2.

President’s Announcements.

President Santos 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.

There was no public comment at this time.

4.

Presentation and discussion regarding Advisor to the Mayor, Rudy Nothenberg and his assignment to review DBI operations as requested by the Mayor.

Mr. Rudy Nothenberg thanked the Commission for asking him to appear and thanked the President and the Commissioners for the cooperation that had been shown to him so far.   Mr. Nothenberg said that several members of DBI staff have made themselves available to answer his questions and stated that from the Director on down, have all been cordial.

Mr. Nothenberg stated that the Mayor had asked him to take a look at DBI governance and operations and to recommend to him steps, which might be implemented to do two things; one to improve the ability of the Department to serve its clients, both large and small.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he had read studies and recognized that the satisfaction rating for the Department is in the mid 80’s, which is a very good record for most departments.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he also recognized that 100% satisfaction is a fantasy, but said that there is an opportunity to help and reduce the one in five of DBI clients who are dissatisfied for whatever reason with their contact with the Department.  Mr. Nothenberg said that the second goal is to improve the working conditions for the men and women of the Department by diminishing, if possible, the contention and innuendo, which sort of swirls and accompanies much of the Department’s activities.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he thought is made life difficult for the Commission and life difficult for the staff and if there is anyway in which his efforts to help to reduce or eliminate it the lives of the staff and the citizens would be improved.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he had provided a brief written statement of how he intends to do what he has been asked to do and how he views the task he has been handed.  Mr. Nothenberg said that in that letter he solicited the Commission’s ideas and the ideas of the men and women of the Department and said that anything that anyone can tell him that might help he welcomed and would like to hear it.

Mr. Nothenberg said that he did not intend this project to linger, as he would like to return to his retired life and more importantly, the last thing this Department needs is another long study.  Mr. Nothenberg said that it has been studied enough continuously over the years and all of those studies are available to him and he does not need to replicate those.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that what he will do as quickly as he can is to review the best practices of peer building departments in similarly complicated cities.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that he recognized that this is a complicated city with earthquakes, but nonetheless there may be some things that are done in other departments that could be helpful here and stated that he wants to learn what he can about the governments of other departments and the operations of other departments and most particularly what can be learned about the Management Information Systems that support the operations of other departments.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that this is the one area where he thought that the most useful work could be done.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he hoped that this would be a quick, productive, relatively noncontentious process for him and said that he would make some recommendations to the Mayor, which the Mayor would be free to accept or disregard and if he has done some good and if the Mayor can implement through DBI whatever is recommended it would be a very useful effort.  Mr. Nothenberg said that the end result would depend upon the quality of his recommendations and said that he hoped that in a couple of months this process would end, at least for him.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he would be happy to take questions.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he would be happy to talk or meet with anyone who had any useful information for him.

Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at all of the departments in the City and County of San Francisco he thought that DBI was the only department that is not tied into the General Fund and there is a surplus based on this Commission.  Commissioner Guinnane referred to prior years and said that there were really no controls in place, as an example the litigation and the amount of money that was spent and the amount of money that was actually brought in there was really nothing recouped.  Commissioner Guinnane asked why DBI rather than DPW or DPT or some other division and said that he hears about corruption and said that he hasn’t seen it and has been on this Commission for over eight years.  Mr. Nothenberg said that the fact that DBI is a self supporting department is well known to him as he was there at the beginning of that and said that he has been jealous and will continue to be jealous to protect the resources at DBI to see that they are used for DBI purposes and the fees that are paid to DBI used for the purpose of DBI.  Mr. Nothenberg said that with respect to recoveries he would confess that it is an area in which he has no knowledge, if that was Commissioner Guinnane’s question.  Mr. Nothenberg said that it was something he would be willing to take a look at and said that he was familiar with special fund issues and trust fund nature and fiduciary responsibility the Department has for fees. 

Vice-President Hood said that Commissioner Guinnane and President Santos have been part of the Litigation Committee.  Vice-President Hood said that when the Commission first started in 1995 there were something like 3,000 to 4,000 Notices of Violation that had been issued and high expenses from those years from the City Attorney’s Office, so the Department was spending a lot of money, but not recovering any of it and weren’t reducing any of the scofflaws.  Vice-President Hood said that recently, as was reported in the Chronicle for example, Jimmy Jen who has been a long time scofflaw in the City, the Litigation Committee had been actively meeting once every two weeks with the City Attorney’s Office to get resolutions against these people who were so bad.  Vice-President Hood stated that now she believed that the Department was collecting $.50 on every dollar in returns and have reduced the numbers of Notices of Violation.  Mr. Nothenberg asked if it was then the case that the recoveries made, damages, punitive fees and recovery of legal fees go back to the General Fund or come back to the DBI fund.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the way it is set up was that initially the legal bill for the Department when this Commission was put in place was about $880,000 and it was cut back to $500,000.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that any money that is brought in 98% of it goes to DBI and the only time any money goes to the General Fund is for Business and Professions Code violations only.  Commissioner Guinnane said that if a dollar is spent, the Committee tries to get back $2+.  Commissioner Guinnane said that when this Commission was put in place, the billing from the City Attorney’s Office was a pure disgrace; they were billing the Department every six or seven months so it was very difficult to comprehend the billing.  Commissioner Guinnane said that since then the BIC has gotten those conditions under control so that when the month ends the bill comes in about 30 days after the month has ended.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought the Litigation Committee had done very well and did not believe that any cases had been lost; the Jimmy Jen case was a terrible case and cost the City a lot of money and hopefully this will put an end to his carrying on.  Vice-President Hood said that the City got about $1M on that case.  Mr. Nothenberg asked if that money came back to DBI.  Commissioner Guinnane said that $987,000 was the judgment.

Vice-President Hood said that she welcomed Mr. Nothenberg very much and was happy to get the letter from him as she felt this was a wonderful approach.  Vice-President Hood said that she especially liked in the letter that Mr. Nothenberg stated that anybody who has any statements or criticisms of the Department would have to put them in writing and that they could not be anonymous.  Vice-President Hood said that as Mr. Nothenberg has probably heard from a number of people, the Commission and the Department feel that they have been unfairly represented in the press and there have been these innuendos without any substantive claims, such as people, persons, times or projects that the BIC could follow up on.  Vice-President Hood stated that the BIC has been very staunch in following up on every claim that was quantifiable or searchable.  Vice-President Hood said that the one thing she would ask Mr. Nothenberg to add to his letter would be that in keeping with the Sunshine Law these things should be aired publicly.  Vice-President Hood said that the Commission does most of its business right here in the public eye and only started being televised in January so she hoped that these issues would be brought to the public in a direct way.  Vice-President Hood said that she would like the opportunity to bring her comments to Mr. Nothenberg in the public and maybe she could just make some of them here this morning.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he would be happy to. 

Vice-President Hood said that the first thing is why 20% of the applicants are dissatisfied and stated that as an Architect, she was very concerned about that.  Vice-President Hood said that she asked some of the Architects that she knew, as a member of the AIA, to please call her with any problems that she had and a number of people did call.  Vice-President Hood said that, at no charge to them, she looked into every one of them and said that she was sorry to say that in many cases she found that the technical quality of the documents that had been submitted did not meet the requirements for the permit.  Vice-President Hood said that this was either in the Planning Department or the Building Department, but Building screens its own issues and said that she found that there was even one applicant who refused to submit his drawings on 11” x 17” paper.  Vice-President Hood stated that she found over and over again that there were issues and said that the State Licensing Board have taken up some of these issues and Frank Chiu has become a member of that Board to become a liaison to improve the technical quality of Architect’s drawings.  Vice-President Hood said that she was hoping that this was another way of working on that 20% of people that see problems. 

Vice-President Hood said that DBI has had a number of surveys of similar cities, the most recent one being Los Angeles and said that she had done a permit in Los Angeles before and found the Planning Department actually more complicated than San Francisco.  Vice-President Hood said that she found the Building Department in Los Angeles very similar to San Francisco’s, but found the customer service far less than she had heard reported and their performance rating is much less than 80%.

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to let Mr. Nothenberg know that the BIC and DBI have been working on the MIS for almost nine years and it has been a struggle, not only in the technical applications, but also in the resistance of people throughout the Department who want to do it in a different way.  Vice-President Hood said DBI tried to set a model for making that a positive thing and finally after all these years DBI is making the permit process trail available on the Internet.  Vice-President Hood stated that she would be going back to the AIA to inform them about how to locate a permit and follow its progress; ultimately it is hoped that customers could submit drawings in digital form over the Internet and that would make productivity greater and would improve transparency.  Vice-President Hood said that she was hoping that all of these things would help.

Vice-President Hood said that the final thing that she wanted to say about this Commission was, and she just realized it when the meetings started being televised, in comparing it with Permit Appeals or the Planning Department or other people who are involved with building permits.  Vice-President Hood said that the unusual thing about this Commission is that each one of the Commissioners come from a very special field, such as Rodrigo being an Engineer, Alfonso is also an Architect and is serving as the non-profit, Roy is a Contractor and Matt is an Attorney who specializes in tenant law.  Vice-President Hood stated that the BIC has a lot of experts on the Commission and are much more active in actually doing things rather than other Commissions.  Vice-President Hood said that other Commissions rely more on staff reports and then make a judgment about that, but the BIC tends to be much more active and Roy and Rodrigo visit a lot of the projects that have problems on them and then the BIC makes recommendations.  Vice-President Hood said that the Commissioners discover things that might not be done right on inspections out in the City and said that recently Commissioner Guinnane had found a large number of those kinds of things and there seems to be some sort of almost criminal activity there.  Vice-President Hood said that she hoped that Mr. Nothenberg would see the Commissioners as a resource to help him with any issues that he wants to investigate because the Commission has a long background in a lot of these things and want to help Mr. Nothenberg in any way they can.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he appreciated Vice-President Hood’s comments.  Mr. Nothenberg said that, as he stated, the likelihood of a department receiving a 100% satisfaction rating is not going to happen and said that he was familiar with the fact that much of the disputation with the Department comes about because submissions are poor or imperfect.  Mr. Nothenberg said that MIS systems are no way easy in the City and no department has an easy time of putting in new systems as the City is not very good at it and never has been.  Mr. Nothenberg said that yet, he can’t think of anywhere where is it more need than it is in DBI and overcoming the reluctance of people within the Department to use it is an issue which he thinks that Frank and his people have to work on.  Mr. Nothenberg said that there should not be a choice and there is absolutely no reason why the technology that is available is not being used, and unlike any other department DBI can afford it and are unique in that respect.  Mr. Nothenberg said that this is a problem area where he hopes to make some recommendations, but ultimately the usefulness of anything that he might do rests on the willingness of the Management of the Department to make sure that the tools that are made available are used and used properly.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that the Commission can only provide the money and hopefully together a project can be put together that can take what DBI has and move it forward.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that he had looked at DBI’s system and said he was familiar with the issues Vice-President Hood was talking about.

Commissioner Fillon thanked Mr. Nothenberg for coming before the Commission and said that one of the main reason the Commission asked Mr. Nothenberg to appear was to ask him some questions about what he was going to be doing.  Commissioner Fillon asked Mr. Nothenberg to outline his plan for putting together his study.  Mr. Nothenberg said that it evolves each day.  Mr. Nothenberg said that primarily he is relying on what he can learn from the BIC, members of the staff, former Commissioners, former members of staff and from users.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he had met with an AIA subcommittee and will meet with whomever he can seek who has information and will use some members of his old staff at DBI to help him take a look particularly at the MIS system and based on what he learns he will make some recommendations.  Mr. Nothenberg stated, that as he has said these are only going to be as good as the information he is given and his sense of how good or how true it is and how valuable it is.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he was not interested in coming up with a set of conditions that will never be implemented, as he has been in the game too long to put out a set of recommendations that sound good, but are purposeless so whatever he does recommend will in his judgment be implementable, will be doable by the BIC, by the staff, by the Mayor and by the City and should over time deal with all of the issues that have been dealt with over the last nine years, in some cases successfully and in some cases not so successfully.  President Fillon said that he was very happy to hear that Mr. Nothenberg was particularly interested in MIS because Commissioner Guinnane, himself and Commissioner Hood have been serving on the MIS Committee.  Commissioner Fillon said that one of the issues he has been particularly interested in is how the MIS staff interacts with the DTIS staff and how much DTIS does and how much is done by DBI.  Commissioner Fillon said that he hoped Mr. Nothenberg could look at dealing with outside consultants and when that is useful.  Mr. Nothenberg said that the problems here are not unique, but it is because of the money that has been absconded, but the difficulty of getting systems installed and talking to the other systems in the City with which they need to interact is a difficult one.  Commissioner Fillon said that another issue for him would be how San Francisco compares with other cities that have a similar workload and said that some of the Executive Staff have recently been to a convention where they looked at how other cities do thing in regards to technology and keeping track of permits.  Mr. Nothenberg said that Frank has told him that Los Angeles has also been to San Francisco and said that he had some of the material from Los Angeles, but said that he did not know that they were much further along than San Francisco.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he had been reading a little bit about what the Mayor of New York is trying to do and one of DBI’s staff members has been to New York so he would be looking at that. Mr. Nothenberg stated that it is hard for him to believe that there aren’t systems out there that can’t be adapted to DBI’s special needs. 

Commissioner Brown welcomed Mr. Nothenberg and said that he wanted to follow up on something that Commissioner Guinnane had mentioned.  Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Nothenberg could provide a little bit of perspective on the reasons why this particular Department was singled out for a Monitor.  Commissioner Brown said that there are several obvious ones, but the Commission has never had the Mayor come to the Commission and tell why.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he asked the Mayor if there was anything that he could do to help the Mayor in his transition and frankly he was not even aware that the Mayor had called for a Monitor.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that frankly this was not what he had in mind, but the Mayor asked him to help with making recommendations and it was understood that Mr. Nothenberg would not be implementing them, but would only be making recommendations.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he did not think that it was unapparent to most people that there has been contention about the Department just as there has been about others, but there has been a lot of contention about this one.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he did not know that there weren’t other people looking at other departments.  Commissioner Brown said that his second comment stems from the first as he thought that it was extremely important that this entire process be particularly transparent as he thought that a lot of the criticism of the Department in the past has been that things have gone on behind closed doors, there has been preferential treatment and numerous allegations.  Commissioner Brown stated that given that BIC or DBI has not been spoken with directly from the Mayor about the reasons why there is Monitor, and said that he was not commenting on whether there should or shouldn’t be, but was asking that Mr. Nothenberg as this process transforms and when there are recommendations that the BIC be kept apprised of what is going on so that the BIC knows who was spoken with and what sort of questions were asked.  Commissioner Brown said that with all of the other reports that have been hashed out in the press it is sort of difficult to figure out what the Genesis is and who’s calling whom on what.  Commissioner Brown said that he wanted to make sure that this process is entirely transparent so that the Commissioners are able to really look at what questions were asked to whom.

Mr. Nothenberg said that the term “Monitor” is one that he has never used and specifically has not used it because he doesn’t think that there is such a thing in statute and no such thing in the Charter; he thinks it is an unfortunate term and does not use it.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he would not be monitoring activities because the Department is perfectly capable of monitoring its own.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he was asked to use whatever experience he has gained over time, with whatever confidence people have in him to make some recommendations and said that he hoped to make recommendations that would honor the Commission and honor the staff and said he would leave it at that.  Commissioner Brown said that one of the other reasons that the transparency of this whole process is important is that it adds legitimacy to it and said that he hoped that this process will add legitimacy to whatever recommendations Mr. Nothenberg would make as it would help him, the Department, the Mayor and all parties involved.  Mr. Nothenberg said that finality in this matter is probably beyond anyone’s reach. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked what powers Mr. Nothenberg had as a Monitor, and asked if he had subpoena powers.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he was not a Monitor and said that he rejects that label, but considered himself an unpaid advisory to Mayor who asked him to do a job.  Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking back at when Prop G was being put in place and said that he understood that Mr. Nothenberg strongly opposed Prop G and the formation of the Commission.  Mr. Nothenberg said that was true.  Commissioner Guinnane asked why and asked how Mr. Nothenberg felt about the Commission today.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he opposed it because he felt that a department with the responsibilities that DBI had and the way in which it was imbedded in an administrative department like DPW was the best way to run the department. Mr. Nothenberg stated that there was then a structure in place for the management of various administrative departments and that structure is gone so given the elimination of the CAO, which incidentally he supported and wiped out his own job, there is no alternative but to have a Commission. Mr. Nothenberg said, “Is that the best way to govern or the best way to manage a City”, he did not think so.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that he much prefers a City Council and City Manager form of government and wished San Francisco had one, but it doesn’t so the City has to do with what it has.  Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking back at the old Department that was there, it was never self-sufficient and always ran in a negative.  Mr. Nothenberg said that it was never a self-supporting department until through the budgetary process it was told to be self-sufficient and the system was set up to be self-sufficient and to set up for the first time in the City appropriate fiduciary controls were set up to make sure that deferred income was deferred and held so that those people who paid a fee and expected a service rendered in outlying fiscal years were assured that the money was there to provide those services to them.  Mr. Nothenberg said that the system worked for at least a year and before that it was General Fund supported.  Commissioner Guinnane said that this Commission spends a lot of time and effort and stays on top of Management to make sure that this Department has a surplus at the end of the year.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Planning and all of the other departments are all upside down and obviously there is a big problem there and that is where he believes the Mayor should be looking at instead of at DBI.  Commissioner Guinnane said that this Department is well run and stated that he knew that there were some issues and one of the most frustrating is the MIS as he has been frustrated for the past seven years about it and trying to come up with a solution.  Commissioner Guinnane said that when he heard Mr. Nothenberg was going to look into this issue he was very enthused about that so hopefully Mr. Nothenberg could take that over.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he hoped Commissioner Guinnane would not have to worry about it for another nine years.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that he also does not want to oversell what he might be able to do, or what collectively might be done, because he has tried to use the words help and assist and said that in the twenty-five years he has spent in the City he is not a magician, but brings some good sense and some good management skills to this process.  Mr. Nothenberg said that what could happen is that DBI could produce a management staff that manages problems so they are dealt with openly, quickly and in a way that does honor to the Commission and staff. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that as far as he was concerned the only problems in the Department was with the MIS and the Commission has had a real hands on with this Department and this is the only thing that he cannot get a handle on.

President Santos said that once again he wanted to thank Mr. Nothenberg for taking on this task and said that he knew that Mr. Nothenberg did not want to be referred to as a Monitor.  President Santos stated that he wanted to thank Mr. Nothenberg for all of the experience that he was bringing to this Commission and said that he wanted to make sure that Mr. Nothenberg saw the Commission as a resource because there is a great deal of experience on the Commission and as Commissioner Guinnane stated the Commissioners put a lot of time into making sure that this Department runs smoothly.  President Santos said that he wanted to offer the Commissioner’s knowledge and said that Mr. Nothenberg could contact him or any of the Commissioners so that they could ensure that Mr. Nothenberg’s involvement would be simplified so that he could go back to retirement. Mr. Nothenberg stated that he was anxious to get back to his retirement.  Mr. Nothenberg said that President Santos had taken the time to see him twice and thanked the President for his time and said that Commissioner Guinnane had seen him also.  Mr. Nothenberg invited the rest of the Commissioners to contact him and said he would come and meet with any of the Commissioners.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that he was glad that Commissioner Guinnane asked him the question about what he believed about Commissions and said that his views are not a secret as he has made his views known all of the time.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he does not think that the City is well governed, he never has, as he does not believe this is the best way to run the City and thought that most well run cities run through a professional management staff, but this is the system San Francisco has so whether he likes it or not is not the issue.

Commissioner Marks welcomed Mr. Nothenberg and said that she had every confidence that whatever he did would be superior.  Commissioner Marks said that Mr. Nothenberg had identified some of the things he was planning to do including looking at other department in other cities to see what practices they have and operations and how some of them might be used in DBI as well as focusing on the MIS.  Commissioner Marks stated that the reality is that the reason the Mayor did ask Mr. Nothenberg to look at the Department was allegations of favoritism so it does seem that even though the Commission has every confidence that the recommendations for improving the operation of the Department will be Mr. Nothenberg’s objective focus the issue of favoritism does have to be addressed some how.  Commissioner Marks asked if Mr. Nothenberg had any ideas at this point how he was planning to approach that.  Mr. Nothenberg said that from what he has learned and seen so far his instinct is that the best way to deal with this issue is by making the process transparent and by making the process foolproof and by managing the physical facilities so that they are secure and that the MIS system is secure and that there are open and transparent processes at all levels.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that he had no interest in going back two years ago and saying that x,y,z got their permit through two days earlier than they should have, but said he would like to think that there is a Department that there are processes and a management culture which will simply abet the processes that are put in place and make it culturally unacceptable for favoritism to be shown for whatever reason.  Mr. Nothenberg said that this would take some time and would take continued pressure by the Management through the ranks to make sure that all people, small or large, wherever they came from or whatever their political history, are dealt with equally and fairly.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he could not produce that, the Commission could not produce that, but only the day-to-day management of the office could do that and the systems that support it. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had only one more comment and asked that when Mr. Nothenberg was driving back to Sonoma he wanted him to look at and think about how this Department has a surplus every year so obviously somebody is doing something right here.  Mr. Nothenberg said that he would take that to heart and said he was glad DBI had a surplus, but said that the way in which he tried to set this up before the Commission came on the scene was that it would be a self supporting department generating and setting aside the revenue it needed to provide the services in the out years for which it had been paid for earlier.  Mr. Nothenberg said that it should also take care of its infrastructure needs and if that is happening so much the better. 

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to comment on the MIS on a system that she saw recently because the Commission has talked about having a barcode on every set of documents that could be readily scanned into the computer, but recently read about a system with a radio transmitter so someone could tell if the drawings were to walk across the street or where they go and drawing would not be lost.  Mr. Nothenberg said he read that same document, but said that one always has the problem with technology in that it is always steps ahead of where you are and systems take a long time to implement.  Mr. Nothenberg said that whether the Department should leap that far ahead or whether it should walk or crawl toward that he has not decided yet.  Mr. Nothenberg said that his experience with great leaps with technology in the City has not been overwhelming.  Vice-President Hood said that DBI is much more entrepreneurial than other departments.  Mr. Nothenberg said that is fortunate, but as the Commission has learned to its distress, is that it still takes skilled and honest people, and good and skilled management to irrespective of what the technology is and it is in the personnel and management area that the City’s and DBI’s failings are.

Commissioner Fillon said that he wanted to get back to favoritism in the Department and said that he absolutely agreed with Mr. Nothenberg on the approach on how to deal with that issue and how to abate that issue.  Commissioner Fillon stated that one thing he is worried about seeing again, as was seen in the past studies and investigations, is a focus on he said, she said basis for the conclusions.  Commissioner Fillon said that hearsay is very unproductive and does not lead to a better system.  Commissioner Fillon said that he would really like to see Mr. Nothenberg’s ideas on how to make this system more foolproof and more transparent.  Commissioner Fillon said that he was very interested in Mr. Nothenberg’s idea about creating a culture where it is not okay to give someone special treatment so any kind of recommendation in that area would be very helpful. Mr. Nothenberg said that he was not particularly interested in hearing tales of who did what to whom and when as it is not helpful, however, people do want to talk to him and if he can garner some systemic things that he can garner from those conversations then that might be useful.

1.                    

Mr. Nothenberg said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with, and it is human nature for people or clients or representatives of clients to want to move their permits through quickly as that is what they are paid to do and if they can get an edge, they are going to get an edge.  Mr. Nothenberg said that is not the problem; the problem is within the Department.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that if the Department wanted to end favoritism once and for all, the Department could do that today; the Management of the Department could begin doing that today by just making it explicit to every Inspector in the field, to every Permit Checker and every Manager that old friendships, old associations, and old customs are simply no longer the way in which this Department is going to be run; it’s going to be clean.  Mr. Nothenberg said that the Commission should say that, make Frank say that and permeate that through the Department and if there is anything that is out there that is unfair; it will stop.  Mr. Nothenberg stated that maybe there is and maybe there isn’t; he doesn’t know, but said that he thought that there was nobody who was making any money out of this and said maybe it is a culture issue.  Mr. Nothenberg said it is within the Department’s and the Commission’s hands today to solve and it did not need him looking into it. 

President Santos thanked Mr. Nothenberg and said that he would let the process of public comment on this item begin.

Mr. Randy Shaw introduced himself as Director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and said that he first wanted to say that he appreciated Mr. Nothenberg coming before the Commission.  Mr. Shaw stated that Mr. Nothenberg knew why some people thought that he was not the proper person to take on whatever role he is taking on because in fact, when Prop G was on the ballot that created this Commission, it wasn’t simply that he said in the ballot handbook that he had some problems with Commissions he said as follows, “Prop G will politicize building safety decisions in San Francisco and is a blatant power grab by special interests who want to convince you that they are interested in public service and it is bad special interest government.”  Mr. Shaw said that Mr. Nothenberg had a problem with this and that is why some people are concerned that, as friendly as Mr. Nothenberg is, there is an agenda here about trying to settle old scores.  Mr. Shaw said that if that is not the case, wonderful.  Mr. Shaw stated that he had an article in BeyondChron.org that sort of profiles the history of how things were under Mr. Rudy Nothenberg’s control with the then Bureau of Building Inspection which he encouraged people to look at.  Mr. Shaw said that the interesting part here was two fold; one, Mr. Shaw did not know who Mr. Nothenberg has been talking to as he has been out of the City for a while and mentions that he has been talking to people he happens to know.  Mr. Shaw said that he did not know how many SRO tenants Mr. Nothenberg was talking to, how many Spanish-speaking tenants who are living in run down buildings under his leadership he is talking to, so it is kind of a self-selection of people Mr. Nothenberg happens to know.  Mr. Shaw said that these are people who contact Mr. Nothenberg and might be people who have an axe to grind because it is not like there has been an independent assessment or sampling of the people of San Francisco.  Mr. Shaw stated that the other troubling aspect here is that the San Francisco Chronicle is the one who created the idea of favoritism and when Mr. Nothenberg’s appointment was made it was the San Francisco Chronicle who said that he would be the Special Monitor.  Mr. Shaw said that if this is not the case, and said he trusted Mr. Nothenberg when he says it is not, then there ought to be some sort of rescission.  Mr. Shaw stated that Mr. Nothenberg should write a letter to the Chronicle saying that there is a mistake because he is not a Special Monitor because everyone outside of this room thinks that Mr. Nothenberg is a Special Monitor.  Mr. Shaw said that that is why it is germane because there are drunk fire fighters, murders out in the Bay View, homicide inspectors who can’t solve crimes according to the Mayor and here is a Special Monitor or somebody, circumventing the Commission system by the Mayor in a Department that has the most money, and forget the money part, look at the history.  Mr. Shaw said that the Code Enforcement in DBI is a national model, the success of this Department is the finest Building Department in the country in the last several years and all one hears about is this favoritism.  Mr. Shaw stated that some people might know that there was a hearing at the Board of Supervisors on favoritism, just a month ago, an entire hearing.  Mr. Shaw said that he did not know if Commissioner Marks was there, he did not see her, but she would have found it very illustrative.  Mr. Shaw said that there was a chance for a big public hearing with four Supervisors present and there wasn’t one person who testified that there was favoritism in the Department.  Mr. Shaw said that was the second public hearing on DBI as there was one last August.  Mr. Shaw asked what it would take because Mr. Nothenberg stands up and says that if the Department wants to get rid of favoritism all the Department has to do is come out and say it; that edict has come down and it doesn’t exist and yet the Department is in the position of having to fight off these claims.  Mr. Shaw said that he appreciated Mr. Nothenberg looking into this and said he hoped that Mr. Nothenberg could admit that he was wrong and produce a report that exonerates the Department.  Mr. Shaw stated that the Mayor should be testifying before this Commission if he has problems with it.  Mr. Shaw thanked the Commission.

Mr. Sam Dodge said that he runs the City’s SRO collaborative and said that he worked with the residents living in the SRO hotels in the Tenderloin and South of Market.  Mr. Dodge stated that he really wanted to testify today and come out because he had been reading a lot of this nonsense in the papers and his own experience with Inspectors and the Department has been really wonderful.  Mr. Dodge said that in his position he has a great vantage point to look at other cities and how they deal with rundown, low-cost housing, really slum housing for lack of a better word. Mr. Dodge reported that he had worked with people in Seattle, Portland, L.A., New York and all of the other Bay Area cities and they are really jealous of the system that exists in San Francisco with inspections.  Mr. Dodge said that in his opinion this is the best in the nation for inspections and the responsiveness and the professional quality of the employees.  Mr. Dodge said that he would have to agree with Mr. Nothenberg that there have been too many studies and the Department is great and that it is well appreciated by the public that interacts with the Department and knows the Department.  Mr. Dodge stated that other departments could use the expertise that exists on the Commission and making appointments based on expertise is the way that Commissions function well and this is why he feels that the Department is so good.  Mr. Dodge said that the other part is just that the staff members are dedicated and passionate about what they do and they take it to heart.  Mr. Dodge said that he calls out an Inspector for a tenant in a Residential Hotel Building and they treat it seriously; it is not like it is some slum place and the tenant is some drug addict or something like that, but they treat the person like a human being and write up any Code violations.  Mr. Dodge stated that the Inspectors come to the site looking to mediate and looking to find ways to solve problems and to be creative about it, not just to punish, but to find ways so that the owner can make changes so that the tenant can live in peace.  Mr. Dodge said that it is not an atmosphere where every time an Inspector comes out the owner feels like they need to lock down the doors and call a lawyer; they are happy to interact with them and really get down to the problem and solve it.  Mr. Dodge said that he felt that the City needed to increase what has happened since 1994 and that if there are vacancies in Housing Inspection those positions need to be filled because their workload is very high.  Mr. Dodge stated that there is an aging housing stock in San Francisco and the Department is doing a great job in dealing with it, but said that he felt that the Inspectors are doing a lot of work, and if anything the public needs to help them do more.  Mr. Dodge said that Mr. Nothenberg stated that he had been in this game a long time insinuating somehow that this is a game; this is not a game when you don’t have heat or you can’t go to the bathroom because it is locked up.  Mr. Dodge stated that this is serious and this is the reason he is present today because this is no joke or no game because the Building Inspection Department is critical and crucial.  Mr. Dodge thanked the Commission.

Mr. Richard Modicus said that he was with the Mission Agenda and said that his organization is a member of the Mission SRO Collaborative.  Mr. Modicus said that he is a third generation San Franciscan and said that he remembered in 1994 when St. Peter’s Housing Committee in the Mission lead protests outside the Bureau of Building Inspection when Mr. Nothenberg was at the helm.  Mr. Modicus said that there was profound dissatisfaction with the bureau at that time in regards to Mission based hotel inspections and housing inspections.  Mr. Modicus stated that suffice to say, Commissioners, that plenty of Community based monitoring of the Department happened during Mr. Nothenberg’s reign and said that he did not understand the logic here.  Mr. Modicus said that this was like resuscitating a failed past, essentially meting out sanctions on a self-sufficient, revenue generating with absolute effectiveness when it comes to SRO inspections, followed by City Attorney prosecutions and lawsuits. Mr. Modicus said that he just didn’t get the nature of the insinuating reprisals.  Mr. Modicus said that he would close by saying that even the San Francisco Giants would not ask Willie Mays to come out of retirement and instruct Barry Bonds on batting techniques.  Mr. Modicus thanked the Commission.

Mr. Sean Keighran said that he was present today to welcome the newest Monitor Mr. Rudy Nothenberg to the hearing in front of this Commission today.  Mr. Keighran said that he found the title very interesting and said that he realized that Mr. Nothenberg was sort of backing away from that title, nevertheless that is the title the Mayor chose.  Mr. Keighran said that in the past this role and is continuously being filled under the duties of activism; it was through activism that Mr. O’Donoghue brought the issue to the voters of San Francisco who overwhelmingly approved this Commission.  Mr. Keighran stated that it is through activism that the Sue Hestor’s of this world are continually watching this Commission and the Department; it is through activism that Mr. Randy Shaw and the Tenderloin Housing Association are continually scrutinizing the Department and this Commission.  Mr. Keighran said that these three and many, many others have for years shared their experience and have been continuously providing input to this Commission and then at the end reporting back to their respective communities.  Mr. Keighran said that Mr. Nothenberg would not be reporting to any community; he will be reporting directly to citizen Gavin Newsom.  Mr. Keighran said that he chose the word “citizen” Gavin Newsom without the intention or without trying to show any disrespect to the Mayor himself or to the Mayor’s Office or even to Mr. Nothenberg, but instead he chose that word out of respect for the process.  Mr. Keighran said that while the process does allow the ability to appoint Commissioners, the process clearly does not allow the Mayor to appoint a Special Monitor.  Mr. Keighran said that power lies with the citizens of San Francisco because whether a person pulls one permit a year or thousands they are entitled to sit in and participate in these hearings.  Mr. Keighran stated that this Commission and these hearings provide the forum for the citizens to provide direction or to issue complaints.  Mr. Keighran said that in closing he would like to welcome the newest Monitor, but said that he also thought that it was appropriate to acknowledge and thank all of the other Monitors that have given a lot of time and shown their wisdom in providing guidance to the Department and this Commission.  Mr. Keighran thanked the Commission.

Hatzia said that she worked through the Code and Outreach Program through DBI and works around habitability issues in the Tenderloin and South of Market.  Hatzia stated that a lot of the times the issues are minor so she goes out and looks at a problem and it might just be that a tenant has not filled out the proper form to get a repair made or the Manager hasn’t set a date to get the repair made.  Hatzia said that other times the repairs that need to be made are major such as water leaking from a ceiling or there is no heat so it is not an issue of communication, but one of a Manager or Landlord actually not wanting to make a repair or having to spend any money.  Hatzia said that this is when she calls a Building Inspector in.  Hatzia said that the majority of time  getting an Inspector in to inspect a building and writing a Notice of Violation is the step that gets the Manager to make the repair and increases the living conditions of those living in these SROs or apartments.  Hatzia said that she was not here in 1994, but could say that the effectiveness of calling in a DBI Inspector is really good.

Mr. Ritchie Hart said that first and foremost he wanted to compliment the Commissioners including staff and this whole Department for doing an excellent, excellent job.  Mr. Hart said that this Commission and this Department is the most efficient and well-run department in the City.  Mr. Hart said the question he would have to ask is why a well-run and efficient department needs any sort of Monitor or investigation.  Mr. Hart said that when a citizen hears the overtime abuses of the Sheriff’s Department, the sick leave abuses of the Fire Department and the Department of Parking and Traffic ticket fixing abuses one has to wonder why those departments are not being investigated and why resources are not used over there.  Mr. Hart stated that as a member of the Residential Builders Association and a builder in the City he takes exception to the fact that somehow he is getting special treatment at DBI.  Mr. Hart said that the average length of time from submittal to final permit issuance is one to one and a half years and that is the way the process is.  Mr. Hart said that it is a slow process and said he had no problem with it and understands it.  Mr. Hart said the staff, by the way, does an excellent job.  Mr. Hart said that if there have to be hearings then let them be open and fair and said that the Sunshine Ordinance should be applied here.  Mr. Hart said that he welcomed Mr. Nothenberg, but wanted this to be done properly.  Mr. Hart said that if one read the Chronicle, they would be led to believe that this Commission and DBI is showing favoritism to the RBA and other builders; this is not true, but it is typical of the Chronicle as their reporting has never been fair.  Mr. Hart said that the Chronicle has never favored the building industry and has always been negative when it comes to the building industry.  Mr. Hart said that once again he would welcome Mr. Nothenberg and said that he wanted to keep this process fair and open.  Mr. Hart thanked the Commissioners.

Mr. Angus McCarthy introduced himself as a member of the Residential Builders Association and said that he also had the pleasure of serving in the South of Market PAC as a PAC member and said that there were a few people from that area who already spoke this morning.  Mr. McCarthy said that first of all, there is going to be a lot of comments made this morning, but he was going to try to bring the Commission to the world that he lives in as builder, developer and tax payer and said that his children go to school in this town, so he takes this town very, very seriously.  Mr. McCarthy stated that for years now he has been reading in the newspapers about the builders, developers and special interest groups and his organization that he is very proud of has been accused a lot in that paper.  Mr. McCarthy said that the Commission has done a job that most people from the outside looking in would say has been very well done.  Mr. McCarthy said that this has been quiet for a number of years because it hasn’t been on TV and now that it is on TV it is exposed to the public and the people can see that the Commission really does a hard line of questioning which is badly needed in this.  Mr. McCarthy said that now that there is a Monitor, which he was very happy to see, but one thing that he really wanted to see coming from this Monitor scenario is not to let everybody understand that he does an investigation for three months and then everybody stands around and has a nice warm feeling.  Mr. McCarthy stated that he really wanted to see if he finds something that is reported back to this Commission that it is acted upon.  Mr. McCarthy said that this was a very, very unique opportunity to, at this stage, come up with a closure to this issue.  Mr. McCarthy said that as a building developer, when he goes into the Department right now there is a real sense from a Department that was very up a few years back, who really had a commitment and really wanted to get the job done, pull triggers on issues because there is really a stand off position right now because everybody is really worried about the direction this Department is going in.  Mr. McCarthy stated that for many years the Department was going in the right direction and all of a sudden there is a dark cloud put over the Department and everyone has taken to questioning or looking at their jobs.  Mr. McCarthy said that as a rule most of the RBA members who submit plans wait the best part of a year to a year and a half and stated that he accepts that process.  Mr. McCarthy said that he knows what he is doing and when he submits a set of plans it comes back with a checklist.  Mr. McCarthy said that he thought the problem was a tale of two stories as there are people who don’t know how to submit a set of plans and the people who do. Mr. McCarthy said that the people who don’t know what they are doing get caught up and feel that there is some sort of favoritism to a person who knows how to submit a set of plans.  Mr. McCarthy stated that there is a lot of misinformation going on and if everyone would just remember that Civil Grand Jury where everyone got up and made innuendos, but nobody had any facts.  Mr. McCarthy said that this thing of asking for forgiveness rather than permission after every one has already been insulted is the wrong way of doing business.  Mr. McCarthy thanked the Commission.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that it was regrettable that the President didn’t talk about the Chronicle story and the misinformation because this is the Genesis of the problem and he thought he would have another three minutes on that so hopefully it would be brought up after public comment.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the fact is that he welcomes Mr. Rudy Nothenberg into this Department, but Mr. O’Donoghue’s problem is that Mr. Nothenberg doesn’t have the powers that he wanted him to have because one of the problems that exists is the myth that has been created about the favoritism, specifically favoritism given to the Residential Builders.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that, as had been previously heard from two of the RBA members, it takes RBA members one year; whereas 98% of permit applicants get their permits out within 30 days, so obviously those are the facts.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Chronicle does not have the facts and there is no Chronicle reporter present at this meeting and they are the ones that are calling Rudy the Monitor and they are the ones who are giving out this misinformation because they have an agenda.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Chronicle’s agenda is that because the Chamber of Commerce and the RBA are traditional enemies by cultural and reality and will continue to be that way as long as the RBA comes from where it comes from, the other side of the tracks, proudly.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is the Chronicle’s agenda to denigrate and to demonize anything that the RBA succeeds at.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Chronicle has picked this Department as the basis for that attack and then there is the Grand Jury Report, which follows under headlines of sensationalism. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was just reading a book where an investigator was trying to do a story on Flavius Chow who was the inventor of the compass and he went to the Italian town looking for documentation and when the investigator got there he found streets named after Flavius all over the place, but the fact was that no one knew anything about Flavius.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the investigator then went to the library and was told that there was no documentation other than a verbiage of history that said that Flavius never existed, in fact, Flavius was a myth and a creation of imagination done by the people of the town and others elsewhere.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is what is happening with the Chronicle; the demonization of this Department and that is why Beyond The Chron has now been created. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the RBA would go beyond Beyond The Chron, which Randy Shaw has done and are going to buy neighborhood newspapers and for the first time in this City are going to get accurate reporting as there now is on the TV monitor.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he would say that the Department does need change in some areas; it needs a change in the Director who never has come once to the defense of this Department when the employees have been denigrated.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he welcomed Rudy and said that he thought he would have good contributions to MIS, but said that he thought Rudy should go further.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that has been the RBA’s allegation because the Mayor in an extraordinary day, on the pre-inauguration event castigated this Department and said there were abuses; there was corruption and the Department needs that statement backed up.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he hoped the Commissioners would ask questions regarding this as to how these problems could be solved.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that as long as those statements are out there then the evidence and the paint sticks so that every Commissioner and Inspector is under suspicion. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department needs to pursue this or if not the Commission should have hearings of its own on this.

Vice-President Hood said that she had a copy of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Associates SPUR report that the Commission received several months ago talking about how to reform the Planning and Building Departments.  Vice-President Hood said that there were about fifteen pages on how to reform Planning and there was not even a full page on how to reform Building and this is a report by people who have been looking for things wrong with the Department for years.  Vice-President Hood stated that she wondered why nobody from SPUR was present and asked if the Secretary could notify Jim Chappel at SPUR and invite him to come and testify at these hearings that involve the investigations of the Department and if possible to bring the SPUR members who contributed to the report.  Vice-President Hood stated that the report leaves the impression that there is a lot wrong with the Department again and yet in reading the criticisms they are relatively minor and most of them have already been dealt with.  Vice-President Hood said that she wanted the Commission to make its response public. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission could benefit from any experience the AIA or SPUR had since they haven’t come to the Commission previously about this.  Vice-President Hood stated that she received a copy of this report only after it was issued and yet she has been a very open member of SPUR for many years.  Vice-President Hood said that she would see that SPUR gets a special personal invitation every time there is something on the agenda that relates to this.

Director Chiu said that the Department did plan to respond to this report at the next meeting or a future meeting.  Vice-President Hood said that she thought that someone would be present as she hoped that these organizations were putting a lot of confidence in Mr. Nothenberg and said she thought they ought to participate in this process.  Director Chiu said that he agreed that these organizations should be invited to come and listen to the Department’s response and the Commissioners should have the opportunity to ask how the report was conducted. 

5.

Presentation and discussion regarding how the Planning Department expended DBI funds in the amount of $2.4M in fiscal years 2003-2004.

Mr. Amit Ghosh introduced himself as a member of the Planning Department and stated that Diane Lim, Chief of Administration was also present with him today.   Mr. Ghosh said that he thought that it would be good if Diane first talked about the fiscal arrangements that were made with the Building Department to support the Planning Department and said that then he would go into the work program of the city-wide policy planning division which was helped with the money that was transferred. 

Ms. Diane Lim said that she wanted to give some history regarding the Planning Department’s operating budget and stated that the budget was about $13.2M and last fiscal year the department submitted a balanced budget and at the end of the budget process, which deals with this transfer, Planning’s budget is $13.2 with the submittal of a request for a $4M General Fund contribution which has always been the history of the department’s budget.   Ms. Lim stated that Planning has always had about a 30% General Fund contribution.  Ms. Lim said that at the end of the budget process the General Fund contribution was removed and replacing the General Fund contribution was the $2.3M revenue transfer from Building Inspections.  Ms. Lim said that the $2.3M was designated for the funding of twenty-two planner positions for long-range planning.  Ms. Lim said that funding was for staffing particularly to complete the citywide action plan and Amit Ghosh; the Long-Range Planning Director would discuss the status of this project.  

Mr. Ghosh said that he was in charge of long-range planning in the policy division and stated that the department is organized in a way where neighborhood planning deals with applications for permits to make changes to buildings and for new construction and changes in land use.   Mr. Ghosh stated that the policies that guide those permits and the rules that apply are set forth in the general plan and its different elements, and in the Planning Code that needs to be consistent with the general plan.  Mr. Ghosh said that the job in the citywide policy division is to set those rules and rules in the general plan and then follow through from those broad policies in specific plans, in area plans and in specific Code provisions that then apply to specific instances of change in land use or alteration to building structures.  Mr. Ghosh said that as Diane reported Planning has an ongoing work program that requires about thirty people, but historically over the last few years there have been around twenty.   Mr. Ghosh stated that there are still vacancies and although this year’s budget has an allotment for about twenty-four positions, including management and secretarial staff, they will be lucky to fill about twenty planners and two support staff.  Mr. Ghosh stated that what happened last year was that he had prepared, and this is important to note, that the Planning program was prepared independent of where the funds would come from because at the time it was anticipated that it would come from the General Fund.  Mr. Ghosh stated that the budget was what it was and through Diane’s work and the work of Director Gerald Green along with the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office it was figured that money was available from the monies that DBI had earned through building permit processing and that would perhaps be used for supporting the work of long-range policy planning so that was done.

Mr. Ghosh said that he wanted to very briefly review the broad general activities that the citywide planning policy undertakes and they are in three major broad sections.   Mr. Ghosh said that one deals with the Citywide Action Plan and Community Planning and this is a short term policy framework that allows planning to figure out exactly how in the next five to ten years planning would be balancing the need for jobs and housing as it relates to land use.  Mr. Ghosh said this would include what kinds of new policies and regulations would be required in order to prepare the ground for the actual projects that can be accommodated.  Mr. Ghosh stated that San Francisco is a mature City and there is a lot of contention over how land or a specific piece of land gets used so the approach was to gain as much community acceptance as possible through a broad policy framework that allocated the focus on a citywide basis on what land would be used where and how.  Mr. Ghosh reported that within that piece planning isolated areas called better neighborhood programs that focused on transit notes and isolated the downtown area which is called the Downtown Neighborhood initiative because that is where including the industrial areas in and around downtown where planning has pursued city policy to locate as much of the work force housing as possible in the future.  Mr. Ghosh said that in a mature City where there are residentially designated areas there are established communities and established neighborhoods where it is very difficult to bring in new housing and new change without a lot of debate and concern.  Mr. Ghosh said that in order to meet the challenges to be faced in the future there is a proactive strategy to identify surplus, underutilized, industrial areas and identify areas in and around downtown that can be better used for housing and community buildings and then go forth with rules and regulations that would then allow certainty in the process of building applications.  Mr. Ghosh reported that this was the overall kind of strategy and within that framework said that he had a brief summary of the work program that he would leave with the BIC Secretary that is the data work with an example on one sheet that shows very advanced GIS bases information that was developed so that the policies and the designation of land use can be informed with what the consequences of what the different fissions might be.  Vice-President Hood asked what GIS stood for.  Mr. Ghosh answered that it was Geographical Information Systems; a digital map on which information can be hanged so that any piece of the map can be attached to anything that planning may or may not know.  Mr. Ghosh stated that information attached to land becomes intelligently accessible and intelligently assessed.  Mr. Ghosh said that with that as a background this is just a picture of one screen of an Internet program where one could feed in information about land use policy, about forecasts of population, about forecast of employment or traffic congestion and about City support and infrastructure; put all of that information together and churn it through the different policy avenues and get what different scenarios might result in the near and long term future so this is a very useful tool that planning has developed with the help of DBI’s money.

Mr. Ghosh said that within the downtown initiatives and better neighborhood’s program there are specific plans that if he had a little more time could show the Commission exactly how the strategy is to improve the certainty and minimize the risk in the development process because these plans include something which is known as the program EIR that then looks at the entire development program as a whole so that when specific projects come to be put on the ground there is a lot of agreement, consent and knowledge about exactly what the consequences will be.   Mr. Ghosh stated that the hope is that most of these projects that require environmental review individually and take at least between twelve to twenty-four months could happen almost like regular permits in no longer than ninety days.  Mr. Ghosh said as examples of those he had the Trans-Bay Terminal specific plan, the Rincon Hills specific plan and said that he would pass these around to the Commissioners.  Mr. Ghosh said that he could not leave the copies with the Commission or the Department as he had very few copies and it was very expensive to reproduce.

Mr. Ghosh said that learning from the better neighborhood projects last year planning also figured out with DBI’s money ways to improve and slim down the community plan development process. Mr. Ghosh stated that an example of that is the Glen Park Plan that has been developed and stated that he had just gotten an endorsement by the Commission last Thursday.   Mr. Ghosh said that he was happy to report that this was very well received because there was a lot of dialogue about contentious issues in the communities and people come around and sit at the table, look at the information and are then given the information that helps them to decide what kind of future to accept in their neighborhoods.  Mr. Ghosh said that there is a profile of the neighborhood that is decided upon so that people who want to make change and provide that change like builders and developers and private and even public enterprise have a blueprint that is agreed upon by the neighborhood.  Mr. Ghosh referred to an example of that which was done over a period of about a week where planners were actually living in the neighborhood at the Glen Park School with the community coming in every evening and working with the planners to look at the issues and then leaving it up to the consultants and the experts to put together a plan that they then vented out and discussed and revised.  Mr. Ghosh said that he had that product that was developed over an eight-month period last year and again this staff was funded through DBI’s efforts. 

Mr. Ghosh said that with the eastern neighborhoods, he believed that planning has sent all of the Commissioners the zoning proposals that had been developed.    Mr. Ghosh said that this report sorted out all of the industrial lands into what is surplus and out of a total of sixteen hundred acres of industrial land about twelve hundred acres are being opened up for community building and housing and the rest is being maintained for development of what is called production, distribution and repair, mostly in the central waterfront and the area where Goodman’s used to be between the two freeways.  Mr. Ghosh said that he had the results of that larger study and the policy plans he did not bring because the Commissioners had copies of that, but said he had the zoning that has been worked out and is awaiting the completion of the environmental review for which unfortunately they do not have any money.

Mr. Ghosh reported that the famous housing element was something that was prepared and got caught in the perfect storm of controversy because again planning did not have the wherewithal when it did get started a couple of years ago to really inform folks about exactly what was going to happen to their neighborhoods.   Mr. Ghosh said that this gives planning a very hard learned lesson on exactly how to put more effort into the front end of the dialogue so that there is less information about what the actual results would finally be that happened on the ground.  Mr. Ghosh said that he had given DBI a quick overview of the two major pieces and what is behind producing all of this is a lot of data analysis and research that goes into the formulation of these policies and that staffing was also funded to the tune of about twenty-two people for $2.3M that was received from DBI revenues.

Mr. Ghosh said he would be happy to answer any questions.   President Santos thanked Mr. Ghosh for his presentation and said that he had a quick pragmatic question for Mr. Ghosh.  President Santos asked Mr. Ghosh is Planning was going to need $2.4M from DBI every year.  Mr. Ghosh said that he did not believe that the money had to come from DBI every year, but to do the work that they do it requires a contingent of about thirty people and they manage to get twenty to twenty-five every year.  Mr. Ghosh stated that this comes down to about a $3M budget for which last year they had an allocation of $0 General Funds.  Mr. Ghosh said that this is when he believed the folks that deal with budgets looked at where there were surplus revenues and found DBI.  President Ghosh asked if there was anything within the Department of City Planning where they could generate additional revenues that could be used for this purpose.  Mr. Ghosh said that this is exactly what he has been asking, but again historically Planning has been done through General Funds and the thinking has been that since it is kind of the stewardship of the commons so to speak that general tax dollars should pay for that money and not any specific revenue sources that might have some enterprise driven goals, however, State and local laws allow it and said that Planning Department Management has been looking at this very seriously over the past few years to see how planning permits and revenue earned from planning permits could be graduated so that is can also support the basic planning that needs to be done in order for local jurisdictions to enable permit processing.  Mr. Ghosh stated that the police powers are based on formulating a general plan and therefore if permits are given out for which people pay, then the law states that monies can be realized from planning fees to support general planning.  Mr. Ghosh said that Planning has been looking into this with the City Attorney’s Office and said that Diane could give some details about where Planning is with that.  President Santos said that he would just make one suggestion, two words, “Discretionary Review”, because it is a horrific drain on the Department of City Planning.  President Santos said that it would be important to reassess and reevaluate the cost that is incurred by City Planning to go through that process because it is literally a drain.  President Santos said that in watching that every Thursday, he can see that there are three Planners sitting there waiting for their turn and many public speakers and said that he was sure that what the City charges for that does not even one-tenth of what is spent.  Mr. Ghosh said that he thought that the Planning Department charged a few hundred dollars and the costs are in the thousands. 

Commissioner Brown said that it was suggested that there be some sort of reevaluation of the fee structure at the Planning Department so that it could accommodate these kinds of programs and said that Mr. Ghosh mentioned that there was a hesitancy at the Planning Department because these are considered to be public funds.   Commissioner Brown said that right now they are coming from a fee structure driven system so it is a little bit ironic that the Department of Building Inspection is going to have to restructure their funds to accommodate a fee structure system in another department where they’re not willing to adjust the fee structure.  Commissioner Brown said that the funds that are coming to accommodate this particular program are from a Special Fund Department so they are fee driven funds and being used to General Fund kind of work so it is difficult for this Commission to continue to approve taking $2.4M from DBI’s funds every year when it is a fee driven Department if in fact the Planning Department is not even willing to look at its own fee structure.  Mr. Ghosh said that he did not mean to make the Commission believe that it is a hesitancy in the Planning Department to do that as the Planning Department has been trying over the past few years to try to assess the amount of costs and recover the costs through its fee funded requirements, but the issue is when there are no fees for things such as general planning then there are no fees charges.  Mr. Ghosh said that there is no one identified who would be paying for this through General Funds, but the laws now allow through this specific planning that Planning has started to cover for plans and this is what they are aggressively pursuing. Mr. Ghosh said that he did agree that it was the Planning Department’s responsibility exactly how to fund Planning and it is the City’s responsibility how to figure out policies that then go towards the stewardship of the commons.

Vice-President Hood said that to follow up with Commissioner Brown’s comments, it seemed to her that the Commission was talking about $3M and Planning’s budget was $13M.   Vice-President Hood asked if the $3M was part of the $13M or in addition.  Mr. Ghosh answered that it was part of the $13M.  Vice-President Hood stated that this amounted to over 25% of Planning’s budget coming from the Building Inspection Department and in a gross sort of conceptual frame work that would mean that Planning would have to increase the fees for Planning review by some 27% in order to meet that gap.  Vice-President Hood asked if the Planning fees were increased by 27% would that be out of line from what they charge in similar cities where there is as much democratic participation as there is in San Francisco, as is evidenced by people filing DRs and hiring attorneys at $500 per hour.  Vice-President Hood said that she noticed that there were some ten consultants that worked on the trans bay project.  Mr. Ghosh stated that the consultants were through the Redevelopment Agency, but staff was from the Planning Department.  Vice-President Hood said that she was wondering what Mr. Ghosh thought the prospect of getting that kind of fee increase would be based on comparisons with other cities and his own long experience with the Planning Department.  Mr. Ghosh stated that he was convinced that it was very good, but there are two issues that are involved whether Planning should be increasing the amount of expenditure and time that is spent on Discretionary Reviews (DRs) within the Planning Department or whether that very deserved public service should be handled some other way.  Mr. Ghosh stated that if it is handled within the Planning Department then there should be some way to pay for it, as it cannot be a constant drain.  Mr. Ghosh said that initially DRs were supposed to be a very extraordinary power that the Planning Commission had only to be exercised only in very extraordinary circumstances and not as a plural right.  Vice-President Hood said that she couldn’t agree more as she found that this DR issue has been very much misapplied according to the language of the Charter.  Vice-President Hood said that there should be a way to have a more equitable assignment to increase all of the permit fees for all projects or else increasing the cost to the people who call for the DRs.  Mr. Ghosh said that people are willing to pay for service and if there is at the end of the deal, certainty provided or a minimization of risk, then the folks that build in the very difficult circumstances in San Francisco are willing to get that certainty and pay for it up front.

Mr. Sean Keighran said that it is too bad that the Special Monitor Rudy Nothenberg has left the Chambers because if there ever was a department or a segment of a department that needed a Special Monitor, long-range planning is the one.  Mr. Keighran stated that he listened to the propaganda put to the BIC by Amit Ghosh and said he wanted to share his experience this year with long-range planning.  Mr. Keighran stated that long-range planning took on the task of rezoning the Potrero Showplace Square Area and led neighbors to believe that they could participate and in fact they were able to participate.  Mr. Keighran stated that this program was financed for three long years for meetings with neighbors and planners.  Mr. Keighran said that the planners and the neighbors together formed three plans, yet every time a plan was given to Amit Ghosh he would deliberately and specifically change the plan; his agenda was always put forward over the neighbor’s agenda.  Mr. Keighran said that the second problem he had with Mr. Ghosh’s report was that it was completely outdated; this report was stating that there was a severe shortage of PDR space.  Mr. Keighran said that he did not have any problem driving around, he was not finding empty space, but was finding empty buildings around San Francisco.  Mr. Keighran asked why policies were being created based upon reports with data from 2000 and 2001; it is stupid.  Mr. Keighran said that finally, it was no just he who had the problem, and said that he would encourage everyone to watch the Planning Commission hearings.  Mr. Keighran stated that he believed that it was February 12, 2004, but was not certain, where many, many citizens came forward and were very critical of this report and this work.  Mr. Keighran said that the Planning Commissioners themselves found major flaws in the report and last, but not least, if DBI money went to fund these twenty-two employees, one of the twenty-two employees came up during public comment after the hearing was over and was verbally abusive, borderline threatening and certainly disrespectful to the Commission.  Mr. Keighran said that this is where DBI money went and said that he would certainly hope and certainly encourage the BIC not to throw good money after bad.  Mr. Keighran thanked the Commission.

6.

CLOSED SESSION:  pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and the San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.11.

a.  Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session.

There was no public comment.

b.  Possible action to convene to Closed Session.

President Fillon made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hood to go into Closed Session on this item.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 019-004

The Commissioners went into Closed Session with the City Attorney’s Office at 11:21 a.m.

c.  CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Existing Litigation:  Linda Novoa-Huf et al vs. CCSF

d.   Reconvene in Open Session to vote whether to disclose any or all discussions held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.12(a).

The Commissioners reconvened to Open Session at 11:47 a.m.  President Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane that no discussion held in Closed Session be disclosed.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 020-004

7.

Discussion and possible action proposed by Supervisor Aaron Peskin regarding File 031991.  Ordinance amending Section 3407 et seq., Section 110 Table 1-A and Section 110 Table 1-P of the San Francisco Building Code to regulate work that disturbs or removes lead-based paint in the interior of pre-1979 buildings that are in Group E3, R1 or R-3 occupancy classification.

Director Chiu reported that this ordinance would amend the existing Building Code 3407 and said that a few years ago the City passed an exterior work practice ordinance and this would piggy back on the existing ordinance by regulating the interior work which would have some impact on lead based paint.  Director Chiu said that this ordinance would cover all existing buildings R-1 and R3 including E-3, which are childcare facilities, which were built prior to 1979.  Director Chiu stated that a $5.00 surcharge fee would be charged for all buildings that are included in this ordinance.  Director Chiu said that he wanted to let the Commission know that if a building was an R-3 building and was owner occupied the law would exempt that work, but if it were a single-family or two-family building, but contains a rental unit then this ordinance would apply.  Director Chiu said that the additional surcharge fee $5.00 for all building permit fees for R-1 or R-3 occupancy this Code also amends the R-1 apartment and hotel licensing fees and there is a table for the increases in these charges.  Director Chiu asked Louise Kimbell to come forward to address the Commission.

Ms. Louise Kimbell said that this is an amendment to an existing legislation, the existing being work practices on exterior buildings that covered all occupancy groups.   Ms. Kimbell stated that this is for interiors only and is for E-3, licensed daycare; R-1’s which apartments and only the residential hotels, the tourist hotels are exempt; and R-3 occupancy which is one and two family dwellings and single-family or two-family dwellings that are owner occupied will be excepted from this legislation unless the work practice from the interior migrates to the outside.  Ms. Kimbell said that this is complaint driven like the exterior so there are many things that are very similar.  Ms. Kimbell stated that the complaints come from various sources.  Ms. Kimbell said that the revenue that is being asked for is the revenue to pay for the positions that are being asked for to do the implementation.  Ms. Kimbell said that if a painter is painting an interior and it is not being contained properly then the Department would receive a complaint and go out and see whether or not that worker is doing it per the performance standards that are in the legislation.  Ms. Kimbell said that this also covers a contractor who might be doing a remodel.  Ms. Kimbell said that proposed revenue to cover this legislation would come from two sources; the $5.00 surcharge would bring in the fees to cover the enforcement against the R-3 and E-3 occupancies.  Ms. Kimbell said that MIS ran many reports to gather this information and about 18,000 permits per year were found in the R-3’s.  Ms. Kimbell said that this is only to be implemented on buildings that were constructed prior to 1979 so it was determined that about 13,000 permits would be taken out from the Department.  Ms. Kimbell said that with the $5.00 surcharge that amounted to approximately $65,000.  Ms. Kimbell reported that on the apartment, hotel license fees, excluding tourist hotels, it was found that with approximately 200 residential hotels there would be about $3,000 collected, but for the apartment license fees with 20,000 buildings in San Francisco that are apartments there would be about $500,000 coming in.  Ms. Kimbell stated that the total revenue base would be $568,800.16. 

Ms. Kimbell said that on expenditures there would be an increase of 2.5 Housing Inspectors and a .5 temporary position.  Ms. Kimbell said that the .5 temporary position is to pay for an Inspector who is currently retired who would cover when someone is on vacation so the Department does not lose the ability to respond within the 48 hours that is mandated in the legislation.  Ms. Kimbell said that the expenditures would cover a Chief Clerk Position and that would be .5, not full time; a Senior Clerk Typist position that already exists, but that person would now be spending ½ of their time on the interior legislation.  Ms. Kimbell said that it would include a 33 1/3% time to an Industrial Hygienist who is already on salary who has been hired to explain the more medical side of the legislation.  Ms. Kimbell said that this Industrial Hygienist examines various reports that come into the Department and also responds to customers who call in about elevated blood lead level of their children and referrals to the Health Department.  Ms. Kimbell said that the non-labor items are $25,000 for City Attorney costs, about $20,000 for reproduction costs.  Ms. Kimbell stated that in the legislation DBI is required to provide the public with documentation forms to notify DBI as well as signs to hang for adjacent property notification and notification forms for residential tenants.  Ms. Kimbell said that there are training costs associated with this as well as rents costs for the additional staffing so with the help of the Manager from Admin it was found that the total expenditures would come to $568,842 which is just a little bit in excess of the anticipated revenues.

Commissioner Guinnane asked how many positions were being filled and if there was a Chief’s position.  Ms. Kimbell said that it would be one Chief, 2.5 new Housing Inspectors.  Commissioner Fillon asked if the revenue was going to pay for these positions and said that he thought that the revenue was way over stated as he did not see people reporting this unless they get caught because most of the work is interior work.  Director Chiu explained that regardless of what the valuation of any work done under this ordinance there will be a $5.00 surcharge that would come under this ordinance.  Director Chiu said that there is a slight increase in the existing annual fees for apartments and hotels to cover these costs.  

Commissioner Guinnane asked what the salaries are for the added employees.  Assistant Director Lee said that the salaries were budgeted at the fifth step, which would be the highest that these employees could be paid.  Ms. Lee said that the 2.5 positions for the 6270 Housing Inspectors would be $251,000; an upgrade for an existing Senior to Chief would be less than $50,000.  Ms. Lee stated that there would be a Senior, which would be $83,000, and the Chief is $110,000.  Commissioner Fillon asked if these positions would be dedicated to this program only.  Ms. Lee said that was correct.  Ms. Lee said that the revenue income is $568,000 and the total expenditures are also $568,000 of which $493,000 is the labor and the differential of the additional $75,000 is non-labor.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that there is a division that is already set up for this.  Ms. Lee said that the Department did not.  Commissioner Guinnane asked about the outside lead program.  Ms. Lee said that there was an exterior division.  Commissioner Guinnane asked who ran that division.  Ms. Kimbell stated that she did.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how many employees were involved in that operation.  Ms. Kimbell reported that there were two Inspectors currently as well as the retired individual who comes in when they are on vacation. Commissioner Guinnane asked about Senior Clerks that are Hygienists or whatever.  Ms. Kimbell said that the Industrial Hygienist is there currently and she is there currently as the Senior Housing Inspector, the Senior Clerk Typist is currently there and that is why there is a percentage of time.  Ms. Kimbell stated that because the interior will be added to the same section then obviously those people will put more time overall for both interior and exterior, but there is a percentage being designated specifically for the interior.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how many employees would be in the division totally.  Director Chiu said that it was being proposed right now.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it was very few employees and could not see the need for a Chief in that department.  Director Chiu said that right now there is five or six and hopefully there will be three or four more employees.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there would not be a Chief needed for eight people.  Vice-President Hood asked how many Housing Inspectors were in the Department.  Director Chiu said that there were about thirty.  Vice-President Hood said that this is a housing issue.  Ms. Kimbell stated that the interior is not a housing issue and the exterior covers all occupancy groups, but the interior does have a preponderance of complaints possibly from the Housing Inspection section, but the R-3 complaints are now being handled by the Building Inspectors so this is a hybrid. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that the Commission should look at the numbers before moving forward because he could not see putting in a Chief for eight employees.  Ms. Lee stated that the Director had come before the Commission previously to discuss this issue and explained the need for a new Chief.  Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the $568,000 and the way the revenue covers all of the income it is a real problem for him. 

Secretary Aherne stated that she wanted to remind the Commissioners that Neil Gendel came before the Commission two meetings ago and it was voted on to go ahead with the interior lead legislation, but today the only thing added was the fee schedule. 

Vice-President Hood made a motion, seconded by President Santos, to approve the legislation.  The motion carried by a vote of five to one with Commissioner Guinnane dissenting. 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 021-004

8.

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.

Vice-President Hood said that the Commission needed to get moving on this Mayor’s letter very quickly so that the Commission could report on one of SPUR’s concerns, which is the lack of Building Inspectors.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that now that Rudy is looking at a specific section of this Department that needs review and said that this Commission has done an outstanding job, each and every Commissioner.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he had disagreements over the years with Commissioner Marks, but would say one thing about the process and this is that Commissioner Marks never lied; it would be disagreements on policy.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that out in the systems there are power groups whether it be the newspapers especially, that are now making half-truths, untruths and lies a new value system.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the newspapers have no problem coming out with sensational headlines, but the net affect is that it is a character assassination and it impacts good people, and good Commissioners so everyone gets totally caught up in this rhetoric and then the Mayor is uttering their utterances.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that whether it was through malice or through vengeance or through just a misoverstatement based on bad advice the net result was that it brought defamation and it libeled this Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there is a feeling out there in the community that somehow or other in order to get a permit through a citizen had to hire someone or pay someone under the table to get service.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this should be cleared up and said that this Commission should schedule a meeting in which they invite the Chronicle because as it now stands there are people who can do things with impunity whether that is the Independent, Examiner or Chronicle.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that if they won’t appear to try and justify and bring some objectivity and honesty to the system then the BIC and the DBI are encouraging a change in values and disrespect for the law.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is one thing to go out to the Bay View and to holler at the people out there to abide by the law and the people who are making these demands are themselves breaking the law.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commission should schedule, first amendment rights not withstanding they are not being forced to come and testify, but they have a moral obligation and a duty to do so.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that right now you turn on Channel 23 and the same Chronicle reporters are making utterances and it is bad enough reading their verbal pollution, but it is another thing to have to hear it when you turn on the TV since they are so willing to talk on TV behind closed doors surely they will be willing to come before public and justify their decision.

9.

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

There was no public comment.

10.

The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS

Vice President Hood said she thought the Commission should have a meeting with the Mayor regarding filling vacant positions at DBI, getting cars, and using the money that has been allocated for permit processing.  She also wanted to write a letter to the Mayor. – Vice President Hood

Pages 4, 11,12

Commissioner Marks would like an update of the Controller’s recommendations. – Commissioner Marks

Page 12