyed.

Commissioner Hanrahan produced a DBI file on Mumia Abu-Jamal and said the FBI started following this person when he was 15 years old because he demonstrated in a protest against Hiroshima. Commissioner Hanrahan stated that she was just saying that this was the reality that we all live with so the newspapers, the District Attorney and the FBI need to be taken with a sense of reality. Commissioner Hanrahan said that many people would not understand her statements or might find them disturbing, but this was her experience so when Augustine was arrested and paraded before the news media she was pretty disturbed. Commissioner Hanrahan stated that she did not think that this was a big fish and said that she wished the FBI would go after political corruption.

Commissioner Romero said that he did not actually disagree with Noelle's interpretation and said that it was notable that there are not a lot of African American men who work in the Department. Commissioner Romero stated that the FBI does have a history of doing this type of thing and did this to Doris Ward and it cost her an election. Commissioner Romero said that it is hard to get your name back when it is put out in the media as being one that is questionable. Commissioner Romero said that this issue was based on a complaint and Mr. Fallay has not been found guilty, but there is an assumption that he is guilty. Commissioner Romero said that even if Mr. Fallay is cleared, it is very, very hard to get back to the point where he was. Commissioner Romero said that he understood that there were a number of people questioned in the Department, but the only person accused happened to be one of the very few African American men working in this Department. Commissioner Romero said that whenever he sees the FBI do these things he does not take it lightly in San Francisco because he cannot believe what the FBI does.

4. APPEALS PURSUANT TO SECTION D.3750.4 OF THE CITY CHARTER

Appeal by Mary Grudnowski - Represented by Mr. Joe Sherer of Legacy Builders

regarding property located at 2740-42 Filbert Street and Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson's determination that replacing the third floor property line wall constitutes a new wall.

a. Report, discussion and possible action regarding the Building Inspection Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Section D3.750-4 of the City Charter over this appeal.

b. Presentation by parties including witnesses.

c. Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission.

Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes announced that the Department would have seven minutes to present its case and then the appellant would have seven minutes; any members of the public would have three minutes for comment and then the Department and the appellant would each have three minutes for rebuttal.

Acting Deputy Director Wing Lau said that this case was an appeal of determinations made by Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson and Acting Director Amy Lee. Mr. Lau asked for a brief presentation of the circumstances from Chief Building Inspector Carla Johnson. Ms. Johnson referred to the full set of plans, staff reports and correspondence between Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson, Acting Director Amy Lee and the appellant that the Commissioners received in their meeting packets. Ms. Johnson said that this appeal was all about the permit and did the permit and plans allow the removal and construction of the third floor property line wall and the second story facade. Ms. Johnson said that in this case the answer was no as the removal and construction of the walls would constitute a new wall and would change the scope of the permit. Ms. Johnson stated that this change would require Planning Department approval and would require documentation submitted in order to obtain a new permit. Ms. Johnson stated that DBI and the BIC are not the only departments that have decision-making power over these permits. Ms. Johnson said that there was a problem between the plan review, the notes and the work that was actually done. Ms. Johnson stated that the Department agrees that this was not an illegal demolition, but does hold that the removal of the old wall and replacement with sheet rock and siding constitutes a new wall as defined in the San Francisco Building Code. Ms. Johnson said that the Acting Director in order to facilitate this project agreed to waive the 300-foot notice, which would typically be triggered once a contractor exceeds the scope of work. Ms. Johnson reported that so far the contractor or the owner have not submitted a permit for the changes and this permit must still be reviewed by DBI and Planning. Ms. Johnson said that in conferring with Planning it is there intent to take the new permit back to their Commission and the DBI Acting Director is willing to work with Planning to expedite the review of this new permit.

Ms. Johnson said that a permit was filed for on the day the Department began its investigation of this property, but that permit only covered the second floor façade and did not include the third floor exterior property line wall and was not reviewed by the Planning Department as required. Ms. Johnson stated that this revision did not satisfy the Departments requirements as stated on the Notice of Violation.

Mr. Joe Sherer, representative for the appellant, said that he was present today because the Building Department was insisting on an unwritten interpretation of "existing wall to remain", which is not appropriate given the circumstances and is not in the interest of the community, the owners or anyone. Mr. Sherer stated that a reasonable person would conclude that if a wall was taken down for repair or restitution as long as it was replaced the existing element remained. Mr. Sherer stated that the walls at 2740 Filbert Street are blind walls and cannot be seen by anyone since they abut the adjacent property. Mr. Sherer stated that there is not dispute that this wall will be placed in the exact location in the existing building and said that the owner did not even try to add any square footage. Mr. Sherer said that there is no dispute that the appearance of the building will remain identical to the approved plans. Mr. Sherer explained that the plans called for resisting gyp board so the wall had to be removed in order to install the waterproof material on the outside wall. Mr. Sherer stated that this had been an arduous 18-month review process and said that this unusual situation was created not only by the improper interpretation, but also from the poorly coded section on demolition. Mr. Sherer stated that the plans were rigorously scrutinized by the Building Department, the Planning Department, the neighbors and the Commission so there was no attempt to sneak this past anyone, but not much is written about demolition and the terms are vague and ambiguous. Mr. Sherer said that he understood that the demolishing of a building without permit is a serious offense; however he felt that the owners had done nothing wrong in this situation. Mr. Sherer urged the Commission to see the forest through the trees and recognize that circumstances do matter. Mr. Sherer said that now 2740 Filbert is an unfinished, hazardous, eyesore that has blighted the neighborhood for three months. Mr. Sherer asked that the Commission allow him to finish the construction because the walls will remain the same and since they are blind walls the only impact is work stoppage.

Mr. Sherer stated that both Acting Director Lee and Deputy Director Hutchinson had offered to help expedite the processing of a new permit, but Larry Badiner of Planning had told him that this new permit would create an unlawful demolition from a Planning standpoint. Mr. Sherer said that if the Commission determined that no further permit is needed then there would be no further review by Building Inspection or Planning and construction could begin.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the plans called for waterproofing of the wall that was taken down and there was no way to waterproof this wall without it being removed and replaced. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Sherer if he intended on putting back the 2 x 3 studs that were in the original wall along with the new 2 x 6's. Mr. Sherer said that he did not think it was a benefit to put back the 2 x 3 studs, but said that was his intention because that is what the plans called for.

President Hirsch said that he wanted to point out a few things from a structural engineering point of view and a Code point of view. President Hirsch said that it was not a question of waterproof sheetrock on the outside it is the fact that a one hour wall that the drawings call for, a one hour wall by the Code requires sheetrock on both sides of the studs and it is impossible to put sheetrock on a blind wall without taking the studs down. President Hirsch said that this was an example of poorly written definitions of demolition, penalties and the way it is being interpreted. President Hirsch said that by the letter of the writing it is a demolition, but in practical terms if the plans were approved for a one-hour wall the only way to get a one-hour wall is to put sheet rock on both sides. President Hirsch said that this had nothing to do with stud size, but the fact that the plans called for a one-hour wall. Mr. Sherer said that this was what was shown on the plans. President Hirsch said that the plans were not very good that way because there was a conflict where on one wall it shows one thing and on the other wall it shows another. President Hirsch said that he believed that the strict interpretation of the requirement of the one-hour wall should apply.

Commissioner Walker asked for clarification asking if someone noticed that there was a conflict in the plans versus what was being permitted at the beginning when they were checking the plans and determined that this wall would have to come down would that have been evaluated by the Planning Department. Commissioner Lee said that the question should be that if the plans say that an existing wall has to remain does that wall need to be changed to a one-hour wall. Chief Building Inspector Carla Johnson said that the answer to that question was no. Commissioner Guinnane said that the plans call for a one-hour wall and there was no way to comply with the plans without taking that wall down. Commissioner Lee said that it was no longer the same wall.

President Hirsch said that it is now a better wall. Commissioner Lee said that it was not the same wall.

Vice-President Hanrahan said that this was an exceptional case, but said that she was concerned that developers would not use this exception to basically submit proposals that are going to be demolitions and they would get through. Vice-President Hanrahan said that she would be in favor of this exception as long as it does not become the rule. Commissioner Guinnane said that in this case he did not believe that there was any fraudulent activity because there was no serial permitting and it took almost two years with public meetings to get through this process.

Commissioner Fillon said that he thought this was an administrative catch 22 and asked Ms. Johnson if there was a way that Planning could sign off on these walls. Commissioner Fillon said that often times if there is something small that is not quite compliant the plans are taken to the Planner who originally reviewed it and they will sign off on it. Ms. Johnson said that smaller items can be signed off, but for larger items like this where it involves a property line wall would require a revision building permit to document. Commissioner Fillon asked if this was a defacto demolition. Ms. Johnson said that defacto demolition is a Planning term that the Zoning Administrator had already communicated to the appellant, but the Building Department worries about unlawful demolitions, using an alteration permit to effectively demolish a building. Ms. Johnson stated that the Building Department had determined that this was not an unlawful demolition, but the scope of the work had been exceeded. President Hirsch asked how it had exceeded the scope of the permit because the wall is going to be a one hour wall and is going to be there in the same place; the facade is going to be replaced. President Hirsch stated that this was bureaucratic words, but it was not the reality of building. President Fillon asked if the project sponsor submitted a revision would it automatically be kicked back to Planning. Ms. Johnson said that it would be automatically kicked back to Planning because of the change to the original scope of the work. Commissioner Guinnane said that if this project was kicked back to Planning it would be ruled an unlawful demolition and stopped for two years.

Commissioner Guinnane said that it was his position that this contractor did not have to apply for a permit because he has a permit for 2 x 6 walls and that is in compliance with the drawings.

Commissioner Walker said that she agreed with Commissioner Hanrahan that this was beyond the scope of what the permits allowed and to do anything that would actually seta precedent would be a problem. President Hirsch asked why Commissioner Walker thought that this was beyond the scope of the permit. Commissioner Walker said that it was an existing wall. President Hirsch said that the plans call for a one hour wall. Commissioner Walker said that was an inconsistency within the plans. Vice-President Hanrahan said that she would support overturning the Department's recommendation, but was concerned about creating an opportunity for people with less integrity than the appellant. Vice-President Hanrahan said that this issue should be put on a future agenda so that the Inspectors out in the field would have a better idea or a fix on this problem. Vice-President Hanrahan stated that this should be fixed within the Code.

Commissioner Lee said that he was not sure that the Commission should overturn the staff recommendation at this point. Vice-President Hanrahan said that she sympathized with the homeowners because it is an enormous process to manage assets to build or renovate a building in this market and said that she did not want to create anymore barriers to people wanting to improve their property. Commissioner Lee said that he did not think that there was any malicious intent in this project, but said that he would still like to work with Planning on this project. Commissioner Lee said that perhaps President Hirsch could speak with the President of the Planning Commission to see if this item could be expedited on the Planning Commission's agenda. President Hirsch said that he believed that the Commission should work to bring this issue before the Board of Supervisors to get the Code changed, but said that he did not see this project as an illegal demolition.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not see any way for this contractor to comply with the plans without taking the wall down. Commissioner Fillon said that he thought that the Commission should allow this project to get finished, but said that the Commission has to get a handle on this and not open the door for abuse. Commissioner Fillon stated that DBI and the BIC should get together with Planning to find a way to deal with this as builders need to know how to deal with this and to get clear directions in the future.

Commissioner Lee said that he felt this was an opportunity to work with Planning and said that the BIC needs to work more closely with the Planning Commission anyway. Acting Deputy Director Wing Lau said that the Department would abide by whatever decision the Commission made today, but said that he would agree with Commissioner Fillon that Building and Planning have to work together on this issue because the Department will have more problems like this in the future. President Hirsch said that he would suggest that the Plan Checkers look at what the plans state and if the plans show a one hour wall with gyp board on both sides then the permit should not be issued until it is clear on the set of drawings. Mr. Lau said that he thought that the neighbors should know about any changes made to the plans. Commissioner Guinnane said that he understood there was only one discretionary review on this property and that was over parking. Mr. Sherer said that there was only one parking space originally so that was all that was required, but a neighbor wanted two parking spaces. Mr. Sherer said that there was no neighborhood concern about the interior blind walls. Mr. Sherer stated that he thought that it was a good idea for the Planning and Building Departments to work out this issue, but said that both Planning and Building had two years to come back to him on this issue. Mr. Sherer said that he could sympathize with the Commission not wanting to set a precedent for developers to somehow use this trick, but said that the Building Department could have stopped him anywhere along the way.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he was ready to move along with a motion. President Hirsch asked for public comment.

Patricia Vaughey said that this is her neighborhood and said that what disturbs her about this is first of all, the neighbors want this project to go forward and would rather see it completed rather than to be a unsafe vacant lot. Ms. Vaughey said that she supported the neighborhood on this issue. Ms. Vaughey said that Commissioner Lee made a comment about a contactor seeing a discrepancy and then going back to the Department. Ms. Vaughey stated that she would like to be a liaison with the Department because she was on the committee to try to rewrite the demolition Code. Ms. Vaughey said that this committee was gerrymandered by the people in the City who do the most demolitions and said that she was very upset about the demolition code and would hope to start work on it in a couple of months if possible. Ms. Vaughey said that the neighbors were very concerned and did not trust Mr. Sherer and therefore she wanted to be a liaison and be able to keep an eye on this project. Ms. Vaughey suggested that a clause be put in the appeal that this would not be a precedent setting case.

Mr. Fergus O'Sullivan of the Residential Builders Association said that he was happy to see common sense growing in this Commission. Mr. O'Sullivan said that in listening to the Commissioner's comments most of the Commissioners, except Commissioner Lee, want this project to go forward. Mr. O'Sullivan said that Vice-President Hanrahan's comments about contractors in the future using this case to take the opportunity to do an unlawful demolition. Mr. O'Sullivan stated that this is not going to happen because this is an exception and contractors do not want to take down walls that are meant to remain because this would cause delays and when a project is held up it costs tens of thousands of dollars to the owners and the builder. Mr. O'Sullivan urged the Commission to allow this project to continue and not to stop it for something as silly as this. Mr. O'Sullivan stated that he would really question Commissioner Lee's motives behind this and said that he hoped common sense would prevail today.

Mr. David Thompson introduced himself as a neighbor living at 2765 Filbert Street since 1977. Mr. Thompson said he was speaking on behalf of seven of the property owners who lived on the same block as this project that was under appeal and said that these neighbors were concerned about the rapid demolition of 2740 Filbert Street while they were under the impression that it was to be remodeled. Mr. Thompson stated that with the generous assistance of Supervisor Alioto-Pier's staff it was recommended that these neighbors contact the Building Inspection to determine if the remodeling was in accordance with the owner's approved plans. Mr. Thompson said that if the project was being built according to those plans then that was fine, but if there was a problem they were told that the Building Inspection Department could issue a Notice of Violation. Mr. Thompson stated that DBI expeditiously issued a Notice of Violation, which is the subject of today's hearing. Mr. Thompson said that with the excellent assistance of Ann Aherne the neighbors were able to obtain all the written material available, which related to this issue. Mr. Thompson said that on behalf of these property owners he was present to thank the staff of the Building Inspection Department for their considerable attention to this matter as evidence by today's discussion and to say that, because they feel that the real expertise to decide this complicated matter resides within the Building Inspection Department and with the Commissioners. Mr. Thompson said that as property owners they would be fully satisfied with whatever decisions the Commission would make.

Mr. Joe O'Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he did not know the owners, the architect or the contractor, but said that one of the RBA members was suing the contractor so this project would not be on the RBA's friendly list. Mr. O'Donoghue said that despite that having heard about this case in the last week and hearing it today this case is about common sense because one cannot put new sheetrock on the outside without taking the wall down. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Commissioner Lee, Acting Deputy Director Lau and Chief Building Inspector Carla Johnson were bureaucrats and because this was not costing them any money sending this man back to the Planning Department was like throwing him into the fires of hell. Mr. O'Donoghue said that no one gets an expedited project from the Planning Commission and said that he has been attending those meetings for 20 years. Mr. O'Donoghue said that this was sending a message out to homeowners that bureaucrats would bury homeowners in expense and delay so that no one could afford to live in this City. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that this man abided by the rules and spent two years waiting to do a lousy remodel. Mr. O'Donoghue said that in Oakland you can get a permit over the counter. Mr. O'Donoghue said that this is a disgrace because it is a common sense thing and now no Director in this Department will make a decision as they are all covering their toucases and everyone is making the homeowner or the project sponsor the victim.

President Hirsch announced that both the Department and the appellant had three minutes to respond if they wish. Neither party had any further comments and President Hirsch asked for a motion from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hanrahan that based on public testimony and looking at the drawings the Commission reverse the Director's Order, lift the Stop Work Order on the job and let this individual go back to work immediately. The motion also included that the appellant should not be required to file any revision. President Hirsch asked if Commissioner Guinnane would accept an amendment that this decision wasn't setting a precedent and was a one time situation. Commissioner Guinnane agreed to accept the amendment.

The Commissioners voted as follows:

Commissioner Romero No
Vice-President Hanrahan Yes
Commissioner Fillon Yes
Commissioner Lee No
Commissioner Walker No
President Hirsch Yes
Commissioner Guinnane Yes

The motion carried on a vote of 4 to 3.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 046-05

The Commission made this decision based on the following findings:

• Sheetrock was required on both sides of the wall and this could not be done without taking down the wall.

• The contractor tied to comply with the approved permit, but there was no way to do so.

• The subject wall is a blind wall and nothing extra will be added.

• The contractor went through the property permit process and did not do serial permitting in order to deceive anyone. This process took two years.

• This decision is an exception to the rule and does not establish a precedent.

At this time the Commission took a recess from 1:10 p.m. and reconvened at 1:20 p.m.

5. APPEALS PURSUANT TO SECTION D.3750.4 OF THE CITY CHARTER

c. Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission.

Acting Deputy Director Wing Lau said that this property owner was seeking an order to demolish a fire-damaged building and based on the reports and the inspection the Department had denied the request. Mr. Lau said that the matter was appealed to Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson and he denied it again. Mr. Lau called on Senior Inspector Tony Grieco to give and update on the status of this property.

Inspector Anthony Grieco said that this case came to the Department as a request for an emergency demolition and the Department performed a field inspection on April 7, 2005 with Dennis Dang, the Field Engineer at DBI. Mr. Grieco stated that at the time Department determined that the building certainly was unsafe and in a state of dilapidation from a previous fire. Mr. Grieco said that the Department had limited access to the building and could not get into the rear yard; there was a lot of heavy vegetation and overgrowth and severe saturation of the materials in the building. Mr. Grieco said that despite these conditions an emergency order was not warranted and the property owner was told to apply for the permits to repair and rehabilitate the property. Mr. Grieco stated that the sent out another letter and followed up with another inspection along with DBI Engineer Robert Chun. Mr. Grieco said that based on this Mr. Chung's recommendation this property was not reaching a level for an emergency order to it was once again denied. Mr. Grieco asked for any questions.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Grieco had reviewed the field report dated June 1. Mr. Grieco said that he had. Commissioner Guinnane asked about the second paragraph and said that there was talk about fire damage, and damage to the roof and floor of the building and said that the original roof was removed. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the report stated that the building had lost some of its structural integrity and said that in another part of the building it says that the building might collapse in the event of an earthquake. Commissioner Guinnane said that based on this report he did not know what the issue was and said that he ha been out to the site. Commissioner Guinnane said that this was a public nuisance and that there was a terrible burn smell at the property. Commissioner Guinnane said that this building was really dilapidated from a structural perspective. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there had been any permit filed with Planning for demolition. Mr. Grieco said that he did not believe so and said that he did not know if Planning had anything in place in order to be able to expedite this project.

President Hirsch asked what the objection was to an emergency demolition. Mr. Grieco said that in there is a very high threshold for the approval of an emergency demolition and said that in the past he had approved those requests and denied them in the past based on his own and the Engineer's observation. President Hirsch asked how high a threshold could one have with there is fire, dry rot, termites, rodents and the lack of structural integrity. President Hirsch said that there was one engineering report stating that it was too dangerous to even shore the building. Mr. Grieco said that he certainly believed that through this winter over time this building is continuing to deteriorate and perhaps the Department should look at it again in three months.

Commissioner Walker asked how much time had passed since this process began. Mr. Grieco said that it had been four months. Commissioner Walker asked if there was any requirement that the owner do a demolition application at the same time. Mr. Grieco said that this was the Department's response, but said that the owner had not filed for a demolition.

Commissioner Frank Lee asked for a clarification of how many stories the property was as the staff field report states that this is a two story residential building and asked if it was two story or one and how tall was the structure. Commissioner Lee said that the owner's engineering report showed the building as one story. Mr. Grieco said that there might be a discrepancy with the field report, but said that it would be a story if the garage was included as the garage is not contiguous; the garage is a separate structure and that is also one story.

Commissioner Guinnane said that in talking about damage out at this property in the future, if the Commission was to deny this request and something happens out there what exposure the City would have. Mr. Grieco said that he would have to defer to the City Attorney to answer that question. Acting Deputy Director Wing Lau said that if the Commission were to deny this emergency order then the Department would have to issue a notice for this building to have the owner repair it up to a safety standard. Commissioner Guinnane said that this would be requiring the owner to put good money after bad because with the property being worth 50%of its value burnt this structure is basically unsafe. Mr. Lau said that no doubt about it this structure is basically unsafe because of the fire damage and being exposed to the elements for so long. Commissioner Guinnane said that Wing Lau acknowledged that this building is unsafe and why based on that statement the Department would not issue the emergency order without coming to the Commission. Mr. Lau said that it had to do with imminent danger and this property is not in imminent danger even though it is unsafe. Commissioner Guinnane said that when a wall would fall on somebody and kills them then it would be imminent danger.

Commissioner Walker said that she knew of cases where buildings have been left in an unsafe condition for years to the point where they become an imminent danger and asked if there was anything with the process at DBI when somebody applies for and emergency demolition and it is denied they would have to carry forward the application for a standard demolition. Commissioner Walker stated that any of these buildings that are left out exposed to the weather are going to become an imminent danger. Commissioner Walker said that it just seems like a silly system. President Hirsch said that he would agree.

Vice-President Hanrahan asked how long a form 6 would take. Acting Deputy Director Wing Lau said that it would be six months or a year before Planning would even review the application. President Hirsch said that then the Planning Department would want to know what the replacement building would be. President Hirsch asked what was an emergency because this building is useless.

Commissioner Fillon said that if this owner was going through the Planning process now to demolish they would have to do a soundness report and asked if the Department thought that this building would meet the soundness requirements as a demolition. Mr. Grieco said that the Department would evaluate the soundness report and said that he doubted that this building would pass the requirements. Commissioner Fillon asked if the City would pay for the emergency demolition. Mr. Grieco said that the order is granted and then the owner has to pay for it. President Hirsch said that it sounds like this building is a public nuisance as well.

Vice-President Hanrahan said that she thought that some of the things the Commission was missing was the Planning process. Vice-President Hanrahan said that it would dramatically increase the value of this property if an emergency order were issued and the Planning process would be eliminated. Vice-President Hanrahan said that the Commission should not be using the Building Department's Emergency Demolition to increase the value of a piece of property. Commissioner Fillon said that this was not the only thing it was being used for as it is also being used to make a property safe that is currently unsafe. Commissioner Walker said that four months ago there could have been an application through Planning to demolish it and who knows what could have happened if that was accelerated. Commissioner Guinnane said that there is no expedited process in Planning for this kind of situation and if someone files for a demo someone in Planning might be assigned to it in five or six months and it would take Planning a year and a half if not longer and the new building would be tied to the demolition. President Hirsch said that he did not think that the BIC should be looking at this issue in economic terms and if it would increase the value, but said that he believed this was an unsafe building that is unsafe and is a public nuisance. Commissioner Guinnane said that Vice-President Hanrahan was correct in theory, but said that each case is different and this case will be different from a case a month from now and two months on down the road. Commissioner Guinnane referred to a fire damaged property on Lombard Street that sat there for two years smelling of smoke and deteriorating. Commissioner Guinnane stated that Planning would be involved in this issue because there is a new building that is going to go forward and Planning will be overseeing it.

Commissioner Fillon said that he thought that Vice-President Hanrahan felt that this owner was receiving an unfair benefit and said that for someone else to achieve that they would have to purposely light the building on fire to burn it down, which is illegal. Commissioner Fillon stated that this building had caught fire accidentally and it was not the owner's fault.

Commissioner Lee said that he did not see the imminent danger of this building collapsing as one side of the building is leaning up against another building so it obviously was not going to fall against the building it is leaning up against. President Hirsch said that it would fall into that building. Commissioner Lee said that typically when a roof is missing the damaged building would fall inward not outward. Commissioner Lee said that if this was a fire-damaged building and the fire occurred years ago why did the owner leave it in such a state. Commissioner Lee said that the vegetation around there could be cleaned up and cleared so that vermin and rodents would not habitate there. Commissioner Lee stated that he did not see any steps taken to keep the condition of the building from getting worse.

President Hirsch called for testimony from the appellant.

Ms. Kelton Finney said that she worked for Santos & Urrutia Structural Engineers and was representing the appellant. Ms. Finney stated that she did not think that her presentation would take seven minutes as the Commissioners had said everything she needed to say. Ms. Finney stated that this building was extensively damaged by fire and said that she had personally inspected this building and believed that it was a structural hazard at this time. Ms. Finney said that as far as she could tell the building in the back was two-stories as the lot slopes up hill. Ms. Finney said that the roof was destroyed in the fire and the debris from the roof if sitting on the second floor, just piled up there. Ms. Finney stated that at some point someone made an effort to protect this building and made some sort of makeshift structure to tarp the back of the building. Ms. Finney stated that someone had made an effort, but stated that the building is too far-gone as the fire damage extends into the second floor diaphragm and into the first floor walls and is a hazard at this point. Ms. Finney said that this building presents a sufficiently hazardous condition right now and warrants immediate demolition. Ms. Finney said that she did want to point out that whatever replaces this structure will go through a public Planning process and there will be neighborhood notification and public hearings.

Mr. Lou Blaje spoke for the appellant and said that he did check into Planning policies and explained the Planning process. Mr. Blaje said that a soundness report would have to be completed and the purpose of that soundness report is to determine if the cost of rehabilitation would exceed 50% of the value of the building. Mr. Blaje stated that the 50% rule here would be far exceeded in terms of rehabilitation. Mr. Blaje said that Planning would also determine if this building is a historic resource and there is no documentation that it is. Mr. Blaje said that in order to go through the normal process for demolition it would take more than a year. Mr. Blaje said that his recommendation would be for the BIC to approve the emergency order and open up this building to a street frontage with a rear backyard. Mr. Blaje showed a map showing that many of the neighbors are in favor of this emergency demolition.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz spoke in favor of the appellant and said that he knew the property well and had been out to inspect it after the fire. Mr. Karnilowitz raised concerns about contaminants such as lead and asbestos leaching into the soil and urged the Commissioners to overturn DBI's decision and grant an emergency order. Mr. Karnilowitz stated that this was a non-conforming building as it was a chicken coop at one time and then someone started to add on to the back of the building and it turned into residential. Mr. Karnilowitz said that he thought that there would be no building permit on this building and probably not even a CFC. Mr. Karnilowitz said that this property was a blight to the neighborhood.

Mr. Ian Haddow stated that he owned the property which bounds Eric Kennealley's property, the property with the building at the rear that Commissioner Lee spoke about. Mr. Haddow stated that Eric purchased the property since the fire occurred but Mr. Haddow said he owned his property before the fire. Mr. Haddow said that his property was also damaged by the fire and stated that he has lived beside the damaged building for two years since the fire occurred. Mr. Haddow said that he acknowledged that his concern was a personal problem and said that he was speaking in favor of the Building Department not considering the demolition of this property an emergency. Mr. Haddow said that his concern was that he had contended for two years with the fire damaged building and now has made his repairs and is seeking to generate revenue in his building by renting out the rear building. Mr. Haddow stated that if this were declared an emergency demolition he would have to disclose to renters that construction is happening it would make it more difficult for him to rent his property. Mr. Haddow stated that his building is at 536 Laidley Street and said that in the documentation presented it shows him having signed the petition by the neighbors supporting the emergency demolition and said that he wanted to clarify that he did not sign any petition. President Hirsch said that for the record it did show someone signing the petition from 536 Laidley. Mr. Kennealley said that it was not the owner that signed it.

Mr. Jake Gardner said that he was the designer for the new building and said that he wanted to address the comment that nothing had been done by the owner to expedite the demolition process. Mr. Gardner said that when the owner purchase the property he immediately went to the structural engineers, Santos and Urrutia, and got a report on the building indicating that the building was in such bad shape that in the engineer's opinion an emergency demo was imminent. Mr. Gardner stated that at that point the owner concluded that this was the case. Mr. Gardner said that the owner went through that process which was denied and that is why there is an appeal today. Mr. Gardner said that he wanted to reemphasize that the Planning process does not stop as the new building will be closely scrutinized by the neighborhood. Mr. Gardner stated that there was an initial design that was submitted to Michael Smith who is reviewing it. Mr. Gardner stated that he believed that the Planning Department would like to see this building gone and said that the process is not practical. Mr. Gardner said that this case is one that should set an example of some kind of happy medium that is dealt with by some common sense and practicality. Mr. Gardner said that this is a building that is actually leaning which is one of the main considerations for emergency demo. Mr. Gardner stated that there are homeless people living in the area and someone could actually be sleeping in the building the day the wall goes down. Mr. Gardner said that he was appealing to the Commissioners to use common sense and hopefully allow this to be demolished.

Mr. Patrick Buscovich said that he was present for another reason and had no relationship with the property owners. Mr. Buscovich told two stories about fire-damaged buildings, one being the Glen Park Market, which the Fire Department walked away from for six months. Mr. Buscovich said that he went to the property to do the new design and said he immediately contacted the City because it was an imminent hazard and the building was torn down. Mr. Buscovich stated that fire-damaged buildings are missed for months, but the hazards are out there. Mr. Buscovich said that the other story was regarding a building out on Geary Blvd that was fire damaged beyond belief and it took two years to demolish this building going through the normal process. Mr. Buscovich said that he has had conversations with Planning and said that Planning are moving to the concept that the fire itself has effectively demolished the building. Mr. Buscovich stated that the Building Commission and Department might also want to consider this approach.

President Hirsch asked for rebuttal from the Department. Mr. Grieco said that he wanted to comment on the criteria for the emergency and what constitutes the threshold for an emergency demolition. Mr. Grieco said that clearly under any Codes in any jurisdictions the owner is ultimately responsible to secure entry and clean up the lot and certainly could do many things to make that sight safer than the condition that it is in. Mr. Grieco said that this is where the line is drawn as to what is the owner's responsibility and what is the jurisdiction's responsibility. Mr. Grieco stated that it is a tough decision as to what that threshold is.

Commissioner Lee asked what the Department could do, should the Commission grant an emergency demolition, to make sure that this lot will not become a nuisance after. Mr. Grieco said that clearly in the drafting of the language for the emergency demolition order language could be added to have the property owner secure that site and this could include any provisions the Department felt would be necessary.

Mr. Lou Blaje spoke on behalf of the owner and stated that the owner is a recent owner as he purchased the property less than a year ago. Mr. Blaje said that the fire took place over three years ago. Mr. Blaje said that if the owner were to go through the demolition process by filing a Form 6 under the very best of circumstances it would take six months and now with the rainy season coming on it would probably take at least one year. Mr. Blaje said that his client was in a bureaucratic catch 22 and said that he was appealing to the BIC because this was the body that could grant the emergency order. Mr. Blaje thanked the Commission for its support.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fillon to reverse the order of Jim Hutchinson and issue the emergency order. A six or eight foot fence was to be required along with the removal of vegetation.

The Commissioners voted as follows:

The motion carried on a vote of 5 to 2.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 047-05

The Commission made this decision based on the following findings:

• As the result of a fire some four years ago the property at 538 Laidley is structurally unsound, the roof has caved in and a wall of the building is leaning on an adjacent property.

• The building is unsafe and cannot be shored for safety.

• Damage to the property has been estimated at over $300,000.

• Neighbors signed a petition asking DBI to allow the emergency order.

• The property is a public nuisance and blight to the neighborhood.

• Once the building is demolished the owner is obligated to keep the lot from being a public nuisance.

c. Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission.

Acting Deputy Director Wing Lau reported that the owner of 2005 - 19^th Street was seeking an emergency demolition for a single story building that sits on top of a fifteen foot cliff. Mr. Lau said that based on the report the issue is not a structural issue, but the concern is the deteriorating condition of the rock that the building sits on and the structural safety because of the deterioration. Mr. Lau said that staff was recommending a geologist report to determine the condition of the site and so far the Department had only received a structural engineer's report. Mr. Lau called on Senior Building Inspector Edward Sweeney for further details.

Mr. Sweeney said that there was a verbal request for a field inspection prompted by the submittal of a structural evaluation by engineer Philip Whitehead. Mr. Sweeney said that he and several DBI staff members made an inspection of the site on December 3, 2004 to make a visual assessment of the property and the impact adjacent buildings. Mr. Sweeney stated that the building is a one-story, white, wood framed building with underneath crawl space with concrete foots founded on rock sub strait that is fifteen foot above street level. Mr. Sweeney said that the findings were that the exterior walls, foundation and roof all appeared in reasonable condition; the floor appears to be level with the exception of the bathroom located nearest Rhode Island Street which is slightly out of level. Mr. Sweeney said that there did not appear to be any recent movement or settlement of the foundation and the limited crawl space under the building appeared to be dry with no signs of seepage of water underground at the time of inspection. Mr. Sweeney said that as pointed out by Mr. Whitehead it would be difficult to predict without further study the stability of the rock out crop and under otherwise exceptional weather or seismic conditions. Mr. Sweeney stated that it the Department recommended that the owner hire a licensed engineering geologist and geotech engineer to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the site and recommendations for future use of the site and safety to the public. Mr. Sweeney stated that the building would be posted for limited entry and the sidewalk barricaded until such a report was obtained.

President Hirsch asked how the elevated outcrop came to be; who created it and when. Mr. Sweeney said that it was natural. President Hirsch said that it was not natural as the street is much lower than the natural topography of the area. Mr. Sweeney said that at the time this was built it was probably the turn of the century and there was no technology to remove the rock so a concrete stairs was built up to a flat area. President Hirsch said that there were two streets at the corner that are much lower than the surrounding properties, which to him indicated that at some point the City graded the area, and created the streets, which left the original topography higher than what was adjacent. Mr. Sweeney said that this would also be his guess. President Hirsch said that it would be his assumption that the City that created this outcrop upon which the building was built.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what the difference was between a structural engineer and a geotechnical engineer. President Hirsch said that both were civil engineers but a geotechnical engineer was a recent title and those engineers specialized in geotechnical issues such as below grade issue and the make up of the soil and rock. President Hirsch said that Mr. Whitehead was both a civil engineer and a geotechnical engineer, but not a structural engineer.

Ms. Kelton Finney of Santos & Urrutia Structural Engineers represented the appellant. Ms. Finney said that she inspected the building as part of a structural evaluation and said that she agreed with the Department that the building itself was not a structural hazard. Ms. Finney said that she did find more indication of settlement than the Building Department indicated in its field report, but none that would make the building a hazard. Ms. Finney said that the problem was the site as the site is unstable and because of the instability of the site she did not believe that it was possible to safely shore this building. Ms. Finney said that it was not possible to safety reinforce the rock outcropping by putting up a retaining wall or to drill tie backs or to try to do anything else that might stabilize this site. Ms. Finney stated that the building itself is in the stage of being completely undermined and would create a structural hazard to anyone working below it. Ms. Finney said that this case really was a case of the conditions at the site and the instability of the conditions at the site. Ms. Finney said that the owner had sought further input from a geotechnical engineer and Mr. Harold Lewis was present to speak about his findings.

Mr. Harold Lewis said that he was a civil engineer and had practiced as a geotechnical engineer for the past twenty-seven years. Mr. Lewis said that he did a site evaluation and said that a registered geologist had also done an evaluation of the site. Mr. Lewis stated that the findings were that this site is a geological hazard because of rock falls and wedge type failures of the slope. Mr. Lewis stated that he believed that a condition of imminent peril existed at the site. Mr. Lewis stated that there were two prominent shear plains that dipped prominently into the slope that would have a high potential of failure if there were to be a seismic event or that could possibly fail during the coming rainy season. Mr. Lewis said that the City graded those streets sometime back in the late 19^th century and created that precipice that exists out there where this building is sitting on top of. Mr. Lewis said that the removal of confinement from the bedrock materials allows a very slow expansion of these materials and one-hundred years or so later the bedrock is starting to spread apart. Mr. Lewis stated that this has been accelerated by the organic life that exists out the slopes. Mr. Lewis said that there are vines that are finding their ways into the cracks in the rocks and spreading them further apart and said that there were some nasty looking trees that are breaking the soil up on the corner. Mr. Lewis said that there was a ¼" or ½" failure plain that dips down onto the sidewalk on 19^th Street. Mr. Lewis said that this failure plain is about 30' long and weighs about 30 tons and it is slowly moving downward under gravity loads right now. Mr. Lewis stated that the hillside is disintegrating and there are small rock slides right now, but during the winter months this would accelerate because the rainfall that falls down in the surrounding backyards drains into this property because it is in the downhill flow path. Mr. Lewis said that this would lubricate those clay soils that lay on those failure plains and that wedge rock is going to slide out and this could become very dramatic. Mr. Lewis said that he sees a condition of imminent peril for anybody on that sidewalk on 19^th Street or Rhode Island. Mr. Lewis stated that he would not park his car there because thirty tons of rock is going to come out into the street. Mr. Lewis said that the failure plain on the very corner of the lot ha multiple failure fractures. Mr. Lewis said that the geologist said that the slopes should be graded back 2 to 1, but he would recommend 1 ½ to 1, however the building would have to come down in order to do this to make this a stable and safe hillside. Mr. Lewis concluded by saying that his recommendation would be to regrade this slope to make it safe and unfortunately this building would have to go. Mr. Lewis said that he would not recommend trying to save this building because anything that would disturb this slope would have to go. Mr. Lewis stated that failure is imminent, but the timeframe would be anybody's guess.

Mr. Peter Utner said that he had lived one house away from the subject property for 15 years and the property has deteriorated over that entire time. Mr. Utner stated that he uses the sidewalk at 19^th Street and Rhode Island and said that there are always small rocks, dirt and debris that has fallen down the hillside, but since the middle of last year the problem has gotten much, much worse. Mr. Utner said that now there are good sized pieces of rock that have fallen. Mr. Utner said that in the last two years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of families that have moved into the area and onto Potrero Hill and there are mothers with young children in strollers that are using this area going back and forth on that sidewalk. Mr. Utner said that it was just a matter of time before someone could be seriously hurt. Mr. Utner stated that he is in awe that this structure has not fallen yet and said that the danger would increase this coming winter.

Ms. Helen Perk said that she was the owner of 2019- 19^th Street, which is adjacent to the subject property. Ms. Perk said that she was also speaking for the owners of 2017 - 19^th Street. Ms. Perk stated that the property was only vacated one year ago and up until that time there was a tenant living there. Ms. Perk stated her concerns saying that the demolition of this property was inevitable, but asked about an easement that would allow access to the subject property depending on what would eventually be built. Ms. Perks asked about the demolition process and when demolition would take place if an emergency order was granted or when it would take place if the owner had to go through the regular demo process.

Mr. Bermudez said that he was the property owner at 2017 - 19^th Street and said that this building was built on the rock outcropping in 1907 and has been there for the past many decades. Mr. Bermudez said that all of a sudden it has become a problem regarding the integrity of the structure and said that it was interesting to him that now it has become a concern that it is going to become a danger to those on the street.

President Hirsch said that he would take the lead on this issue. President Hirsch said that he appreciated the geological assessment and evaluation, however said that he did not see that the building was creating any worsening of the situation. President Hirsch stated that one of the proposed solutions was to cut the hillside back to create a flatter slope, but that is not something that should not be undertaken lightly and has nothing to do with addressing the immediate, hazardous concern. President Hirsch said that it was interesting to note that the cut was created by the City and said in general under the Civil Code whoever makes a cut, in this case the City, is responsible for retaining the soil. President Hirsch said that a retaining wall definitely is needed; however the demolition of this building would not cure the problem. President Hirsch said that in the long term cutting the slope back might be the only solution to the problem; however, cutting the slope back would endanger the adjacent neighbors who are also at higher elevations. President Hirsch said that to tear the house down without coming up with a solution as to what is going to be done in the future would be very inappropriate, as the house is not the thing that is causing the sprawling away. Commissioner Walker thanked President Hirsch for his comments.

There were no further comments from the Commissioners.

President Hirsch made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, that the request for emergency demolition be denied. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 048-05

President Hirsch said that he would advise the owner and the City to get together and do something about this property.

The Commission made this decision based on the following findings:

• The site at 2005 - 19^th Street has a geological problem, but the building itself is not deteriorating.

• There is no movement of the foundations and no dry rot or seepage of water.

• Demolition of this building would not cure the geological problems that exist at the site.

• There is no impact to the adjacent buildings.

• The BIC recommends barricading the site for limited entry.

At this time the Commission took a break from 1:20 p.m. until 1:40 p.m.

7. Update, discussion and possible action to contract with an Executive Search Firm for the purpose of hiring a Director for the Department of Building Inspection. [Commissioners Guinnane, Lee & Romero, Mr. Reagan Williams of Bob Murray & Associates an Executive Search Company]

Commissioner Romero said that he was not able to attend the meeting that was held regarding this matter. Commissioner Guinnane said that in March of 2004 there was a mandate by the Commission to set up a Sub-Committee of three individuals to come back with candidates in a four month period. Commissioner Guinnane stated that unfortunately the Committee got off to a very poor start, but said that he came up with a timetable which would have candidates coming before the entire Commission in a Closed Session by November 7, 2005. Commissioner Guinnane said that in the Committee Commissioner Lee came up with the idea of hiring a head hunter and Commissioner Guinnane said that the Committee was agreeable to that, but the Commission would have to hire someone that was already approved by the City and County of San Francisco. Commissioner Guinnane said that Mr. Regan Williams of Bob Murray & Associates is a firm approved by the City so Mr. Williams was going to do a presentation before the entire Commission today. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he hoped the Commission would move forward to hire this individual in order to stay on track with the hiring process so that candidates could come before the Commission in the middle of November or by November 21 as it would be very hard to make it for November 7. Commissioner Guinnane said that there had been two meetings of the Sub-Committee.

Commissioner Lee said that the Sub-Committee met in July and at that time he asked that if the Commission was really going to do a search that the Commission not just advertise and wait for applicants to come forward, but said that he really wanted to search for the Director by doing outreach to go out and find someone who might not be looking to move, but given the right motivation would consider the position. Commissioner Lee said that at that time he asked if the Commission could hire an Executive Search Firm, which is called a head hunter, and said that the Committee wanted information because the Commission has not hired a Director for DBI for over ten years. Commissioner Lee stated that the Sub-Committee invited Mr. Williams to come and share his company's methods with the Sub-Committee and to share what services a head hunter would offer. Commissioner Lee said that he now wanted to share that information with the entire Commission and get the Commission's approval to hire an Executive Search Firm and open the door for proposals from Executive Search Firms to work with the BIC. Commissioner Lee said that then the Sub-Committee could interview the firms that come forward and bring that information back to the next full Commission meeting.

Commissioner Guinnane said that with that timetable the Commission would not even come close to hiring anyone for the position within the mandate of the four months and would be lucky to hire someone by this time next year. Commissioner Lee said that he was doing this out of respect for all seven Commissioners on the BIC and said that he did not feel comfortable that two Commissioners make a decision for all seven.

Commissioner Walker said that she really appreciated what Commissioner Lee was doing as this was a big deal and this was a very important step. Commissioner Walker said that she did not feel comfortable as one of the seven who would be deciding to deal with only those individuals the Sub-Committee would twiddle the search down to. Commissioner Walker stated that she personally wanted to see all of the resumes of the people who apply for the job and said that she thought that the idea of having a Search Committee would be to facilitate getting the applications in. Commissioner Walker said that she was not involved in any mandate, nor would she support any kind of mandate that would make those kinds of decisions. Commissioner Walker said that she thought that a search firm would be a good idea because the firm could go out and find people who might not see where the Commission was advertising.

Commissioner Romero said that he did not remember voting on a mandate, but it was said that the Commission was going to make every intent to hire within four months. Commissioner Romero said that initially in some of the Sub-Committee meetings it was suggested that Secretary Aherne actually go through the applications to weed out the ones that were not in compliance and said that the way that the City's hiring process works there would probably be applications submitted that would not be relevant to the position. Commissioner Romero stated that in thinking about it, that would be putting an awful lot of responsibility on the Secretary and said that if someone were to raise an issue about this they might point to Ann Aherne. Commissioner Romero said that he did not want that to happen. Commissioner Romero said that in light of the newspaper articles about the Department he thought that anything could happen so it would be better if all of the Commissioners looked at the applications to figure out who should be interviewed.

President Hirsch read an e-mail into the record that had been received from Ann Aherne with some facts, as she sees them about the Director Search methods. President Hirsch read the following: The Department can do the search through Advance Recruit for $2,500 - $5,000 depending on where the job announcement is posted. They are an approved vendor and the Commission would not have to go through the Civil Service Commission and the contract route with them. (President Hirsch said that he did not think that money should come into play with hiring the Director.) The resumes would be sent to Ann Aherne and reviewed by the Committee and the Commission. The job postings could be done within one day of receiving the job announcement. With Bob Murray & Associates the Commission would have to get an expedited approval from the Civil Service Commission and then get the contract approved by the Controller's Office. Bob Murray & Associates have done this before and are familiar with the City's requirements and are an approved vendor and that is why the Committee chose to speak with Mr. Regan Williams of Bob Murray & Associates. Ms. Aherne went on to say that she had 93googled94 this firm and said that they had done very professional work and could do this within the timeframe for an estimated cost of $40,000. President Hirsch said that Secretary Aherne wanted the Commission to know that there was not an approved job announcement from DHR. Director Ginsberg had e-mailed Secretary Aherne not to release the job announcement until approval was received from DHR.

Commissioner Lee said that the Commission would have to consider how the Executive Search Firm would work with the BIC and within the rules of DHR to know what the Commission would like to see in a new Director. Commissioner Lee said that the entire Commission should know the process of how the finalists are determined. President

President Hirsch called on Mr. Regan Williams of Bob Murray & Associates to come forward and answer any questions the Commissioners might have.

Mr. Regan Williams said that the $40,000 fee is an estimate and the company charges a $20,000 fee and there is $10,000 set aside for expenses such as advertising; $10,000 is also set aside for expenses involved with candidates who might have to travel for an interview. Mr. Williams stated that the company does not usually set aside the $10,000 for travel expenses, but were asked to do so for San Francisco when they were doing the search for a Police Chief. Mr. Williams said that the Commission would hire a firm such as his because this is something that this firm does all the time and would be doing things behind the scenes such as reviewing applications to see that the applicants meet the minimum qualifications. Mr. Williams explained that his firm would do interviews to look for the best candidate for the position. Mr. Williams said that he would talk with each of the Commissioners to find out what qualifications they were looking for in a Director for the Department and said that this was one of the most important steps in the hiring process. Mr. Williams stated that he would be spending a great deal of time on the telephone encouraging candidates to apply or to gather information from sources as to who might be qualified so he could contact those persons.

Commissioner Guinnane said that two of the issues raised in the Committee meetings were the fact that Mr. Williams thought that there would not be a large pool of candidates and also the problem of candidates coming from another State not wanting to get into the politics in San Francisco and the high cost of living. Mr. Williams said that he would think that there would only be a handful of candidates (10 -20) that would have the requisite skills for this position and would have the desire to do this particular job. Mr. Williams stated that the salary would be an issue because housing is so expensive in San Francisco. President Hirsch said that he had asked Secretary Aherne to do a survey of other jurisdictions for comparison. Mr. Williams said that he thought Secretary Aherne had done the survey and said that a similar position in Los Angeles paid $190,000.

Commissioner Guinnane said that another thing that was discussed in the Committee meeting was to have the Secretary contact Planning since they did a recent search for a Director and go through those resumes to see if there were any qualified applicants and then ask those candidates to apply. Commissioner Walker said that the Commission might have to get permission from the candidates prior to seeing resumes because of privacy issues. Commissioner Walker said that she thought it would be a good idea to hire a Search Firm, but said that the Commission should get bids from other Search Firms. President Hirsch said that the idea of having a Committee to make recommendations was to avoid too much delay. Commissioner Lee said that he did not want to delay anything, but said that this came before the Commission out of respect for all of the Commissioners who would be making this decision. Commissioner Lee said that now the Committee was asking for permission to seek bids from other Executive Search Firms so the Committee can review the proposals and make a recommendation. Commissioner Lee said that this could be done by the next meeting. Commissioner Guinnane said that Bob Murray & Associates is approved by the City and they were involved in the hiring of the Police Chief so obviously they must be well qualified. Commissioner Guinnane said that perhaps everything should come before the full Commission rather than having a Sub-Committee as the Sub-Committee is a waste of time because only two Commissioners were at those meetings and they were at odds. Commissioner Lee said that there might be other Search Firms out there that want to submit a proposal.

Commissioner Lee made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker, that the Commission allow the Committee to accept proposals from Executive Search Firms and have the Committee make a recommendation to the full Commission at the next Commission meeting.

President Hirsch called for public comment.

Mr. Joe O'Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that all of this was supposed to happen three months ago and an Executive Director should be in place, but said that bureaucrats do not care and said that there were self-interest groups on this Commission. Mr. O'Donoghue said that there was a self-interest group between Commissioner Romero and Commissioner Walker all through the Harvey-Milk Democratic Club. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that this was playing into the builder's hands because it was giving them the Cassandra Predictions, which were going to become accurate. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the bureaucracy was already impacting the public as the over the counter permit service is now a joke. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that contractors and homeowners are furious as they try to come into DBI to go through the process as they cannot get their permits through the over the counter service. Mr. O'Donoghue said forget the regular permit process it is now as bad as it is at Planning. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the Commission had given him his agenda and said that a new Director coming in is only going to be interim as there will be a new Mayor in this City even assuming that the present Mayor runs. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he did not believe that the present Mayor would run again. Mr. O'Donoghue said that there were not going to be that many candidates and said that Commissioner Lee has an agenda. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that honesty is what pays and said that Commissioner Lee was dishonest because he was looking to delay this process so that two Commissioners will not be on this Commission when the decision is made. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Bob Murray & Associates had all the credentials to get this process working. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he was going to be calling a press conference on Thursday and said that heads would roll. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Commissioner Lee was sitting on the Commission illegally as he had not filled out the proper reports as required by City workers serving on Commissions. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Commissioner Romero was a union representative who wanted more employees and said that the unions do not care about this process as long as the dues are still coming in and in the meantime there is uncertainty in the Department because no one will make a decision right now. Mr. O'Donoghue said that if someone were to make a decision there would be a conspiracy theory out there and they might be indicted. Mr. O'Donoghue said that this is why Mr. Hutchinson and the Engineers and Plan Checkers are taking the positions as shown today. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Commissioner Walker was not qualified to sit on the Commission and since she was sitting on this Board she should be honest and let everyone know her agenda.

Mr. Patrick Buscovich said that he was not thrilled to have to follow Mr. O'Donoghue, but said that he was one of the two people in the room, who along with Commissioner Guinnane, appointed Frank Chiu as Director eleven years ago. Mr. Buscovich stated that the only people who would apply for this job were people within the Department, CALBO Officials, people with their CBO's and said that he thought that there would be nobody from out of State applying for a job that pays $150,000 and manages 300 people. Mr. Buscovich urged the Commission to move forward expeditiously and to do its job by hiring a permanent Director. Mr. Buscovich said that he is in the Department everyday paying for the services as a practicing Engineer. Mr. Buscovich stated that the Department needs a permanent Director as soon as possible.

Commissioner Frank Lee said that this was why he wanted the Commission to take this process step by step so that the Commission would have the respect of DBI staff. Commissioner Lee said that staff should see that everything is up front and on the table and that there is no preconceived idea of what Search Firm would be hired or who would be hired as Director.

Mr. Buscovich said that he doubted if staff even understood the concept of the Executive Search Committee, but said that he agreed that it was important for the Commission to ask staff what they want. Mr. Buscovich stated that he thought the Commissioners would be surprised if they sat down with some members of the staff, as long as the Brown Act was not violated and the Commission did not interfere with the day to day, to hear what staff wants and said that he thought the Commissioners would be shocked.

President Hirsch asked for the motion to be repeated. Commissioner Lee repeated the motion which was seconded by Commissioner Walker. Commissioner Fillon said that he did not agree with part of the motion. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that the Commission should move forward with hiring Bob Murray & Associates because they were one of the only Search Firms that replied and they were fully qualified and this was just delaying the process.

Commissioner Hanrahan said that she would agree that the Commission should move forward and approve the Executive Search Firm today because she did not see any logic with opening this up further and delaying this again. Commissioner Hanrahan said that they are only so many people that are qualified that the City can actually employ. Commissioner Hanrahan said that she disagreed with the proposal and would vote against it and said that she would prefer a motion that was more expeditious.

President Hirsch called the question and the Commissioner voted as follows:

Commissioner Romero Yes

Vice-President Hanrahan No

Commissioner Fillon No

Commissioner Lee Yes

Commissioner Walker Yes

Commissioner Guinnane No

President Hirsch No

The motion failed on a vote of 4 to 3.

Commissioner Fillon made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hanrahan, that the Commission agree to hire an Executive Search Firm.

The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 049-05

Vice-President Hanrahan asked if the Committee could come back with a firm contract, a timeline and a plan. Commissioner Guinnane said that the problem with the Committee had been that Commissioner Romero missed the meetings and he and Commissioner Lee were at odds all of the time so unless there was a change to the make up of the Committee it was a waste of time. Commissioner Romero stated that he missed only one meeting. Commissioner Guinnane said that there had only been two meetings and Commissioner Romero missed one of those. Commissioner Romero said that he missed one meeting at which this decision was discussed. Vice-President Hanrahan said that she appreciated the frustration, but said that the Commission just needed to figure out a way to fix it. Commissioner Guinnane said that whatever he wanted Commissioner Lee wanted the opposite. Commissioner Fillon said not to focus on that part because that did not get anybody anywhere. Commissioner Fillon asked when the next meeting would be. President Hirsch stated that it would be in four weeks because Labor Day was coming up. Commissioner Walker and Commissioner Fillon said that there could be a Special Meeting.

Commissioner Lee asked Commissioner Romero if he felt comfortable not having a Committee meeting to review the proposals. Commissioner Romero said that with a Committee of three if he were to agree with Commissioner Lee this would become a political issue in the other direction and said that he thought it would be better for all of the Commissioners to review these things as they come up so that it is all above board and the Commission would not have to deal with these aspersions that the process was not fair. Commissioner Romero said that his inclination would be to have the full Commission start looking at applications, not just applications for the Director's position, but applications for the Search Firm to be hired. Commissioner Guinnane said if that was the avenue that Commissioner Romero wanted to take then the Commission should just disband the Sub-Committee and bring everything to the full Commission. Commissioner Romero said that was what he was saying.

Commissioner Walker asked if the Commission could agree on scheduling a Special Meeting to deal with proposals from Executive Search Firms. Assistant Secretary Sonya Harris said that she would have to check into room availability and the availability of the Commissioners. President Hirsch said that he thought that the next meeting would have to be September 19^th, but said that he would like the Sub-Committee to come up with a Search Firm and a contract ready to be voted up or down by this Commission. Commissioner Fillon said that he would agree with Commissioner Guinnane and Romero that there should not be a Committee, but the decision should be by the entire Commission because he thought it would add months to the process.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the Secretary told him she had gone through the process and only one of the approved firms replied with a proposal. Commissioner Walker said that the Secretary was not present today. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had no reason to lie about this. Assistant Secretary Harris said that Secretary Aherne had gone through the process. President Hirsch said that he thought it would be an exercise in futility to start the whole process over again as the Committee recommended this firm; the firm is interested and a firm that is approved by the City. Commissioner Romero said that he thought there should be another meeting to actually make a decision. Commissioner Lee said that he did not believe that the Executive Search Firms were called to submit a proposal, but the firms were called to see which one could come into the Committee meeting to education the members about what a Search Firm would do to aid in the hiring of a Director. Commissioner Lee said that Bob Murray & Associates were responsive in that matter and said that the Committee was very thankful for that. Commissioner Lee said that the Committee did not ask for proposals.

Vice-President Hanrahan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, that the Bob Murray & Associates be contacted to submit a proposal and a contract to be voted up or down at the next meeting which would take place as soon as possible.

Commissioner Romero asked if this proposal was only covering one firm. Vice-President Hanrahan said that was correct. Commissioner Romero said that he did not think that was fair as there was no competition present at all. Vice-President Hanrahan said that it was not her interest to limit the contracts, but said that this was limited by the City's restrictions. Commissioner Walker said that she understood that one firm had agreed to come and educate the Commission, but no other firms were contacted. Commissioner Lee said that he would request that the Commission Secretary send a letter to all of the approved firms giving them a drop dead date to submit a proposal. President Hirsch called the questions. Vice-President Hanrahan said that she would revise her proposal to include all of the firms on the list, asking them to provide a proposal. Commissioner Walker seconded the revised proposal.

The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 050-05

8. Discussion and possible action to appoint and swear in a member of the Access Appeals Commission (August Longo) and the Unreinforced Masonry Appeals Board (Patrick Buscovich).

a. Mr. August Longo for the AAC seat of person with physical disability, term to expire 11/01/05.- continued from August 1, 2005 meeting

Commissioner Fillon said that he was on the Sub-Committee along with Former Commission Ting and said that they had put Mr. Longo forward for this appointment. Commissioner Fillon said that Mr. Longo was the only candidate who applied for the position that was solicited and said that Mr. Longo's resume looked good and said that Mr. Longo had served on this Committee previously. Commissioner Fillon asked Mr. Longo if he would like to come forward and state why he wanted to be on this Commission.

Mr. August Longo said that before he would proceed with his comments about why he wanted to be on the Access Appeals Commission he wanted to say that it was clear to him that people were going to come forward to make comments about something that happened two decades ago. Mr. Longo said that these people would be reading from newspaper articles that were some twenty years old. Mr. Longo stated that he owned that facts of what happened; he committed a crime and was sentenced to prison to serve his time. Mr. Longo said that since then he has been very involved with civic activities in the City and County of San Francisco. Mr. Longo said that he had been advisory to the Municipal Transportation Authority, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Federal Transportation Authority on disabled access issues. Mr. Longo said that he had previously served on the Access Appeals Commission as an appointee of Mayor Frank Jordan. Mr. Longo stated that he served on the AAC until such time as the BIC came into being and appointed new people. Mr. Longo said he thought he did a good job while on the Commission and said that he did not think that there was any question about his service. Mr. Longo said that he would be happy to answer any questions and thanked the Commission.

President Hirsch called for public comment.

Ms. Jul Parsons said that unfortunately the closed captioning for the meeting went off so, being hearing impaired, she was not privy to some of the comments made. Ms. Parsons said that she really appreciated the closed captioning for a public meeting such as this and stated that she was on vacation (from DBI) and was present to speak on this particular item as she does sit on the Mayor's Disability Council. Ms. Parsons stated that she was approached by a concerned citizen regarding this appointment and said that she did not personally know Mr. Longo. Ms. Parsons said that what concerned her was the fact that there were criminal allegations made and said that a lot of working with the disabled involved collaborating and communicating with them and that the appointee be honest and adhere to the public trust. Ms. Parsons apologized that she did not hear what Mr. Longo had to say as the closed captioning was not accessible for the latter part of this meeting. Ms. Parsons said that she was on the fence because she did not think that there were enough disabled people who come forward and want to serve and said that she wanted to acknowledge Mr. Longo for doing so. Ms. Parsons said that on the other hand she would like to know beyond the shadow of a doubt if the questions about the activities that Mr. Longo had been involved in and the public trust issue had been solved to the Commission's satisfaction and the public's satisfaction. Ms. Parsons said she hoped there would be an opportunity to communicate in a forum that would allow access because although she worked on the same council at the same time at Mr. Longo they were unable to have that dialogue so she could not speak about Mr. Longo on personal terms or professionally, but said that she wanted to make sure that since this was a very important disability access post the Commission would feel totally confident with any decision it would make and would be putting the best person on the AAC that would respect the rights of the disabled to make San Francisco as accessible as it can be.

Ms. Susan Misner said that she was a City employee, but had taken time off today to speak as a member of the public and as a member of the disability community. Ms. Misner said that given the problems at the Building Inspection Department it was important that the BIC and the AAC perform their duties with the highest ethical standards and not take any action that might even suggest the appearance of impropriety. Ms. Misner stated that Mr. Longo was a felon with multiple convictions for fraud and referred to an articles printed about Mr. Longo in the San Francisco Chronicle. Ms. Misner said that some of the relevant details from the articles were that in 1979 Mr. Longo pled guilty to five counts of grand larceny in New York; in 1981 he violated his probation; the grand jury indicted him for impersonating three doctors, writing false credit card applications and writing over $467,000 in bad checks. Ms. Misner said that a warrant for Mr. Longo's arrest was later issue in New York for violating probation. Ms. Misner said that in the 1980's Mr. Longo moved to California and in 1985 he was arrested for using credit cards issued in other people's names to purchase thousands of dollars worth of goods. Ms. Misner stated that Mr. Helton Henderson sentenced Mr. Longo to ten years in prison, noted his history and imprisonment in New York dating back to the 1960's and also ordered Mr. Longo to make restitution of $120,000. Ms. Misner said that in 1996, not twenty years ago, Mr. Longo shared in $100,000 court settlement, but did not apparently use any of this money to pay the restitution he was legally and morally obligated to pay. Ms. Misner said that in 1996 Mr. Longo asked the Independent Housing Services her in San Francisco not to report to the IRS the $10,000 paid to him as a consultant. Ms. Misner stated that not in newspaper articles, but also on public record is that Mr. Longo has already had the opportunity to serve the public and said that when he was on the Access Appeals Commission there was a shadow over his record in that he was receiving free meals from Stars while they had an application before the Access Appeals Commission. Ms. Misner said that for the period that Mr. Longo was on the Mayor's Disability Council between 2000 until he was removed in March 2004, Mr. Longo only attended one meeting in 2003. Ms. Misner stated that by her count, out of 64 meeting Mr. Longo only attended one. Ms. Misner said that she took no pleasure in coming forward to report these things, but said that she believed the BIC owed a duty to the disability community. Ms. Misner's three minutes were complete, but she urged the Commission to look at this issue closely.

Mr. Joe O'Donoghue said that regarding the current allegation against Mr. Longo there are no current court cases or convictions so they are based on newspaper hearsay. Mr. O'Donoghue said that if one were to listen to what the Chronicle has said he would be in jail and stated that the Chronicle had kept Irish Freedom Fighters out of this country on the basis that they were terrorists when they were totally for non-violence and were people who condemned IRA actions. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that he made no bones about his violent behavior in terms of the pen is mightier than the sword when it comes to the bomb, but at times it is also necessary and said that he has never been convicted. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he did not know Mr. Longo, but said that he knew him when Mr. Longo was with Frank Jordan's Disability Council and had disagreements with him. Mr. O'Donoghue said that regarding Mr. Longo's past convictions, to err is human to forgive is divine and said that Mr. Longo had been forgiven by the court system because he had served his time. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that Mr. Longo is wheel chaired access and said that it did not bother him that people demonize him because he expected that, but said he was shocked when it is done to someone who is disabled. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Mr. Longo is already disabled and then to throw this crown of thorns on Mr. Longo's head is totally wrong. Mr. O'Donoghue said that there was already a triangular vote on this Commission against Mr. Longo because Mr. Longo made one mistake; he became too active and went to the Central Democratic Committee and made enemies. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that Mr. Longo made enemies of Debra Walker and all around and said that some of the Commissioners would probably vote against Mr. Longo today. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the fix was in against Mr. Longo and said that originally when the voters went with Commissioners it was never intended to have public figures on this Commission. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that it was wrong to have public figures on the Commission and said that he had never served on a Commission in the forty years that he had been active in the City he had turned down offers to serve on Commissions because as a public figure he should not be on a Commission. Mr. O'Donoghue said that as an activist he should not be on a Commission because he would bring his biased to that Commission. Mr. O'Donoghue said that no lip service to objectivity would spell otherwise and said that it was wrong that the BIC had public figures such as Debra Walker and Criss Romero. Mr. O'Donoghue said that they would bring a biased because Mr. Longo would have ticked off, as he had, people within the Community. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he was asking the Commission to look objectively at what was before it and said that he thought that the questions about attendance were justified, but said that the other allegations should be ignored because Mr. Longo had served well in this City and the State. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he thought that it was wrong that this man should be put through an excruciating torture chamber when all he wants to do is to do some public service.

Mr. Pat Buscovich said that he was not present to say yes or no to this appointment and said that he considered Mr. Longo a friend. Mr. Buscovich said that Jul Parsons was a very well respected member of the disabled community and the most important thing to consider was that this seat represents the disabled community and the Commission should do what is best for that community. Mr. Buscovich said that he thought that it was really important to find out if the disabled community supports this appointment because Mr. Longo is a representative of this community.

President Hirsch said that past interests do not concern him as much as the fact that he hears that Mr. Longo served the City so well, but yet sees an attendance record that shows Mr. Longo only attending one meeting in four years. President Hirsch stated that this did not indicate to him devoted public service. Commissioner Fillon asked if Mr. Longo could address this issue.

Mr. Longo said that he would be happy to address this issue and said that he had spoken to Mayor Brown two years ago when he was on the Council about resigning because he had a medical issue that prevented him from sitting for long periods of time and Mayor Brown asked him to stay on the council and advise them as was necessary. Mr. Longo said that the Mayor of the City who made the appointment was certainly advised of his limitations. President Hirsch said that this explanation would account for the last two years, but said that there were five years of non-attendance. Mr. Longo said that he did not believe that there were five years and said that he would have to look at the records for accuracy. Mr. Longo stated that for some time the Committee had a policy that if someone were not present for the entire meeting from beginning to end they would be considered absent and the records might reflect that. Mr. Longo said that he would dispute the records submitted as to his attendance.

Commissioner Romero said that the reason that he did not vote for Mr. Longo at the last meeting and wanted this held over until today was because of Mr. Longo's association with the FDR Democratic Club because a lot of groups claim to have constituencies and said that he was very familiar with that on the Central Committee. Commissioner Romero stated that he was aware of committees that were created only to make endorsements and said that one of the criticisms of the FDR Democratic Club was that they held meetings and did not include any kind of public constituency work that allowed people to vote and said that these meetings were held in private. Commissioner Romero said that people were concerned that Mr. Longo had portrayed himself as President of club that had a huge following, but people felt that Mr. Longo was making endorsements on his own to swing elections or to steer politics in a certain direction using a fake club.

Mr. Longo said that the club was set up with an operation similar to the Para transit coordinating council and said that everyone had familiarity with that organization. Mr. Longo stated that the Para transit coordinating had a yearly meeting with an Executive Committee that met monthly and that was the same way the club was set up. Commissioner Romero said that Mr. Longo was coming before the BIC saying that he was going to be representing the disability community, but in the past situation there were folks that were furious that Mr. Longo's organization was speaking on their behalf and not allowing them a voice in the organization at all because of the way that it was set up. Mr. Longo said that there were some thirty or forty Democratic clubs in San Francisco that were all set up differently and said that the club he was involved in was set up to aid seniors and people with disabilities who were not able to attend meetings on a monthly basis. Mr. Longo said that this was done exactly as the Para transit coordinating council does and has done for almost twenty years.

Commissioner Walker said that she appreciated Mr. Longo talking about the past, but said that she did not get a clear idea about the restitution and asked if Mr. Longo had paid back the people that he was supposed to. Mr. Longo stated that the restitution amount was over $100,000 and was never paid back, but said that he paid back the amount he was required to while he was on probation. Mr. Longo said that he lived on $720 per month. Commissioner Walker said that she understood that, but said that there were ways that Mr. Longo could appeal to the courts to reduce that amount. Commissioner Walker asked if this was still an open case because the restitution was not repaid. Mr. Longo said that it was a condition of the probation that was over so this was not an issue. Commissioner Walker said that if it was a restitution it would not end when the probation does and would still be a requirement to be fulfilled unless Mr. Longo were to go back and amend his probation. Commissioner Walker said that this was an issue for her, not that there were previous crimes, but that they were resolved. Mr. Longo said that it was his understanding that this was a condition of probation and when the probation was over the obligation was over.

Commissioner Fillon said that every time Mr. Longo comes forward to serve he has to get retried again for things that happened over ten years ago. Commissioner Fillon said that it seemed to him that this was unfortunate and said that he did not think that it was right. Commissioner Fillon stated that Mr. Longo had a history of being involved recently in a lot of public service and read off a long list of public service organizations that Mr. Longo had either chaired or served on in recent years. Commissioner Fillon said that he was very happy that Mr. Longo came forward to apply for this position on the Access Appeal Committee when no one else did even thought the Commission spent time soliciting applications.

Commissioner Fillon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, to appoint Mr. Longo and at least give Mr. Longo the courtesy of voting him up or down today and not putting him through this retrial of things that happened a long time ago and accusations that are unsubstantiated.

President Hirsch asked for any further discussion on the item. Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not attend the last meeting where this was discussed, but said that there seemed to be some question as to whether Mr. Longo had been incarcerated. Commissioner Guinnane asked Commissioner Romero if he had stated at the last meeting that he had been incarcerated at one time. Commissioner Romero said that no, he had stated that he had members of his family that had been incarcerated. Commissioner Guinnane said that he just wanted to set the record straight.

Commissioner Walker stated that she knew criminal law and said that just because someone's probation ends it does not mean that the obligation to restitute does. Commissioner Walker said that she needed to know what that is because it did not sound right to her. Vice-President Hanrahan said that she would definitely vote against Mr. Longo's appointment even though she works with prisoners every day and has a great belief in their ability to rehabilitate, but said that she did not believe that Mr. Longo was qualified to serve on the AAC. Commissioner Fillon said that he did not like the tone of that. President Hirsch called the question.

The Commissioner voted as follows:

Commissioner Romero No

Vice-President Hanrahan No

Commissioner Fillon Yes

Commissioner Lee Yes

Commissioner Walker No

Commissioner Guinnane Yes

President Hirsch No

The motion was defeated by a vote of 4 to 3.

b. Mr. Patrick Buscovich for the UMB seat of structural engineer.

Mr. Buscovich said that he was made aware by the Secretary that there was a vacancy on this Board and stated that he wrote the original legislation along with Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian and Mr. Robert Bossi to create this UMB board. Mr. Buscovich said that he it was pointed out to him that there was a vacancy on this Board and said that as part of his obligation to the City he believed that he was competent as an engineer to serve as he had written most of the legislation regarding the UMB ordinance. Mr. Buscovich stated that he had worked on probably 500 of the 2,000 brick buildings in the City over the past fourteen years and felt that he was qualified to serve on this Board.

Mr. Joe O'Donoghue said that the Commission could not find a more qualified person to fill this position and said that it was a pity that Mr. Buscovich decided not to go for the position of Acting Director because he was making too much money in the public sector. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that the vote on this appointment should be unanimous.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by President Hirsch, to appoint Mr. Buscovich to the UMB seat of structural engineer. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 051-05

President Hirsch administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Buscovich.

9. 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.

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.

After much discussion it was decided that the Secretary would try to secure a room for a Special Meeting on September 9^th limiting the agenda to the item of selecting a Search Firm to hire a Director with the cutoff date to receive proposals being August 31^st.

10. 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 that his members had left the City to building in South Beach, Florida; Cincinnati; Illinois and Louisiana. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that the fact is that the RBA never did much permitting in the City, maybe 300 out of 55,000 permits per year, and said that this involved about 100 projects because the members did not do remodeling, but were involved in new construction. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that his members had left an unenviable record of no evictions in any of the buildings that were put up. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the RBA would still be active in San Francisco, however, said that from Webcor on down to the small contractor there is nothing but anger right now because the building bureaucracy is now getting as bad as the Planning Department. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he predicted this when the plan came out and said that he had the record of productivity and said that it was now diminishing. Mr. O'Donoghue said that over the past several years, he with some other people have, after going to Federal authorities and in meeting with the former Mayor Willie Brown, conducted their own investigation. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that he would be holding a press conference on Thursday and prior to that would be handing over documents to the Federal authorities. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he did not want the District Attorney's involvement because his organization did not trust the District Attorney's Office because what had happened in terms of politics in this City was that if a person is with an ethnic group that has a large constituency base or an active base they are going to get special treatment. Mr. O'Donoghue said that this would explain why earlier on it was explained by someone that someone from the black community was singled out and arrested. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that the black community has been totally weakened because they are the easy targets for anyone doing a set up. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the RBA would be handing over evidence of what they felt was fraud within the Department. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he has long said that it is small and said that it is as it only applies to a few people. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he wanted to inform the Commission of this press conference so it would not come as any surprise. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the press conference would take place at 4809 Mission Street.

11. Adjournment.

Commissioner Fillon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 052-05

The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary