2.

6.

Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding a joint report from AIA San Francisco and SPUR regarding an agenda for change in the San Francisco Department of City Planning and Department of Building Inspection. [Vice-President Hood]  Director Chiu’s letter dated June 11, 2004 responding to the report.

Mr. Charles Higueras thanked the Commission for the opportunity to jump the line.  Mr. Higueras stated that he was serving as the 2004 Chapter President for the American Institute of Architects, as well being a Commissioner for the City and County of San Francisco as President of the Library Commission.  Mr. Higueras said that he empathized with the Commissioners duties.  Mr. Higueras said that in late 2003 the AIA began to see that the campaign season would begin to broach the matters both pertaining to Planning and Building and as is the case with media, many times they highlight aspects that are considered more interesting or otherwise sexy to the reader.  Mr. Higueras said that the AIA felt compelled as professionals to step forward to provide DBI with the objective view.  Mr. Higueras stated that the AIA is DBI’s most prominent user, as the AIA represents more than one-half of all Architects in the City and County of San Francisco and certainly the majority of Architects responsible for delivering major projects.  Mr. Higueras said that from that point of view the AIA felt that it had an inarguably very unique, and hopefully valuable, perspective to offer.  Mr. Higueras said that the AIA assembled with SPUR to investigate, review and offer recommendations on both the Planning and Building Departments.  Mr. Higueras said that Mr. Peter Winkelstein of SPUR and John Schlesinger of the AIA would be offering a more detailed view of the recommendations they arrived at.  Mr. Higueras said that the groups did seek input and reviewed what the record had to offer, but as well began to talk to a variety of stake holders, people who deal frequently or daily with the Department.   Mr. Higueras said that this included DBI staff and as well some permit expediters.  Mr. Higueras stated that the attention given to permit expediters was a bit of a red herring, and said that this group did not believe it was the largest issue or problem facing the Building Department.  Mr. Higueras said that this group was not present to gang up or pile onto the Department, but thought that there was a real opportunity for a partnership with the design community and DBI in trying to fashion the best set of protocols and procedures that will not only enable DBI staff to do its work, but will enable the design community to move forward with efficiency and with the type of successful outcome that they seek.  Mr. Higueras thanked the Commission.

Mr. Peter Winkelstein introduced himself as an Architect and said that he was on the Board of SPUR.  Mr. Winkelstein said that this taskforce was put together last summer with the knowledge that there was going to be a new Mayor and said that they wanted to present a report to him to make the Planning process and the Building Inspection process work better in San Francisco.  Mr. Winkelstein said that he would speak about Planning and Mr. Schlessinger would be speaking about DBI.  Mr. Winkelstein stated that the public had lost trust in the Planning process and said he thought this was a result of the dot.com boom and other factors that were beyond the control of the Commission.  Mr. Winkelstein said that Planning in San Francisco does not only occur in Planning, but also in the Redevelopment Agency, the Port, Muni and so on and there is a lack of coordination that is part of the problem.  Mr. Winkelstein said that they thought that the Planning Commission was being inundated with Discretionary Review (DR) issues and condition use issues and this was very frustrating as the emphasis for the Commission should be on Planning for the Commission and less on projects.  Mr. Winkelstein said that there were funding problems as the Planning Commission got no funding from the General Fund last year and got some of DBI’s money instead.  Mr. Winkelstein said that this taskforce felt that they needed to fix the division of labor between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors who in recent years have almost become a second Planning Commission through appeals to them of environmental reviews. Mr. Winkelstein stated that they looked and concluded that the Planning Commission should spend more time on Planning and said that the taskforce was happy to learn that Planning was looking to make the Discretionary Review process work better through pre-application meetings and other steps.  Mr. Winkelstein reported that there is money in the Mayor’s budget for Planning this year, and said that hopefully it will remain in the budget; Planning are looking at revision to fees, as is DBI which is important and are looking for a new Director.  Mr. Winkelstein said that a change might help.  Mr. Winkelstein said that one of the things that the taskforce recommended would be for Planning Commissioners to have more training and said that the Commission should be able to gain a better understanding of the process of what the general plan of the City is and represents in order to act intelligently as a Commissioner.  Mr. Winkelstein said that the taskforce’s emphasis was on process not on policy and wanted to make recommendations that were relatively short term that would not require major Charter amendments or things that would take time and be difficult politically.  Mr. Winkelstein said that the recommendations were in the report that was presented to the BIC. 

Mr. Winkelstein said that another thing that the taskforce looked at was Planning’s relationship with other City departments, not only DBI, but transportation agencies, DPW, PUC, the Port and the Redevelopment Agency.  Mr. Winkelstein stated that he hoped that processes would be put in place that would allow for better cooperation between those agencies. 

President Santos asked if the taskforce looked at the issue of the cost issues of DRs.  Mr. Winkelstein said that they did and said that the taskforce looked at other expenses in the department and said that they felt that the department needs to put processes in place that will improve their efficiency and set more realistic goals and time limits on their activities.  Mr. Winkelstein said that in terms of DRs the taskforce supports the suggestions that have come forth to raise the fees slightly and to put a surcharge on permits.  Mr. Winkelstein said that having pre-application meetings and dividing DRs into two different categories so that relatively simple ones that are not of great concern to neighbors could be processed more efficiently. 

Commissioner Hanrahan said that she thought that DRs are a really important way in which the public gets a chance to present them.  Mr. Winkelstein said that he was not proposing to restrict them in any way, but is proposing that there are a number of issues that won’t be DRs because there will be pre-application meetings between the project sponsors and the neighbors which will be required.  Mr. Winkelstein said that they were not proposing to eliminate any of the public process.  Mr. Winkelstein thanked the Commission.

Mr. John Schlessinger introduced himself as an Architect, a member of the AIA and SPUR.  Mr. Schlessinger said that the group did receive a letter from Director Chiu last week responding to the report that was a very detailed point by point response and said that the taskforce was looking forward to working with DBI in the near and long terms things that they agree on.  Mr. Schlessinger said that he was going to talk about a few specific items that directly affects DBI and said that everyone knows that it comes down to money.  Mr. Schlessinger said that he realized how galling it must be for DBI’s surplus to be wiped out to fund the Department of City Planning; AIA and SPUR have been advocates about getting the Department of City Planning funded by the General Fund so that this doesn’t happen in the future.  Mr. Schlessinger said that the AIA and SPUR, as stakeholders, recognize that when there are an inadequate number of Inspectors the Plan Checkers are burdened by the projects that are being done and this is something that is not new to them and they have made this clear to the Board of Supervisors and various budget committees.

Mr. Schlessinger said that, as far as the Strategic Plan is concerned, one of the things that the taskforce recognized as a baseline piece that DBI recently adopted was that there is a certain number of areas that the Commission could work on by giving DBI direction.  Mr. Schlessinger said that the Commission should identify those items that are of the greatest priority to the Commissioners because given the lack of funding for some of these items the calendar is going to have to be extended.  Mr. Schlessinger stated that some of the things the AIA and SPUR felt were most important were in the areas of training and the direction and the capacity the BIC plays in terms of directing policy.  Mr. Schlessinger said that one area would be the part that the Commission could play in PR in terms of rebutting the disquieting allegations that occur that really don’t address the more substantive problems that occur in a City Agency.  Mr. Schlessinger stated that when policies are directed for funding of projects, one of the things that the BIC could do would be to establish a project that then becomes encumbered by the right funding.  Mr. Schlessinger said that one of the luxuries that the BIC has had over the past nine years or so, as a Commission, is the Department has had a surplus during the boom times and now the Commission has to recognize the way other City agencies work.  Mr. Schlessinger said that these agencies have to work from year to year and have never had a surplus and now for DBI to kind of fold into that mode of operating to better encumber funds for new projects and having that approved by agencies such as the Board of Supervisors and then carry out the task would be a great help to the Department.

Mr. Schlessinger said that another thing the Commission should do is to consider its legacy of the last nine years or so as Commissioners because as turnover occurs over the next five to ten years, one of the things that would be helpful to the BIC would be to establish a more firm protocol in the way the Commission deliberates and the formality of those deliberations and the training that might occur for new Commissioners. 

Mr. Schlessinger said that in January of this year he attended a conference in Washington DC that was sponsored by his National Organization under the guise of what other building departments are doing in this country.  Mr. Schlessinger stated that there were Building Officials and AIA representatives from ten major cities in the Country.  Mr. Schlessinger said that they talked about the nuts and bolts of operating a building department, what other jurisdictions are doing and what kinds of commitments are being made from the legislative and executive branches from each of those cities.  Mr. Schlessinger said that they discovered that San Francisco is not alone as a lot of the departments have the same challenges as DBI does and some departments are in much worse shape, but there are other departments that have gotten a greater commitment of funds from their executive and legislative branches so they have made much greater strides in their programs in terms of streamlining the permit process and in their Informational Technology Systems.  Mr. Schlessinger said that the underlying theme that he learned from these departments is that the first and most critical item was the funding.  Mr. Schlessinger said that the money that was available and the commitment on the part of the Mayor of that particular city, regardless of whether the Building Department and the Planning Department were co-joined as a single department. Or whether the building department itself was stratified into any number of departments, whether there was a Commission or there wasn’t a Commission, there was always a commitment by the executive branch to fund that particular department and that was critical.

Mr. Schlessinger said that people were interested in a number of things that San Francisco was doing, particularly the pre-application system and the One-Stop Permit program.  Mr. Schlessinger said that he was intrigued by some of the things other jurisdictions were doing including the increased participation by their design professionals in working with the building department on projects by providing professional assistance to staff.  Mr. Schlessinger stated that there was the whole issue of certification that was going on in other parts of the country, that he found pretty scary, but there are other jurisdictions that are testing that.

Mr. Schlessinger said that finally the issue of Information Technology took up an enormous amount of time of the conference and there were a couple lessons learned from this.  Mr. Schlessinger said that from a National perspective there are perhaps one or two vendors who are providing the kinds of systems needed and in each case there is a long-term commitment of at least four to five years.  Mr. Schlessinger said that in every case the system is customized for the jurisdiction and in all cases they start by taking baby steps.  Mr. Schlessinger said that for example when a permit application wants to brought on line and it needs to be changed what they do is they do it as if there isn’t going to be something on line, the change is made first, because the best practices that occur, occur on paper first instead of relying on the Information System itself.  Mr. Schlessinger said that they found that when there was a system that did permit tracking and monitoring they tried to change the way to conduct business within the department in terms of their own processes and how staff was monitored, not as a policing action, but in trying to get the data.  Mr. Schlessinger said that Seattle is going through the growing pains right now. 

Vice-President Hood asked Mr. Schlessinger to wrap up his testimony as the Commission had the written report and said that all of the Commissioners had read it and said that she wanted to really talk about the relationship between SPUR, the AIA and this Commission because the AIA and SPUR have been very critical of this Commission and the BIC wanted to talk about why that was.

Mr. Schlessinger said that he was finished with his presentation and said that hopefully the three members of the taskforce who spoke were all under the guise of providing the olive branch that she was recommending.  Vice-President Hood said that she hadn’t heard it yet, but said she appreciated the groups coming before the Commission.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Schlessinger what his position was with the AIA regarding the MIS issues and was the AIA blaming this Commission or faulting it on the Director.  Mr. Schlessinger said that it was neither.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it was an on-going problem.

Vice-President Hood said that the reason she asked for this item to be calendared was because she had been a member of SPUR for many, many years and a member of the AIA for thirty-seven years since she was a student in architecture.  Vice-President Hood stated that she has been very active in the organization both in the local and national level and said that she deeply supports the activities of the AIA in trying to improve the profession, in trying to improve the public’s use of good architecture and to improve the delivery system of architecture to make it better technically and environmentally.  Vice-President Hood said that when she was first appointed to the BIC in 1994 she was supported by two groups in this City who don’t usually support the same people, one of them was the AIA San Francisco and one of them was the Residential Builders Association.  Vice-President Hood said that since she has been on the Commission she has not received any new commissions from the Residential Builders Association and has done a very limited amount of work for clients she worked for before that time so she hoped she kept her independence clear.  Vice-President Hood said that when she received this report from SPUR and the AIA she first heard about it last summer and tried to get involved, but was not informed any more about it; it just kind of happened and then she received a copy of it from Jim Shappel, the Director at SPUR, a week before it was published.  Vice-President Hood said that it was already in its final form and any comments she might have had the opportunity to make were not permitted and she was again very disappointed.  Vice-President Hood said that she had contacted every single President of the AIA with the exception of Mr. Higueras, but did contact Ms. O’Driscoll who is the Executive Director and President Beverly Prior because she thought that the AIA could help the BIC accomplish what it wants to accomplish and the BIC could help the AIA to better understand what is going on in the Department.  Vice-President Hood said that she was hoping to use the input of the AIA in a productive manner to make a win-win situation for everybody.  Vice-President Hood stated that she never received a call, an invitation or anything to meet with one of the leaders of the AIA and said that she was very sorry for that as well as the fact that she was not asked to participate in this report until after it was already prepared.

Vice-President Hood said that she heard her old friend and colleague talk about the poor legacy that this Commission is leaving and said that if he were really familiar with the work of this Commission he would not feel comfortable making that statement.  Vice-President Hood said that she thought the BIC’s legacy stands up to close observation and investigation and said that she has gotten comments from people who stop her on the street in public who have seen this Commission’s meeting televised since February of this year and they compliment her on what a good job this Commission is doing.  Vice-President Hood stated that these public members tell her that they wish that every other Commission would do what the BIC is doing so at least in some people’s perception there is the perception that the directness of this Commission, its outspokenness and willingness to get involved in a hands on manner is a very good thing.  Vice-President Hood said that she does try to be polite to people and tries never to say anything insulting and gives people an opportunity to speak their piece.  Vice-President Hood said that she did want to reach out to community groups and work with them and did want to reach out to the AIA to work with them, but said that she did not like lectures about her legacy. 

Vice-President Hood stated that she wanted to comment on the issues about the computer fiasco.  Vice-President Hood said that when this Commission came into being in 1995 the Commission began immediately to try to improve the computer system and the Information Systems to have the permits tracked by bar codes, to use the computer system as the core means of improving performance throughout the Department.  Vice-President Hood said that, toward that end, the BIC changed management of it and there was a big problem from the beginning because the Department was required to hire Cobra.  Vice-President Hood said that the City Attorney’s Office informed DBI and the BIC that they could not interview people themselves and could not write the program, but had to take the people that the City gave to the Department; they gave the Department the man who later deprived the Department of at least $500,000 of its finances through pure bribery.  Vice-President Hood said that at meeting after meeting the BIC questioned this employee’s reports, questioned the lack of progress in the Department and the record is very clear on that because there are excellent minutes on this issue.  Vice-President Hood said that the problem is that the City hired Cobra and Cobra was the ones who basically worked with Marcus to defraud and steal.  Vice-President Hood stated that the BIC was kicking and screaming the entire time and DBI was the only City agency that was kicking and screaming and got rid of Marcus and uncovered this fraud.  Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to clarify this for the AIA.

Vice-President Hood reported that since Marcus left the Department has completely revised how people are hired and the BIC continues to have a very good computer committee and proposal after proposal has been made to the Mayor, including the current Mayor, to set up the system and it has been plain turned down.  Vice-President Hood said that she wanted SPUR and the AIA to know that DBI and the BIC shares their desire to improve those systems and said she would like people to work with the Department to go to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to get that item back in the budget. 

Vice-President Hood said that another thing that was mentioned was community groups and said that she loved to work with community groups.  Vice-President Hood said that she thought the report was referring to community groups primarily in the Mission who really opposed the large number of lofts that were built in the City.  Vice-President Hood said that these community groups might perceive the Department of Building Inspection as being somehow at fault, that work was done by the Planning Department; that zoning was passed by Planning and this Department only enforces the Planning Code. 

Vice-President Hood said that DBI has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to outreach community groups to go to tenants and people who are living in SROs or bad hotels to tell them what they can do to improve their circumstances.  Vice-President Hood stated that DBI has also initiated lead ordinances before they were initiated at the State level and have tried to be very sympathetic to community issues. 

Vice-President Hood stated that the number of District Building, Electrical and Plumbing Inspectors, etc. is distressing to DBI and for the last three or four budgets the Department’s request for increases in those positions has been turned down and the Department has not even been permitted to fill positions left by retirements or people having to quit for health reasons.  Vice-President Hood said that she would love for representatives of the AIA and SPUR to go with Roy Guinnane and Rodrigo Santos who went over to the Mayor’s Office and laid all of this out to the Mayor and the Mayor’s budget office and they got no respect or response.  Vice-President Hood stated that DBI has the money to do it, but DBI’s money is taken away and given to people who are totally screwing up and have screwed up for years.  Vice-President Hood said that this report notices this just as much as anything else.  Vice-President Hood said that the Commission agrees 500% and it is not too late to get it this year. 

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to talk about the problem of dealing with Codes because from this outside this looks very complex.  Vice-President Hood stated that she has tried to talk about this over and over again and said that Frank Chiu and many people at DBI support this; this is making the pre-application meeting more productive.  Vice-President Hood said that she knew that recently Mr. Schlessinger had some problems with that and said that she was looking into a particular address for him.  Vice-President Hood said that she found that on her larger projects if she met early with the Department they would set up a team where the Building and other Inspectors were involved in the front end so it was the same person, the team director, handling this all the way through.  Vice-President Hood said that this enabled the processing to go extremely well and said that she would like to work with the AIA and SPUR to give that a more formal kind of presence in the Department rather than being something that people have to know about in order to ask for it.  Vice-President Hood said that it is very distressing on a job to have other requirements turn up.

Vice-President Hood said that in addition to the computer systems the way that she thought would make DBI function better would be to work better with Planning which was discussed in this report.  Vice-President Hood said that she worked with Mr. Schlessinger to change the Code for illegal demolitions and said that she worked for a year and a half with other Architects, Permit Expediters and the Department of City Planning including Larry Badiner, the Zoning Administrator.  Vice-President Hood stated that she thought that the group had hammered a really good, non-ambiguous proposal that was signed off on by the neighbors and everybody and then when it came out a week later it was totally different.  Vice-President Hood said that she felt betrayed because people that she had worked with and really respected had pulled a bait and switch and said that the City is still haunted by its terrible demolition ordinance.  Vice-President Hood said that she regretted that the long time that she spent working on it was for naught.

Vice-President Hood said that every single criticism that has ever been made in an Auditor’s Report or the Grand Jury’s Report, the BIC not only reacted very seriously to those to ferret out everything, but Assistant Director Amy Lee writes reports back regularly to all of those people.  Vice-President Hood stated that Commissioner Guinnane had been pursuing people outside of the Department who might be either through lack of knowledge or for whatever reasons, but the BIC has been trying to blow the whistle on any special treatment and remains dedicated to that. 

Vice-President Hood said that the final issue she wanted to deal with was the issue of creating a mechanism to give feedback to the Planning Department and the neighbors of a project when DBI approves changes that would affect the design of a project.  Vice-President Hood stated that what she asks people to do is to insist on that first pre-application meeting is to have Planning and Building there at the same time so before it goes out for notice to the neighbors it has the blessing of the Building and Planning Departments.  Vice-President Hood said that the BIC has studied the nature of fees for years and said that questions come up about that all the time.  Vice-President Hood said that in the past the Department has charged less for smaller projects than they cost and charged more for bigger projects than what they cost the Department to do because the bigger projects tend to be done by better Architects, better Structural Engineers and they go through more smoothly.  Vice-President Hood said that smaller projects tend to take more time because they are usually done by less experienced people and with Planning there is a lot more DRs and public hearings.  Vice-President Hood said that if the Department were to check into fees right now, the Department would have to reduce the fees and that is how the Department was planning for the rainy day to have funds to improve the computer system, improving the physical layout of the Department and how it was arranged, and providing for expansion and a greater number of Inspectors.  Vice-President Hood said that the surplus funds that were accumulated for those tasks are now being taken away and will leave the Department with no cushion for the future when the workload is already increasing and the Department has fewer Inspectors and fewer Plan Checkers than in the past. 

Vice-President Hood said that she deeply appreciated SPUR and the AIA coming before the Commission and appreciated the opportunity to talk about these issues and go forward in a way that would improve relationships to have a productive outcome. 

Assistant Director Amy Lee said that Commissioner Hood made a lot of excellent points, but said that she wanted to clarify one issue.  Ms. Lee said that in terms of the fees, DBI is not overcharging on the big projects and undercharging the small projects, but what is happening is that the fees that are charged to the larger projects are reflected in the work that the Department has to do on that project and also reflects the impact that project might have, not only on DBI, but with building in San Francisco.  Ms. Lee said that the fees for the smaller projects are undercharged in a way, but it is being subsidized, not by the larger projects, but in the money that is received in interest income and in penalties that are collected along with efficiency by staff.  President Santos thanked Ms. Lee and Vice-President Hood.

Commissioner Guinnane said that five or six years ago the Commission did a study on fees in San Francisco and went to different counties and other cities and San Francisco is the lowest in fees.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that the only thing that the Commission allowed to be raised was the actual Marshall & Swift, which is adjusted every six months.  Commissioner Guinnane said that in talking about Planning, Planning is completely out of control and that department should be put into a receivership and completely revamped.  Commissioner Guinnane said that until that is done, nothing would change.

Assistant Director Amy Lee said that in terms of the fees the lesson to this Department is that it should just spend until there is no money left; that is unfortunately what some people would say is a good policy and others would say it is a bad policy.  Ms. Lee said that this Department could not do that even though that would have been the wisest thing to do given the way the City runs its departments.  Ms. Lee stated that DBI is a Special Fund Department and when the Department has no more revenues to sustain its existing operations the Department will have to make substantial cuts.  Ms. Lee said that even though it would be the smartest policy to spend until there is no money, this Department and this Commission must keep a surplus to maintain the minimum level of services because DBI cannot get any bailout from the General Fund. 

President Santos asked for public comment on this item.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that the time limit should be waived since there was no time limit on the three individuals who previously spoke.  Commissioner Hanrahan asked that people please be concise.

Ms. Marilyn Imini said that what she thought was happening was that DBI was being set up for a take over by very powerful special interest groups.  Ms. Imini stated that she was holding a Board of Supervisors Rules Committee Agenda of June 11, 2003 and it was calling for an amendment that suggests that a Planning and Economic Development Commission should be developed consisting of the current members of the Planning Commission that would manage the Department of Planning and the Department of Building Inspection.  Ms. Imini said that Mr. Schlessinger talked about other jurisdictions that have co-joined departments and that is what SPUR has in mind.  Ms. Imini stated that SPUR and the AIA are very powerful special interest groups and their agenda since 1959 has been to increase density and as a result of that there is a disconnect between those special interest groups and the community in San Francisco.  Ms. Imini said that one effect of that has been an increase in DRs and Planning is having problems because they have a major thrust for long-term planning pushed by groups like this who have really infiltrated the department and as a result the neighborhood segments of the Department of Planning have waxed and waned to some degree.  Ms. Imini stated that in the 2003/2004 proposed work program put out by the Planning Department it talks about the potential land use changes throughout the City and mediation as it relates to Discretionary Review.  Ms. Imini said that when there is a disconnect between the community and these special interest groups that are pushing very high density then there is going to be more DRs.  Ms. Imini said that there was only one breakdown of DR cases that were filed for a particular year and that was for 2001/2002 time period and of the 262 cases that were filed only 65 came from the community.  Ms. Imini said that as Commissioner Hanrahan indicated DRs are a very valuable tool for the community to be able to respond to projects that aren’t in keeping with or consistent with neighborhood character.  Ms. Imini said that there was Proposition M that was passed in 1986 and Proposition M talks about the importance of preserving neighborhood character and it has eight priority policies.  Ms. Imini said that to preserve the charm and the beauty of San Francisco given its uniqueness and the fact that it is the second densest City in the United States the neighborhoods want and insist on the right that through Sections 311 and 312 to respond to projects.  Ms. Imini stated that there are projects that have been coming through Planning that have been totally inconsistent with Planning Code as it is now; Rincon Hill which had a cap on it of 250’ was pushed through Planning fast and a project of 450’ was okayed with 24 hour residential on the 40^th floor which presents problems with fire safety, etc.  Ms. Imini said that in any case, there is a Planning Department that is pushed by special interest groups that are pushing for high density downtown and there are major projects and major disconnect with the public.  Ms. Imini stated that she thought that the press has been managed to focus on inadequacies in the BIC and said that no public agency is perfect, but the BIC has been doing an excellent job and have fees set aside so that the Department can serve its customers and that is what State law requires.  Ms. Imini said that Planning is not getting the funding and said that funding for long-range planning should come from the General Fund, not from fees for applications where the service has to be directly related to the application.  Ms. Imini said the community is being given the burden of potentially paying time and materials for Discretionary Review response and the public should not have to do that.  Ms. Imini said that Planning was doing a sloppy job and said that she wanted to say that DBI’s money should not be taken away because DBI needs the money to service its customers.  Ms. Imini said that she thought that it was very disingenuous of SPUR to put a spin on the situation and talk about the fact that public trust is affected because of Planning problems, but it is lack of public trust because of what SPUR has been pushing through which has caused the disconnect between Planning and the public.  Commissioner Hanrahan asked the speaker for her name and what organization she was with.  Ms. Imini said that she was a San Francisco resident who lived in the West Portal area and became interested in Planning issues back in 2001 because of a personal property situation.  Ms. Imini said that she was active in her neighborhood organization, but was speaking as an interested San Franciscan because she sees what she thinks is a bigger picture and the people from SPUR that address this Commission has invitation to come into the Mayor’s Office because they have lots of political clout.

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted Ms. Imini to know that the Commission was advised by an Attorney who spoke at a Commission meeting, not hired by the BIC, that DBI might have to pay back to the permit applicants the money that has been taken and sent over to City Planning because unless the law is determined in a very strained manner, as the City Attorney has advised, the Department is not using the money as required by State law to be only used for permit processing, just as Ms. Imini stated.  Vice-President Hood stated that this money was being sent to Planning for long-range planning that has nothing to do with the permits or with health and safety, so ultimately the taxpayer might have to pay that money back to the people who gave it to the Department in the first place. 

Mr. Leo McFadden welcomed Commissioner Hanrahan and stated that he was President of the Building Inspector’s Association, the union that represents the Building Inspectors.  Mr. McFadden said that he agreed with Commissioner Hood that this Commission is doing a great job, a productive job and stated that he agreed with the recommendation of this report to increase the number of District Building Inspectors, unfortunately the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors have cut it from the budget.  Mr. McFadden said that he found it funny that they recommend paying for the Planning Department out of the General Fund and the Mayor’s Office wants it paid out of DBI funds, which would limit the ability of DBI to hire Inspectors.  Mr. McFadden said that this conflicts with the recommendation and also conflicts in that it criticizes City Planners for being in two locations, but it was Planners who torpedoed the expansion of the 1660 Mission building. 

Mr. Ritchie Harte of the Residential Builders Association said that he had been reading this report for the last thirty minutes and said he was concerned with a couple of the issues.  Mr. Harte said that there is a reference to long-term planning and said that he thought that this was a complete waste because long-term planning had done nothing but study after study and achieved nothing.  Mr. Harte stated that if long-term planning was privatized it would save a fortune for the City.  Mr. Harte said that the DR process is an important process and as a developer he is frustrated with neighbors requesting a DR on his projects, but for community outreach it is important so this is something that must be carefully looked at.  Mr. Harte said that Commissioner Hood made a very good point, and said that all of the Commissioners have done a very good job over the years, but Commissioner Hood should have been given consideration and at least her opinion should have been asked for by SPUR and AIA and not a week before the report was released, but at the very start.  Mr. Harte said that SPUR and the AIA rather than wasting time on this report should concentrate on fighting all of this nonsensical legislation that the City has seen over the years.  Mr. Harte stated that the RBA has fought this and come under constant attack for it.  Mr. Harte said that SPUR and the AIA should concentrate on this more if they want to do something for the City.  Mr. Harte said that SPUR and the AIA have never spoken out against the Chronicle even when this Department and this Commission were demonized with Special Monitors, etc.  Mr. Harte said to click onto Beyond Chron.com for accurate reporting and forget the Chronicle because it is a waste of time.  Mr. Harte said that SPUR and the Chamber of Commerce opposed the setting up of this Commission in the beginning and said that if this taskforce wanted to write a report that would make a difference they should write a report recommending that this Commission take over the Planning Department and then there would be some positive changes.  Mr. Harte said that this Department and the BIC have done a great job; this is the only Department in the City with a surplus and is the most efficient Department.  Mr. Harte stated that DBI should take over Planning and streamline it.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz introduced himself as a frequent customer of DBI and said that he always found the process to be seamless and the fee structure very fair and reasonable.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that he thought that the idea to give money back would be outrageous.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that if something is not broken, why fix it and said that he thought the Department and the Commission was doing a fabulous job.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders welcomed Commissioner Hanrahan and said that he hoped that she did not get too confused at the opening of this ball game.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that first of all he welcomed the olive branch from the AIA, SPUR, and the Chamber and stated that it is interesting that they extend the olive branch from the RBA’s perspective because for several years in concert with the Chronicle they have attempted through demonization to burn this Department down and that is the reality.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that they have done this by outright character assassinations in the press and never once throughout this period did they come to the defense, not only of this Commission many of whom are from their actual organizations, but even to the defense of the employees who have done an outstanding and excellent job over the past several years.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that since the creation of this Department never once did SPUR or the AIA come to the defense, but instead there was the lone RBA, standing up fighting against this demonization and in the end there is a healthy, fiscally sound, productive Department. Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is amazing that SPUR and the AIA in their concerted attack over several years that the Commission is sitting here and the Department is functioning in an excellent manner.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he might say for the purpose of the Commission, that when the Tenderloin Housing Clinic’s Randy Shaw and the Residential Builders Association created this Commission, it was done at the time because fees were going through the roof.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that every year there were increases and there was a backlog of about 6,000 – 7,000 cases in the Housing Department through lack of enforcement; there was no enforcement and tenants in this City had no heat despite the fact that there was a heat ordinance that passed in 1978. Mr. O’Donoghue said that there was total frustration because someone could not get a Building Inspector out and builders had to go through a Secretary to get an appointment so there was utter chaos.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Residential Builders went with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and got 70,000 signatures in order to put this Charter amendment on the ballot and it was successful.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that as a result of that success there was a Commission that represented every aspect of life in San Francisco, from Engineering to Architecture, to Tenant, to Property Owner, to Community Representative.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he tried to put qualified Commissioners on this Commission and were successful for the first few years in so doing.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Barbara Kaufman then became the Board President and she was the mouthpiece for the Chamber of Commerce and those downtown so she politicized this Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Ms. Kaufman selected Commissioners on the basis of their political ideologies and not on their qualifications and that was when this Commission became somewhat politicized and it continued under Supervisor Ammiano.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Supervisor Ammiano did not generate that, but was simply doing what had already been created.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this Department was then somewhat criticized and that is not unusual because all politics and all Commissions are political being that we have a democratic system.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that respective of this over the years the demonization continued and this is what Marilyn was talking about.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Ms. Imini is a very active member of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and was not speaking on their behalf, but again the builders have had a close relationship with them over the years because they stand for Discretionary Review because people have the right to protest.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that with all due respect to these pre-application meetings they are ongoing presently and they are not going to stop DRs; the fact is the neighbors have the right to DRs and the RBA supports that right. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that maybe the actual expense of the DRs might have to be dealt with or find a faster way to get them before the Planning Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there is the issue of the Chronicle, and that is why Beyond Chron was created because the Chronicle was not giving the factual information out so Randy Shaw created a new Internet newspaper, which actually, accurately reflects what is happening.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is interesting that since this newspaper was created and this Commission became broadcast on Channel 26 that the demonization has suddenly dropped because now the public sees the Commission in operation and sees that it is not a group of seven whackos created by Randy or himself, but are an objective, deliberate, hardworking Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that even when Esther Marks was here with Denise D’Anne everyone works hard on this Commission so the public perception is now different from that which was portrayed by the Chronicle and others.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that now the question needs to be asked about why the raid on DBI’s money because that is the only issue and contrary to what John Schlessinger was talking about today in other jurisdictions; in other jurisdictions the Mayor funds various departments and he does it in this City, but under the Charter the Mayor does not fund DBI, DBI is funded from fees.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Mayor has no input, and should have no input whatsoever into the funding of this Department because it doesn’t get one, single, red nickel from the General Fund; it comes from fees.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this is the first lesson that the AIA needs to understand and said that the war has not diminished because the Mayor in his inauguration address attacked this Commission and this Department and said that there was undue influence.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Mayor recommended two things, one, that a Monitor be sent in to check the activities of this Department and legislation which he now supported that was going to make Expediters sign up and identify who they were, that was the second process.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Monitor came in here and refused to investigate because he knew there was no undue influence here; meantime the legislation proceeds and it is ironic that those who the legislation was directed against Matt Gonzalez, Chris Daly and Walter Wong supported the legislation and those in opposition of the legislation were the ones from the downtown organizations, SPUR, the Chamber of Commerce, and the AIA.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the reason they diminished the Permit Expediter legislation today was because the ones benefiting from the expediting were he downtown developers, not the small builders, not the homeowners or the small contractors.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that these groups now recognized that they were going to get what they asked for and then they opposed it.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this not stop them from still attempting to do what Marilyn stated.  Mr. O’Donoghue read the following: “ A Planning and Economic Development Commission consisting of current members of the Planning Commission that would manage the Department of Planning and the Department of Building Inspection.”  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this was introduced by Aaron Peskin and last week at the Finance Committee Aaron Peskin advocated that the money should go from DBI into Planning.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the reality is that Planning should be put into receivership, but Aaron Peskin who speaks for the Chamber of Commerce and for the elitists downtown still wants to take over this Department with the Mayor.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that what they are trying to do is bankrupt this Department and it is absolutely irresponsible to take a fiscally sound operator and bankrupt it in favor of a department that is out of control.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he has seen the impact of long-range planners since 1986; they look into the future and as a result of the long-range planning there is now a housing crisis and for the last two years they have been working on the five-year plan that was due for the State and they had to scrap it recently through amendments because they couldn’t even get that right.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that long-range planning is not there and DBI should not be funding it; the Mayor now wants to shift his $1.3M which they gave up on at the Board of Supervisors and move it into the present and make it $5.7M so that is why this Commission will be going to court.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that hopefully the Commission would get the permission from the City Attorney to sue and if the Commission doesn’t sue then the Residential Builders will sue.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the RBA has already served notice in the Planning Department that if the RBA has to sue to defend and keep this Department fiscally sound they will also sue the Planning Department for the no nexus that exists between their fees and that which costs them in the conditional use permits especially.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that not only will they not get the $5.7M they are looking for, but also they will have to give back the fees already that over the years they have charged the public in an excessive manner.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that is the deterrent the RBA intends to put in here. 

Mr. O’Donoghue said that in terms of the report, and said that it was interesting that the speakers today if they would have written as they spoke today, the RBA would not be up today speaking against them.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this report on the Department of Building Inspection is a biased report and in looking at the Committee all of the Department’s enemies are on this Committee including a McNulty and asked if this McNulty was related to the McNulty who headed the Grand Jury hit group who tried to come into the Commission and defame this Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that for the benefit of the new Commissioner, any hearing and there have been several at the Board of Supervisors, never found one instance of any undue influence, certainly not on the part of the Residential Builders, in fact the RBA’s permits are the last to get out of the Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that 98% of all permits are issued within 30 days, which is one of the highest records in terms of the entire State; 2% are issued within 30 days or longer and the RBA is part of that 2%.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there has been some malfeasance within the Department, but it was this Commission and members of the RBA and others who uncovered that malfeasance so the Commission is carrying out its mission responsibly. Mr. O’Donoghue said that over the years the enforcement section, to ensure what is bound and part of the industry when a Department issues 55,000 permit a year, there are going to be some people who go beyond the scope of the permit and there will also be people who violate the rules, but this Commission has brought those people to task and has been doing its job.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that interestingly enough the Chronicle never wrote about the things uncovered by this Commission, instead it blamed the Commission for the $500,000 that the MIS stole, but what Commissioner Hood forgot was that the Controller’s Office was paid 1.2% or 1.9% to monitor the actions of the MIS which it failed to do.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Controller’s Office were the ones responsible for the malfeasance.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he wanted to conclude by saying that this report that was put out by SPUR, the Chamber, the Committee on Jobs and the AIA is very subjective and has no factual data behind it.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the report was prepared last year before the BIC went on TV and before Beyond Chron was organized and now the Department and the Commission is able to demonstrate over the past several weeks that this is one of the most efficient run Departments in the entire City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in fact the City should take this model and use it to make other departments self-sufficient.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is also disheartening to the employees of this Department, including the Inspectors, never once to have gotten support from any of these large, downtown organizations, but Mr. O’Donoghue said that eaten bread is soon forgotten.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Gerald Green has already gotten the pink slip as Planning Director and pushing him out has been SPUR and the Chamber of Commerce.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it was interesting to note, and it is ironic, that Gerald Green gave the downtown interests all they wanted in terms of development rights.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that means that eaten bread is soon forgotten and if anyone is in a war tomorrow they would have to look to their left and look to their right because if these people are your compatriots you would be safer with the enemy because they would stab you in the back on the way over.   Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.

Ms. Margie O’Driscoll introduced herself as the Executive Director of the American Institute of Architects in San Francisco and said that Mr. O’Donoghue was a tough act to follow.  Ms. O’Driscoll said that she just wanted to clarify that the Committee on Jobs and the Chamber of Commerce were not at all part of the group that worked on this report as it was done exclusively by members of the AIA and SPUR.  Ms. O’Driscoll stated that they did meet with Building Department staff in development of this report just as they met with Planning Department staff, but did not meet with any Commissioners of either body because they wanted this report to be a sort of ground level report that could be used by all of the Commissioners in their broad thinking about the Department.  Ms. O’Driscoll said that she would like to reaffirm the AIA’s commitment in working with the Commission in going forward to build a stronger Department and said that this is in the AIA and SPUR’s interest as well as in the BIC’s interest and that was why the report was developed.  Ms. O’Driscoll thanked the Commission.  Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to reemphasize her desire to work with the AIA on these issues where there is such common ground. 

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that he was glad that Margie, whom he has known for years, mentioned that there was a meeting with the Department.  Mr. Hutchinson said that for everyone’s benefit he wanted to describe how that meeting went.  Mr. Hutchinson said that unfortunately on that day, Director Chiu could not make the meeting and asked himself, Assistant Director Amy Lee, Deputy Director William Wong and Special Assistant Director Ken Harrington to sit in for him.  Deputy Director Hutchinson said that there were a lot of good people at the meeting, but unfortunately the meeting started with Charles Higueras saying that he had just come from Supervisor Peskin’s Office and said that the Director had resigned and they wanted to know who was in charge.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that obviously that was a very difficult way for the four Managers to begin a meeting and as it turned out the Director had not resigned and it was very disconcerting to start the meeting that way, but the meeting went on for another two hours.  Mr. Hutchinson said that, worried about Frank, they began to discuss some of the topics.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that one of the things he was concerned about was that the Department has the Public Advisory Committee meeting which has been going on for years and people come in from BOMA, Ken Cleaveland, and people from SPUR or the AIA are encouraged to attend.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department asks that segment of the community to come in and advise the Department and said that there have been a lot of good suggestions and recommendations that have come out of those meetings over the years.  Mr. Hutchinson said that is the Department’s outreach and forum.  Vice-President Hood asked if anyone could come to those meetings and said that it might be helpful for a representative from SPUR and the AIA to attend those meetings.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Department is happy to work in that forum because it has been a good forum, but stated that his interest on that day was to ask the representatives where the Department was lacking because they were the users of DBI’s services.  Mr. Hutchinson said that rather than offer advice this group wanted to solicit things from the four Managers and said that he tried to explain how difficult it was to get things done in the Civil Service arena as it was not private industry, such as in hiring more Inspectors and getting more vehicles.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he appreciated the recommendation to hire new Inspectors, but it is not going to happen, as the Department cannot do this on their own.  Vice-President Hood said that the cell phones were taken away from the Inspectors and that was a huge mistake because they could not be called from the office to stop at an another inspection, but had to come all the way back into the office to get the message.  Vice-President Hood said that it was not only that the Department has not gotten more, but has had things actually taken away.  Mr. Hutchinson said that it was hard for the employees to do their jobs without the proper resources when they know that the monies exist, but are taken away for other departments that are not performing to the same standards.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Department is happy to work with all groups and it does have the Public Advisory Committee, but said that the meeting with this group was a very difficult one and was not very productive.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the meeting would have to be one that was very honest and forthright where both sides would want to work together.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he was told that this was going to be a report that would be very detrimental to the Department and said that there is enough there that if the newspaper got hold of it, it would be interesting for them to run.  Mr. Hutchinson said that it was interesting to note, as some of the speakers have indicated, that since this Commission meeting is televised he does not see Susan Sward here for all the problems she had from the Chronicle, nor Ken Garcia or Lance Williams.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that the former City Attorney used to have an investigator that sat in at every meeting and Mr. Hutchinson said that he does not see him anymore either.  Mr. Hutchinson said that these were all things that were used to intimidate the Department and portray it as being a bunch of bunglers and lackluster, uncaring, corrupt employees and said that when people see the employees who testify and see that the Commissioners go out and look at jobs and treat the money like it is their own, then that perception that was put out there by the City Attorney at the Chronicle goes by the wayside as it is not the truth.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he wanted SPUR and the AIA to understand that this is a hardworking Department; the employees are honest and the Department is willing to work with people, but they have to be willing to work with DBI. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked Ms. Lee about the $5.4M for 2005 and asked what was the status for the $1.3M as now there was discussion that it was being transferred over to 2005.  Ms. Lee said that right now it was decided that the General Fund would cover Planning for $1M and the remaining would be paid by DBI, but it would be added to next fiscal year because that current supplemental was for $1.3M for this fiscal year ending June 30^th.  Ms. Lee said that the $5.4M that is moving forward for next fiscal year is going to be increased up to $5.8 to include the extra overage that they suspect would happen for this fiscal year.  Vice-President Hood said that she would like an item to be calendared for the next meeting and that would be for the reduction of fees in DBI, because she believed if the Commission thought that this money should not go over the Department should not collect it; DBI would not have the fees to go to Planning.

Ms. Lee said that she wanted to comment that the section of this report regarding DBI was only five pages and the Department’s response was seven pages.  Ms. Lee said that the Department’s response, for the most part, did agree with some of the recommendations and some of the statements in the report.  Ms. Lee said that she wanted to make sure that everyone had a chance to go over the Department’s response.  Ms. Lee said that from what she is hearing from the public, the Commissioners, and the AIA/SPUR report she thought the discussion around DBI’s fees and the surplus is a little bit misdirected and said that the Department needed to focus its energies around a baseline of expenditures. 

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to send over to Executive Director O’Driscoll for distribution to the Committee, the budget that was originally proposed by this Commission for this year and the number of positions that were cut down, the number of cars that were taken away, the number of cell phones that were cut and also the discussions that this Commission had about trying to get some support to keep that from happening.  Vice-President Hood said that it became obvious that the Commission and DBI were not going to be allowed to do a good job.  Vice-President Hood said that she saw a trend where architecture is starting to pick up because there are more ads looking for staff so it is going to get worse if DBI keeps cutting back and the load gets worse.  Vice-President Hood said that the BIC and DBI really needs SPUR and the AIA to help on this and if everyone got together with SPUR’s clout and the AIA’s clout then DBI could go over and explain how bad this would be because ultimately this does not just hurt DBI in its ability to deliver projects, but it hurts the economic engine of the City.  Vice-President Hood said that the first thing that really gets going in San Francisco when the economy improves is construction and when construction is going it pumps everything else.  Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to give this one more shot. Ms. Lee said she had a subsequent meeting with Margie O’Driscoll who was previously a department head, so she understood all that Ms. Lee was saying about the frustrations of operating this Department and all the administrative bureaucracy that is beyond the Department’s control in terms of having the Mayor’s Office or the Board of Supervisors oversee the budget.  Ms. Lee said that she would encourage the AIA to come and speak before the Board and the Mayor’s office regarding the budget because everyone has a common ground in trying to keep this money for the Department.

Secretary Aherne said that she wanted to let everyone know that the Department’s response to this report was on the back of Item #6 if anyone wanted a copy.  Vice-President Hood said that in the future when the Department sends a letter to this kind of report, she has requested this before and if this happens again she would take action on a personal basis, she wanted a draft of that letter to come to her.  Vice-President Hood stated that if anyone was going over to speak to the Board of Supervisors on any of these issues she wanted to know about it because this Commission sets policy under the law and ordinance of the City of San Francisco and the Department is not supposed to create policy and respond to these things without input from this Commission.

President Santos thanked SPUR and the AIA for coming to the Commission meeting today.

President Santos said that the Commission would now move to Item #3 on the agenda.

 

3.

Commissioner Guinnane asked how much this would cost and why did the Department need two years to implement this thing.  Ms. Lee said that there was no set cost right now because it would depend on what would be implemented whether that be a bar coding system or some other permit tracking system.  Ms. Lee said that the Board gave sufficient time so that the Department would not fail.  Commissioner Guinnane asked where the Department was with revamping the MIS and getting a new Manager.  Ms. Lee said that she was not involved in that in great detail right now, but said that the Department was in the process of looking for a new MIS Manager, but the Director would report on this at a later date.  Vice-President Hood said that she did not think that anything at all had happened and said that she thought that the Mayor was refusing to fund any of this.  Vice-President Hood said that this was another example of a no win situation because this legislation says that this will be taken away from the Department if it is not done in two years, but the other hand is saying that they are not going to give DBI the money to do it and what’s more the Head is saying that the Department has to stay with the people who have not been performing. Vice-President Hood stated that she hoped people present would understand what is going on with this legislation.  Vice-President Hood said that there is the implication in this legislation that it is being enacted because this Department and the Commission has screwed up, but there have been outside forces acting upon these actions that have in no way been dealt with in this legislation.  Vice-President Hood said that the Supervisors need to understand that the Commission and the Department want to get this done, but they have to understand the problems involved.  President Santos said that the Commission would have to move on with the meeting.

 

Ms. Lee said that there were two important meetings coming up; one on Friday, June 25th at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall it would be the first hearing on all budgets.  Ms. Lee said that the Department had to be present at 10:00 a.m., but said that the Department would probably not be heard until 12:00 or 1:00 p.m. because there are so many other departments being heard.  Ms. Lee stated that DBI had two items, because not only was the budget going to be discussed that included the $5.8M previously discussed, but item #2 would be the actual removal of monies collected for any penalties and violations to the General Fund or whatever fund would be determined because the Department did not have the language yet.  Ms. Lee said she wanted to emphasize that this was a very important meeting because not only does it discuss the budget, but would remove all of the Department’s Code Violation monies to another agency. 

Ms. Lee said that on Thursday July 1st the budget would be heard again at 10:00 a.m. for the final time and then it would be officially adopted.  Ms. Lee said that it would be important for the public to attend and support the Department.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what it would do to the Department if the penalties were removed and what would it do to the Department’s enforcement.  Ms. Lee said that it would severely hinder DBI’s enforcement because as it is the Department does not have sufficient Code Enforcement staff never mind if all of the penalties and fines were to be taken out of the budget.  Ms. Lee stated some of the smaller projects are subsidized by the penalties, one-time penalties, such as the penalty received from the Sainez case, which was $900,000.  Ms. Lee stated that it would not only impact the Department’s ability to enforce the Code, but also the ongoing approval process.  President Santos asked if this was the two times and nine times penalties that the Department collected.  Ms. Lee said that was correct.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if this would also include the Litigation penalties.  Ms. Lee said that it would include all of the Department’s penalties.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if Ms. Lee knew what the amount of the penalties would be for a year.  Ms. Lee said that she did not know exactly, but said that she thought it was somewhere between $2M and $3M. 

Mr. Karnilowitz said that he had a comment on the two pieces of legislation and said that the permit expediter issue fell apart because it would have been a real nightmare for DBI, but at least the Department came back with a disclosure document that would say who everybody was who was applying for the permit all the way through.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that this would be a very good tracking system. 

4

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

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he wanted to speak about a client who called him recently       about a two-unit property and needed to get a 3-R report because the property was in escrow.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that when the 3-R came back it listed the use as unknown even though some evidence was presented that it was a two-unit building; this was an older building and most of the older buildings in San Francisco do not have the original building permits for them so it is difficult to prove what it is.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that one of the main documents that the 3-R Department requires is a CFC (Certificate of Final Completion) so Mr. Karnilowitz said he went to see Senior Inspector Edward Sweeney, showed him the documentation and within a few minutes Mr. Sweeney went ahead and approved the Building Permits so that he could issue a CFC to change the records to show correctly what the building is.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that he just wanted say thank you to DBI for having such a responsible and competent person on board.  Mr. Karnilowitz thanked the Commission.

Mr. John Schlessinger said that at the June 7, 2004 meeting the taskforce was reestablished on this whole issue of unlawful demolitions, which he believed Commissioner Guinnane was spearheading.  Mr. Schlessinger said that he was asked at the end of the last phase to compare what had been addressed in Supervisor McGoldrick’s office and the items that came out of Supervisor Peskin’s office to see where the problems lay between the two.  Mr. Schlessinger said that he had a copy of that comparison for the Commission to use in its taskforce.  President Santos asked if Mr. Schlessinger was part of the past efforts on this issue.  Mr. Schlessinger said that he sat on the working group and then was asked to attend some of the meetings in Supervisor McGoldrick’s office and subsequent to when that piece of legislation seemed to go dormant he was asked by the working group to analyze what had come out of Supervisor Peskin’s office.  President Santos thanked Mr. Schlessinger for all of his time and service.

 

Mr. Damien Quinn said he was speaking for owner Shu Sen Wu regarding a project located at 82-84 Mars Street for new construction.  Mr. Quinn stated that a permit had been issued in February 2002, with construction starting in May 2002 and the usual inspections following culminating with a covering in inspection with Senior Building Inspector Ed Sweeney sometime in September 2003.  Mr. Quinn said that in November 2003 there were unscheduled and unannounced visits by Carla Johnson and Wing Lau, and at nighttime and weekends, which took up almost twenty hours, culminating on November 18, 2003 with a Notice of Violation, and the project was stopped.  Mr. Quinn said that on November 19, 2003 he met with Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson, Carla Johnson, Wing Lau, and the original project engineer, Delta Design and seemed to reach an agreement for the restart of the project.  Mr. Quinn stated that this was almost eight months ago and said he is still here; he has submitted multiple revisions, changed Engineers trying to lift the cloud from the original Engineer being Jimmy Jen and after eight months and $70,000 they are at the same place.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what the actual Notice of Violation was for and asked Mr. Quinn about nighttime inspections.  Mr. Quinn said that he had an affidavit from one of the neighbors stating that Ms. Johnson visited the project on Saturdays, Sundays and evening times when there was nobody there.  President Santos asked who visited the site.  Mr. Quinn said that it was Carla Johnson, the Senior Inspector.  Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Quinn if he had the dates of the weekend visits and the dates of the night visits.  Mr. Quinn said that he did.  Commissioner Guinnane said that his other question was about the initial Notice of Violation.  Mr. Quinn said that it stated that there was an additional work permit required, unsafe building and referred to an attachment.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the job was shut down or just given a correction notice.  Mr. Quinn said that he never, ever received a correction notice or never heard from John Aires who was the Building Inspector and this went from receiving a cover up from Ed Sweeney who was their Inspector and then all of a sudden these twilight inspections by Carla Johnson and Wing Lau began.  Mr. Quinn said he was questioning why Ed Sweeney was removed and said he has asked the question numerous times and no one seems to want to deal with that.  Vice-President Hood said that an Inspector could be changed without there being any reason.  Mr. Quinn stated that he thought that the change happened because of the original Engineer or someone was trying to create an aura of wrongdoing either on his part, on Ed Sweeney’s part or on Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson’s part.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Engineer in question was Delta Design, Jimmy Jen and said that this was one issue, but asked if Mr. Quinn had an affidavit that would support these allegations of nighttime and weekend inspections.  Mr. Quinn said that he could provide that affidavit.  President Santos said that perhaps this item should be agendized for a future meeting.  Commissioner Guinnane said that was what he was going to suggest.  Mr. Quinn stated that he wanted to bring up one further point.  Mr. Quinn said that he had the billing because it is public record from the City Attorney’s Office and days prior to Ms. Johnson’s visits to the site the City Attorney has run up between eight and eleven hours on this project without notifying him as the agent, Ms. Wu as the owner or Ren Lay as the Contractor.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to agendize this on a couple of fronts.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he did not know why the City Attorney was involved and has hours for inspections unless there is obviously something going on here.  Commissioner Guinnane said that from what he could gather with Carla Johnson going out there on weekends and nighttime and whoever else is involved, it looks like there is some sort of a witch-hunt going on here so he would like a full report from the Department to include any NOVs, Stop Orders and also the legal bills associated with this to find out exactly what was the issue here. 

Mr. Quinn thanked the Commission.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he wanted to go back again to the $5M money rip off.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he had asked the Commission to direct staff to get ready for reports because there is going to be depositions and lawsuits and Mr. O’Donoghue said he did not know if the Department had gotten ready for the preparation.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the only way the Department was going to keep its money was by aggressive action and said that DBI is an independent entity, independent of the Board of Supervisors, independent of the Mayor’s Office, thank God, but the Department has got to show its independence and if it sits there passively the same thing will happen to DBI as happened to Planning.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Planning did not move forcibly enough when their resources were unduly run over by the Board of Supervisors through defacto Planning Commission hearings.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he could not emphasize this enough.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that when this Department was created it was advocated, and said that he believed it was documented somewhere in the creation of this Department, that $100,000 a year was to be set aside as it was anticipated that the Department would become the basis of an attack.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this money might have been expended on outreach programs, but the Department should start assembling, as has other departments done in the past, to get ready to do a mailing to all of those applicants of the 55,000 permits that were issued last year.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that 80 – 90% of those people have been extremely happy with DBI’s performance and let them know through some kind of communication that the service that DBI has given them in the past is now going to be in jeopardy.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Tenderloin Housing Clinic would do their number as will other tenant’s groups to show the impact of what is happening.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that again, the Mayor’s Office is like Jesse James, DBI has the money in the bank and he is holding it up because DBI has the money to take.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he believed that the Mayor’s Office does want to disrupt and bankrupt this Department and want it taken over because the RBA will act on another front at the Planning Department, but this Department needs to move into action.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is a political fight and the RBA is a political organization, everyone is politically oriented, and they don’t have time to sit back and go into dialectical discussions on it.  Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.

Commissioner Guinnane said that at the last meeting, under Closed Session with the City Attorney, there was a mechanism put into place that if the Department wants the City Attorney to file a suit the Department would have to give a written notice.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if a written notice was sent over to the City Attorney’s Office requesting that.  Vice-President Hood said that a draft was supposed to come to her first; she never received a draft and she asked for it to be done in a day or two, and said that she never received anything on it.  Vice-President Hood asked Mr. Harrington if he could comment.  Mr. Harrington stated that he had a draft ready at the meeting. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked for a copy of that letter to be approved as soon as possible because an entire week had passed since the Commission went into Closed Session and this issue has to be expedited to get an opinion from the City Attorney.   Commissioner Guinnane said that there were actually three parts to the mechanism to file the suit.  Assistant Director Lee said that this item was not on the agenda so it could not be approved.  President Santos asked that it be faxed to all of the Commissioners as the meeting had to move on.  President Santos said that the Commission would move to item #7.

 

7.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by President Santos to approve the minutes. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 034-004

President Santos said that on the President’s Announcement’s (Item #2) he had some lengthy announcements but since it was 12:14 p.m. he would talk about the issues at the next meeting.  President Santos said that he wanted to welcome new Commissioner Noelle Hanrahan and said that at the next meeting he would make sure that Commissioner Hanrahan had an opportunity to introduce herself and talk about her goals as a Commissioner.  President Santos also announced that Mr. Phil Ting would be replacing Esther Marks.  President Santos said that he wanted to recognize the work of former Commissioners Denise D’Anne and Esther Marks, who worked very hard for many years and will be sorely missed. 

Commissioner Matt Brown announced that the next meeting would be his last as he is resigning from the Commission because he is moving out of the City.  President Santos thanked Commissioner Brown.  Commissioner Brown said that the President could give him his own eulogy at the next Commission meeting. 

Secretary Aherne reminded the Commission that the next meeting would be scheduled for July 5, 2004 which is a holiday, so the next regularly scheduled meeting would not be until the 19^th of July.  Vice-President Hood asked if there could be a Special Meeting on July 12^th.  Secretary Aherne said that she would check to make sure that a meeting room would be available.

 

10.

 Adjournment.

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

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 035-004

The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,



________________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary