2.    President’s Announcements.

President Hirsch stated that he had met the previous week with Laurence Kornfield of DBI’s Technical Services Division and representatives from the Applied Technology Council who had at one time been handling the contract for the CAPSS program.  President Hirsch announced that the Commission had voted to reinstate the CAPSS program pending a proposal from ATC and a financial evaluation and said that a proposal would be forthcoming from ATC.  President Hirsch said that Mr. Kornfield had asked for additional DBI staff to help with this program and said that a billing procedure would be set in place once a proposal had been accepted.

President Hirsch said that there had been some on going concerns about building permits for large projects regarding prescriptive versus performance based designs and said that he had been meeting with Laurence Kornfield on this issue.   President Hirsch said that there would be more meetings with DBI staff to address this issue. 

President Hirsch asked that in the interest of decorum and procedure public comment be limited to the item in question.   President Hirsch stated that there were two places on the agenda for comments from the public regarding items not on the agenda.  President Hirsch asked that the public not use the meeting for ad hominem attacks on the Commissioners. 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association asked that these same rules apply to the Commissioners as the Commissioners often go off into other dialogues regarding public policy issues and do not stick to the agenda item at hand.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that it was the Chairman’s job to ensure that the discussions are on the topic agendized and that the Commissioners not interrupt the public as had happened in the past.  Mr. O’Donoghue spoke about First Amendment rights and said that the RBA had been ridiculed about speaking improperly out of order when in fact no one had spoken out of order.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commissioners are subject to criticism and critique by members of the public as the Commissioners are supposed to be qualified for the various seats on the Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Commissioners who have no experience in engineering issues, for instance, should rely on President Hirsch’s opinion because he is the engineering expert on the BIC. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commissioners should pay distinction to the Commissioner who is the expert in Architecture, Rent Control or whatever particular seat a Commissioner is qualified for and said that this is just proper protocol.

3.   Discussion and possible action to appoint and swear in Mr. Arnie Lerner as a member of the Access Appeals Commission on the seat requiring experience in construction.  Mr. Lerner has obtained a waiver from the Ethics Commission.  Term to expire 11/01/06.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fillon that Mr. Lerner be appointed to the AAC.   The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 055-05

President Hirsch proceeded with administering the Oath of Office to Mr. Lerner.  President Hirsch thanked Mr. Lerner for being willing to serve.

Acting Director Lee said that the Department did have a significant backlog, but was trying to catch up and would hopefully gain some ground when permit activity would slow down during the winter months.   Ms. Lee reported that the Department is trying to get the backlog information on the Department’s website and said that major project’s backlog time had now been reduced to 26 days before a Plan Checker picks up the plans to start the review, but at one time that backlog was at 44 days.  Ms. Lee said that vacations during June and July did hurt the backlog and said that being short staffed had also contributed to this problem.  Ms. Lee said that Management had now taken several steps to reduce the backlog time.  Ms. Lee said that Management was monitoring performance closely and shifting the backlog between Plan Checkers and Divisions to try and catch up.  Ms. Lee said that Managers are now assigning the applications to staff members and said that this was helping to monitor workload and expertise.  Ms. Lee stated that there have been improvements and said that she expected to see even more improvements in the coming months.  Ms. Lee said that she did want to warn the public that during the first week of October a great number of staff would be at training in Concord. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had asked for charts on individual Plan Checkers to see exactly what each person does and asked why those issues could not be discussed at the Commission.   Commissioner Guinnane asked about the huge amount of overtime in Plan Checking.  Ms. Lee said that in the past few months the overtime had been greatly reduced.  Ms. Lee said that it would be unfair to staff to report on individual Plan Checkers by numbers because plans vary and it is hard to compare numbers according to the jobs being checked.  Ms. Lee said that this type of evaluation should be up to the Manager to monitor on a daily or weekly basis and said that staff is apprehensive when their name is mentioned either in a positive or a negative way at the BIC. 

President Hirsch said that the Commission appoints the Director and the Director manages the Department so the Commission should not go into detail about the daily workings of the Department.   Commissioner Walker said that she would agree and said that she thought the Commission was precluded by law from going into that kind of detail.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was only trying to get a flow chart on accountability to figure out what is causing the backlog and to see where additional staffing is needed.  Commissioner Walker said that it would be difficult to set criteria because all of the plans are so different.  Commissioner Walker thanked Ms. Lee for her reports regarding the backlog and said that the Department was making progress. 

President Hirsch asked if the Department was adequately staffed at this time.   Ms. Lee said that the Department had hired six Building Inspectors who can also be assigned to Plan Check; the Department is also in the process of hiring four engineering positions.  Ms. Lee said that DBI was not adequately staffed right now, but was hoping that the Department would have more approved staff on board by October or November.  Ms. Lee thanked DBI staff for their hard work in trying to reduce the backlog and for being willing to work overtime hours.

b. Update on DBI’s MIS.

Acting Director Lee said that she wanted to give an update on DBI’s MIS issues.   Ms. Lee stated that MIS staff was working on what is called the “bridge” project that involved the network, switches, wiring and the updating of software licenses.  Ms. Lee said that most DBI staff could not see any improvements, but said that once this project is complete the Department could move forward with replacing every employee’s computer and screens and the work would be transparent to both employees and customers.  Ms. Lee said that even if the Department wanted to move forward with hand held computers as had been discussed in the past the network could not support that, but once the bridge project is complete the Department could move forward with enhancing online services as well as services for the employees. 

President Hirsch asked what software the Department was using.   Ms. Lee said that right now the service was Oracle based, but would be moving toward Windows based.  Ms. Lee said that this would be evaluated at a later time and said that at present the Department did not have the hardware to support the high end software so that was a priority.  President Hirsch asked if these improvements would be compatible with the Planning Department and Ms. Lee said that they would.  Commissioner Fillon said that this has been a huge issue ever since he joined the Commission and said that he thought it would be a good idea for staff to give the new Commissioners a history of what has happened in the Department and asked that this item be agendized for a future meeting.  Commissioner Walker said that it might be a good idea to create an MIS Sub-Committee from the Commission.

Ms. Lee reported that DBI had engaged the Gartner Group to do a city-wide assessment of the permit tracking system.   Ms. Lee said that this would be a 12 week study that would assess not only DBI, but Planning, the Fire Department, the Bureau of Streets Use and Mapping and the Mayor’s Office of Disability to see what are the processes of permit approval.  Ms. Lee said that this would also help other departments such as the Assessor’s Office.  Ms. Lee said that the Gartner Group would be able to give DBI an assessment of other jurisdictions as well and what kinds of things are out there that building departments are capable of doing or should be doing.  Commissioner Walker asked if all of the departments would be paying for their share of this study.  Ms. Lee said that because DBI is the major department benefiting from the study, DBI would be paying for the entire study which is approximately $120,000. 

Ms. Lee said that there was recruitment last month for an MIS Manager for DBI with an interview panel consisting of MIS managers from DTIS, the City Attorney’s Office and DPW.   Ms. Lee said that a candidate was selected, but with some reservations so she was going to open up the recruitment again to see if more candidates would apply as there were only eight applicants selected for interviews with only five showing up. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Gartner Group was coming in to evaluate the system to see if it had to be revamped or if the entire system had to be junked.   Ms. Lee said that was correct and said that this group would also be looking at the process flow.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Ms. Lee had taken many field trips to other jurisdictions over the past two or three years and said that nothing has ever been done with that information.  Commissioner Guinnane asked why it took so long and said that millions of dollars have been wasted.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Department needed a plan that would span ten or fifteen years.  Commissioner Walker said that was what was now happening.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it has taken three or four years and nothing has happened.  Ms. Lee said that there was no excuse that this should move forward and said she was looking forward to something finally happening with the MIS problems. Commissioner Romero said that the IT was a problem all over the City and not just at DBI. 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that he was glad to hear that the old switches and wiring were going to be replaced by October which was just one month away.   Mr. O’Donoghue said that his industry deals with building issues with the Building Department and planning issues with the Planning Department and said that he did not see why DBI should have to deal with any other departments. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the only issue to be dealt with is how to get the building permits issued.

Mr. O’Donoghue said that he wanted to speak on item 4a.   Mr. O’Donoghue said that the report he was looking at did not deal with the over the counter permit process because that was where the problem was with the backlog.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that in the past there were reports about how many permits were issued within 72 hours, 48 hours or 24 hours so there was a measure of productivity of the Department as a whole.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this information was not in the reports and said that the complexity of a project is usually determined by the valuation.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the majority of permits are approved over the counter because of the valuation of the projects and said that generally it is large remodeling projects by BOMA or new construction by RBA members that are found in the backlog.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department should go back to the old way of reporting the permit backlog.

Commissioner Fillon said that he would like information regarding the backlogged applications according to valuation because it is like comparing apples and oranges. Ms. Lee said that the she could give a more comprehensive report at a later date.

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

Mr. Jim Goodwin introduced himself as a Real Estate Broker in San Francisco.   Mr. Goodwin said that he was having problems with a permit that had no plans and was simply to correct the City record.  Mr. Goodwin stated that this permit had been caught up in the backlog at the Department and was submitted over two weeks ago.  Mr. Goodwin said that currently there is a loan in place for the purchase of this building and it is in escrow.  Mr. Goodwin explained that the building is over one hundred years old and said that the problem was that the 3-R report issued by DBI shows that the building is a three-unit building when it is really a four-unit building.  Mr. Goodwin said that he met with DBI Housing Chief Rosemary Bosque who explained the documentation he would have to obtain in order to get the record corrected.  Mr. Goodwin stated that he went to the Assessor’s Office to get a copy of the building card and to the Water Department where the records show that water was first requested in 1861 and that it was a four-family dwelling.  Mr. Goodwin said that he then spent two days at 1660 Mission Street trying to get his problem solved and is still waiting after two weeks for this permit.

Chief Building Inspector Carla Johnson said that she was familiar with this case and said that this is another instance of unit count verification where there is a conflict in the permit history.   Ms. Johnson stated that the Department is in the process of establishing written procedures to outline the documentation needed to correct these conflicts and said that the procedures would be for DBI and for Planning.  Ms. Johnson said that this particular permit was one that was caught up in a backlog caused by the Planning Department.  Ms. Johnson said that Mr. Goodwin’s permit was submitted over two weeks ago, but was just assigned to a Planner a few days ago.  Ms. Johnson said that she had made several calls to Planning, but Planning are not comfortable not having a written procedure for these cases.  Ms. Johnson said that DBI was trying to issue the permit without plans based on the information submitted and said that the Department realized the urgency with properties in escrow. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Goodwin had enough documentation to prove that this was a four-unit building.   Ms. Johnson stated that the Building Department was convinced that the documentation proved that this was a four-unit building, but said that DBI wanted to have a very transparent process where this was not only approved by DBI, but by Planning as well.  Commissioner Walker said that this was an item that should be addressed as an agenda item when the BIC meets with the Planning Commission.  Commissioner Walker asked if Ms. Johnson had any idea how long it was going to take for Planning to review this permit and approve it.  Ms. Johnson said that there had been some inconsistencies in these issues as some permits have only taken one day and others have taken a few weeks.  Ms. Johnson said that with this particular permit the Planning Department made the decision that they wanted it filed into the system rather than just having it walked through the system as an over the counter permit.

President Hirsch said that this sounded like a Planning issue rather than an issue with the Building Department because DBI was agreeing with the request, but the wait was for Planning to concur.   Ms. Johnson said that she would acknowledge that this was confusing for the customer at the filing stage, but said that right now this was a Planning issue.  Acting Director Lee said that she would speak to Dean Macris to see what could be done on the Planning side.

Mr. Goodwin thanked the Commission.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he wanted to follow up on the previous speaker’s comments and said that he runs into these kinds of problems all the time. Mr. Karnilowitz said that this is very frustrating for Realtors.   Mr. Karnilowitz stated that when a building is finished the Building Inspector issues a CFC and said that Planning accepts that so he did not think that customers should have to go to Planning in these instances.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that DBI should have Inspectors who are knowledgeable to go out and determine how old the building is and if it is legal or not; then the Building Inspector could issue a CFC and the Planning Department would accept that.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that most of these buildings do not have any records of original construction and there are no permits out there. 

Mr. Karnilowitz said that he had a project that was signed off by Planning on August 25^th showing that it was being routed to Architectural and it was now September 19^th and it was still not issued. Mr. Karnilowitz stated that this was simply unacceptable.       

Mr. Francisco DeCosta said that in light of what recently happened in New Orleans and in view of what will happen in San Francisco when the big one hits he wanted to know how well prepared DBI was as far as the status of seismic retrofitting on all of the old buildings.   Mr. DeCosta asked where he could get this information and said that he was asking under the Public Records Act if there was a point person in the Department for this issue and if this information had been provided to the Office of Emergency Services.  Mr. DeCosta stated that there should be a City Task Force to address buildings that would be adversely impacted by a large earthquake.  Mr. DeCosta said that he wanted DBI to review the many landfill areas in the City and County of San Francisco and said he was interested to know how facilities near those landfill areas would be impacted.  Mr.  DeCosta said that the Public Utilities Department was proposing to cite three combustion turbines at Pier 80 which is a landfill area. Mr. DeCosta said that he wanted to know the role of the Department of Building Inspection as far as power plants and facilities in the South East sector of the City that are very old and asked if DBI had done any evaluations on these properties.  Mr. DeCosta said that he wanted to know what standard operating procedures the Department had in place in case there is a large earthquake.

President Hirsch said that with all due respect to the speaker item #10 on the agenda would address some of these issues.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that the people of New Orleans were caught in a mangle head because of bureaucrats that call for translucent and transparent procedures instead of making decisions.   Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Mr. Goodwin was caught in this same mangle head and said that the 3-R reports are issued by DBI and have nothing to do with Planning.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the 3-R reports are notoriously inaccurate and Mr. Goodwin had fallen victim to bureaucrats who want to cover their toucases.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that all DBI has to do is to have someone make a decision based on the documentation that Mr. Goodwin obtained from the Assessor’s Office and the Water Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that decision making requires leadership and that is the problem that exists in the Department today.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that if the documentation was in place for Mr. Goodwin that Ms. Lee should sign off on the permit as the Acting Director.   Commissioner Walker said that this was not on the agenda.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Commissioner Walker was not running the meeting; the President was and asked to be allowed to continue to speak.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Ms. Johnson had acknowledged that the documentation was acceptable and Mr. Goodwin should be given his permit signed by the Director.

President Hirsch said that the Commission had resolved this issue as much as possible today and said that Ms. Lee would speak to Mr. Macris to expedite the process.

6.   Updateon 2508 – 19^th Avenue. [Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson]

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that the underpinning had been done on two properties that had been damaged due to new construction; those properties addresses were 1746 Ulloa and 2512 – 19^th Avenue.  Mr. Hutchinson reported that the permits were issued on July 25^th and that the work had been completed under emergency repairs by private engineers.  Mr. Hutchinson said that given the history of this construction the Department would be watching this property closely. Mr. Hutchinson thanked Commissioner Guinnane for bringing this problem to the attention of the Department and for monitoring it so closely.

7.    Update on 21 Castenada Street. [Chief Building Inspector Carla Johnson]

Chief Building Inspector Carla Johnson of the Building Inspection Division said that this item really includes three properties on the Castenada hillside.   Ms. Johnson said that this item had been discussed previously under comment at the BIC when Mr. George Tsang, father of Michael Tsang the owner of 21 Castenada, made complaints about 11 and 15 Castenada as well as how his property was handled by DBI.  Ms. Johnson said that 11, 15 and 21 Castenada were formerly vacant lots with a steep hillside that complicated design and construction.  Ms. Johnson stated that one major issue that was raised was the accuracy of the surveys submitted with the building permits to DBI to erect three separate single family dwellings at the three addresses.  Ms. Johnson said that the process for permits began in 1999 with 21 Castenada and proceeded through 2003 with the designer of record, Jimmy Jen, designing all three properties.  Ms. Johnson reported that 21 Castenada was constructed first and there were concerns about the accuracy of the survey describing the sloping.  Ms. Johnson said that the slope was important because on a steep slope the building would be taller at the back rather than if it was a level lot and the steep pier footings would have to be stronger to support the foundations.  Ms. Johnson said that when Mr. Tsang made complaints about the inaccuracies of the survey for 11 Castenada DBI looked at all three projects.  Ms. Johnson said that DBI personnel made several site visits to 21 Castenada and stopped work there in December 2004 because the building is five stories of wood frame construction and there is an accessory building at the back of the property which has been described as being exempt from needing a building permit, but from the Building Inspection’s perspective it needs a permit because there are pier footings on the hillside. 

Ms. Johnson stated that Mr. Tsang continued to complain about the construction at 11 Castenada, but there is only preliminary work done at that site and a Notice of Violation was posted on the property with the owner being asked to submit a new survey and revised permits with current and accurate information.  Ms. Johnson said that several members of the Building Department went on site visits to these properties and found that 21 Castenada has more serious problems than 11 Castenada because it is five stories of wood construction which is not allowed in the Building Code and the property line is only 1’7” away from 11 Castenada when the requirement is 3’. 

Ms. Johnson stated that 11 Castenada had filed a revised building permit.

Acting Director Lee said that she wanted to clarify that Mr. Tsang made unfound allegations against staff and said that she had sent two different groups of staff out to the property.  Ms. Lee stated that all staff acted very fairly regarding Mr. Tsang’s property. 

President Hirsch asked if these were zero lot lines.  Ms. Johnson said that they were very wide lot lines and according to the zoning requirements for a wide lot there has to be a three foot set back.  President Hirsch asked about windows and Ms. Johnson said that there were windows on the property line.

Commissioner Guinnane asked about the requirement for the three foot set back and the requirement for the one hour construction rating.  Ms. Johnson said that the concern with the one hour rating was because of the openings which are conventional glazed openings.  President Hirsch said that there should be a five foot set back before someone could have an unrated building.  Ms. Johnson said that these are single family dwellings so the requirement is only three feet. 

Commissioner Guinnane referred to a staff report dated September 15, 2005 and said that at a previous meeting he asked about who actually signed the plans.  Commissioner Guinnane said that on the second page of the report it states that at 21 Castenada Jimmy Jen is the designer of record and his stamp and signature are on the plans.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the report states that Mr. Tsang publicly stated that his son, Michael was actually responsible for the design. Commissioner Guinnane asked if anyone in the Department had actually looked at the drawing and compared it to one of Jimmy Jen’s other drawings.  Commissioner Guinnane said that a good drawing to look at would be 425 Junipero Serra to check the penmanship and see if it is the same individual that signed both sets of plans.  Ms. Johnson said that the stamp and the signature were checked and appear to be Jimmy Jen’s.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Jimmy Jen told him that he did stamp and sign the initial drawings, but said that there were revisions put in after that he did not stamp or sign.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he wanted to find out if there was any fraud involved. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that at a previous meeting, when he was not present, Mr. George Tsang talked about an anonymous complaint on 21 Castenada.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it was actually George who called the Commissioner to come out and take a look at 11 and 15 Castenada regarding the story count so there was nothing anonymous about the complaint.  Commissioner Guinnane said that when he went out to look at the site and the drawings he told Mr. Tsang that all three buildings were basically the same and all had the same story count.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that there were a lot of problems with 21 Castenada including the fact that the building is over the height limit by five feet.  Ms. Johnson said that the building might be over the height limit by five feet as the survey did include the grid lines and said that the height could be determined by following the slope of the property.  Ms. Johnson said that the survey did not indicate that the building is five feet over the height limit, but the information that the Department has would lead to the conclusion that they are five feet too high at the rear. 

President Hirsch asked about the so called mezzanine.  Ms. Johnson said that it is the Building Department’s determination that the mezzanine does qualify as a story at that segment.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how this got through the Department.  Ms. Johnson said that as a new building this went through the Department’s Major Project Plan Check.  President Hirsch asked for the current status.  Ms. Johnson said that 11 Castenada has filed a revision permit that has been reviewed by the Department and approval and issuance of that permit is imminent.  Ms. Johnson said that the owner’s of 21 Castenada had been notified that the Department has a survey that has identified the problems with the property height and the property line.  Ms. Johnson said that she had not received any responses to date from her letter of notification.  Ms. Johnson stated that this issue had been referred to the Code Enforcement Division. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if there were issues at 15 Castenada.  Ms. Johnson said that 15 Castenada was still vacant and no construction had started there yet; the building permit had expired because the applicant had failed to meet the start work date.  Ms. Johnson said that 15 Castenada would have to substantially redesign portions of the building in order to comply.  President Hirsch asked if it was the same designer for all three buildings.  Ms. Johnson said that originally it was, but said that 11 Castenada now has a new designer on board, Gabriel Eng who submitted a revised building application before construction was even started.  Ms. Johnson said that 15 Castenada was still under Jimmy Jen as well as 21 Castenada.  President Hirsch asked if there was an Architect of record.  Ms. Johnson said that she did not believe there was. 

Commissioner Guinnane thanked Ms. Johnson for her very detailed report. 

Mr. Michael Tsang said that he had ½ ownership interest in 21 Castenada and said that he would like to dispute some of the facts Ms. Johnson had given, but would probably not have enough time.  Mr. Tsang stated that he had written numerous letters to and received numerous letters from DBI.  Mr. Tsang said that all letters were posted on a website with the address 21castenada.50megs.com.  Mr. Tsang said that DBI correspondence after August 1, 2005 has never addressed his specific points supporting four stories and said that he asked specific questions such as what story the laundry room is on that have never been answered.  Mr. Tsang said that if DBI answered his questions it would prove that there are four stories without any survey.  Mr. Tsang said that his project had been reviewed by DBI Management which in itself is very unusual and asked that the project be reviewed by a Civil Service employee, specifically a 5241 Engineer.  Ms. Tsang stated that Mr. John Chen, the original Plan Checker, had spent over 132 plan check hours on this project and said that Mr. Chen should provide input on the story count.  Mr. Tsang said that he had requested a face to face meeting to discuss the story count and had not been granted such a meeting.  Mr. Tsang stated that his letters to DBI are very detailed and given the complexity of the discussion a face to face meeting would simplify communication. Mr. Tsang said that, in conclusion, he was asking that his specific questions be answered accurately because those answers would support his claim that 21 Castenada has four stories.  Mr. Tsang asked that a Major Plan Check Civil Engineer have a say in the story count and asked for a face to face meeting to discuss the story count.  Mr. Tsang thanked the Commission.

Acting Director Lee said that this applicant’s sponsor made allegations against DBI staff and that was why Management got involved.  Ms. Lee stated that the reason there were so many hours spent on this project is because of the many complaints filed by 21 Castenada and the Department was being responsive to Mr. Tsang.  Ms. Lee said that the Department was waiting for Mr. Tsang’s survey and would be happy to meet face to face when the information requested is submitted. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to clarify that if the Department is requiring a survey it should be done by a licensed surveyor, not an engineer.  Mr. Wing Lau said that if someone became a licensed civil engineer before 1982 they were allowed to do a survey.  Mr. Lau stated that the Department had given Mr. Tsang the notification of the documentation needed over three months ago and had not yet received it. 

Ms. Ester Wong spoke for 21 Castenada and said that it was four stories and not five.  Ms. Wong said that numerous letters written to DBI explained that there was no need to do a survey and that if a dialogue took place DBI might come to the same conclusion as the owner.  Ms. Wong displayed a drawing with her interpretation of the story count. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was a maximum height for a legal mezzanine.  Ms. Johnson said that a mezzanine can only cover 1/3 of the floor area.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the drawing that Ms. Wong displayed actually made it look like there were six stories. 

Acting Director Lee said that she thought that this issue would be solved between the applicant and the Department and that there was no action needed on the part of the Commission.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that more and more of these types of cases are coming before the Commission and said that it was the same with Filbert Street and Mr. Goodwin today.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there was a recent comment made by a reporter that this country was witnessing a general decline in government to help people.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in the past cases such as these never came before the Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that with Filbert Street when the contractor was running into bureaucracy this Commission helped him and said that he hoped there would be a resolution to the Goodwin case.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that 21 Castenada should be handled internally and both parties should be brought together.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this is the function of the Department because that is the function of leadership to solve problems when neighbors get into beefs and these people should have been informed that they are involved in a head on collision.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he knew parties on both sides of this issue and said that it was unfortunate that it had come to this head because the parties were not brought into the Department to get a dialogue going.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that leadership would have created that dialogue.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that instead the Department has expended huge resources and huge amounts of money trying to solve this problem through a process because now the process has to be translucent and transparent.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commission should send both parties back to solve the problem.

Commissioner Guinnane asked that Acting Director Lee set up a meeting with Michael Tsang to solve the problems at 21 Castenada.

Mr. Francisco DeCosta said that he worked for the Presidio of San Francisco with its 650 buildings and some 1800 housing units.  Mr. DeCosta stated that the Commissioners are appointed to serve the constituents of San Francisco and in order to adjudicate the Commissioners have to be knowledgeable and educated on the issues.  Mr. DeCosta said a case such as this should not come before the Commission, but should be dealt with at a lower level and only very complicated issues should be at this level. Mr. DeCosta stated that this is creating an impression of divisiveness on the Commission and stated that the Commission is required to facilitate meaningful dialogue and not bring simple issues to divide the community.  Mr. DeCosta said that this Commission should not be about politics, but it is about serving the community and if any Commissioner feels that they do not want to serve the community, if it is too hot in the kitchen, they are free to leave.  Mr. DeCosta thanked the Commission.

President Hirsch asked that public comment be specific to the item on the agenda. 

8.   Discussion and possible action to form a sub-committee to review and recommend applicants for appointment to the Access Appeals Commission, Board of Examiners, Code Advisory Committee and Unreinforced Masonry Appeals Board.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by President Hirsch, that the Sub-Committee be formed to include herself, Commissioner Fillon and Commissioner Romero.   The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 056-05    

President Hirsch said that at the meeting last Monday there was a motion to invite two Executive Search Firms to appear at this meeting to make presentations to the Commission regarding the hiring of a permanent Director, but unfortunately one of the firms was not able to appear.   President Hirsch said that hopefully the two firms would be able to be present at the next meeting in two weeks.  President Hirsch stated that in the meantime it had been suggested by Ann Aherne, the BIC Secretary, to hire Advance Recruitment Solutions who would post the position on websites such as Craigslist, Bay Jobs, Monster, and other websites as well as on the websites all of the professional societies. President Hirsch said that the cost was modest and this form was approved by the City & County of San Francisco so no further approval would be required from the HR Commission.  President Hirsch sated that the BIC could not yet authorize the posting of the job as there was no final job description for DBI’s Director from DHR, but said that he would recommend approval of this proposal pending the finalization of that job description.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know what was taking so long to get a job description approval from DHR, other than delay tactics, as the Charter laid out the requirements and qualifications.  President Hirsch said that he did not know either. 

Commissioner Walker said that she thought it was a good idea to hire this service, but said that this service should coordinate with the Executive Search Firm that is chosen because the search firm would be checking the references and reviewing the applications received.  President Hirsch said that this would just add to the advertising of the position.  Commissioner Walker said that she would have no problem approving this as long as it was in conjunction with the firm being hired.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by President Hirsch, that the BIC use this web based service when an approved job description is finalized and in conjunction with the search firm that is selected to hire a permanent Director for DBI.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that there was a vast difference between hiring Building Inspectors or civil servant positions and hiring a Director because usually the Director of a department is a political appointment.   Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the qualifications for the Director of Building Inspection are set out in State law and under local laws that were set when the first Director, Frank Chiu, was hired.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the qualifications were what was at issue as the actual description would be easy.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it was obvious that there were delaying tactics and said that this once again went along with the Mayor’s policy of hiring the brightest and the best.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this job would require either engineering, architectural, construction or plan check experience because as was seen in the last earthquake disaster the then head of BBI went comatose and but for a great group of Department employees who worked together this City would have been a disaster.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that now there was a delay by Phil Ginsberg of DHR, who is an Attorney and a political appointee.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it was up to President Hirsch to broaden the inquiry for this position as he had the engineering experience and understood what kind of experience a Director should have.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that the issue of the job description has gone on and on and said that it is time to move on and quit delaying.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that this is what the Department needs and what the people of the City and County of San Francisco deserve.

President Hirsch said that he understood that the Commission had no control over the job description issue whether it was a delaying tactic or not.  President Hirsch announced that Commissioner Walker and Commissioner Fillon had left the podium so there was not a quorum.  The Commission took a five minute break.

The Commission reconvened.

President Hirsch called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 4 to 1 with Commissioner Guinnane voting nay.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 057-05

Senior Building Inspector Ron Tom said that he was going to give a brief summary of what would happen when a major earthquake would hit San Francisco causing extensive damage.   Mr. Tom said that the Field Inspectors would be sent out to do windshield surveys and would report back to the Department on the condition of the City.  Mr. Tom said that the Department’s operation center would be a communication and organizational hub for the Department.  Mr. Tom reported that the Department would have representatives at the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Services, specifically the Emergency Operation’s Center.  Mr. Tom said that in 2001 then Director Chiu gave him the task to provide training for DBI staff to fit into the system laid out by the State of California.  Mr. Tom stated that if the City of San Francisco did not operate under the state’s standardized emergency management system the City would not get reimbursed for its expenses in responding to the disaster so staff had received this training. 

Mr. Tom said that DBI staff had been trained in an Emergency Operations Plan that was a living document and was continually changed as necessary.  Mr. Tom highlighted some of the specifics of DBI’s program:

• 60 staff members are Disaster Service Workers.  Only Building Inspectors, Engineers or Architects qualify to be disaster workers.
• Designated staff would be sent out the first three days after the initial disaster to evaluate property damage.
• After three days mutual aid would be dispatched to the City and DBI personnel would return to their regular mode of operation.
• Responsibility would be passed on to the private sector for evaluating buildings in the way of volunteers.
• DBI has been able to secure supplies and accommodation at the Marriot Hotel for 1,000 volunteers.
• This year DBI set up the Emergency Management Resource Center so that there is one central location for training, dedicated phones and back up phones, radios, permanent files and a library of manuals for Emergency Operations.
• All staff will be provided the ability to access an Oracle based network system with all things to manage and respond to any disaster such as an earthquake or biological attack.
• Under the City & County of San Francisco Emergency Organization Chart DBI is listed under the Operations section and the construction and engineering branch.
• DBI works closely with DPW and plumbing and electrical inspectors will team up with the Bureau of Construction Management to assess critical facilities such as General Hospital.
• System being built through DBI MIS to manage the entire system.

Mr. Tom said that during the Loma Prieta earthquake no one was organized, not the State or the City and said that during the fires in the Oakland hills agencies became aware of the problems of not being able to communicate with one another.   Mr. Tom stated that DBI’s radio had now been updated and could communicate with other cities and jurisdictions.  Mr. Tom said that the Inspectors now have a working system to back them up.  Mr. Tom said that the radios would be available for use as line of site walkie talkies so a team would be able to communicate with each other.  Mr. Tom reported that if an Inspector gets into difficulty there is an emergency button on top of the radios where response is manned 24/7 by the Department of Public Works.  Mr. Tom stated that this is the same radio system that the police use. 

Mr. Tom said that a phone bank had been set up and a system would be in place in four months to manage information coming into the Department to avoid redundancy and wasting resources.   Mr. Tom said that this system would give the user a quick glimpse of what was called in, by who and what the priority would be to enable better use of resources. 

Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Tom if the Department had addressed the issue of first responders living out of town and if the program had been structured with that in mind.   Mr. Tom said that as with any public agency DBI has a lot of employees who live out of San Francisco and said that was taken into consideration and said that the first shift would have a significant amount of San Francisco residents.  Mr. Tom said that a significant amount of key people live in San Francisco.  Mr. Tom stated that City workers, by State law, are required to become disaster workers once that are comfortable that their own families are safe.  Mr. Tom asked if the Commissioners had any questions.

President Hirsch asked how DBI would interface with the Office of Emergency Services (OES).   Mr. Tom reported that the Department meets monthly with OES and said that the Acting Director and he would be responding to 1011 Turk Street, which is known as the 911 center.  Mr. Tom said that ultimately the Mayor is in charge.  President Hirsch asked where the emergency equipment was stored and was it in a seismically safe building.  Mr. Tom said that the radios were in every division at DBI and the resource center was Room 3001 on the third floor at 1660 Mission Street.  Mr. Tom said that room is locked and the keys are also locked up securely.  Mr. Tom talked about 1660 Mission Street being a command center.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what would happen if 1660 collapses and asked if there was a location other than 1660 Mission Street where supplies were stored. .   Mr. said that most of the equipment is stored at 1660 Mission Street, but said that there was an alternate site over at Caesar Chavez and that is at DPW.  Mr. Tom said that in 1989 that was where BBI set up because 450 McAllister Street was not accessible. Mr. Tom said that the Department was looking into storing equipment at other sites in the event that something would happen at 1660 Mission Street to make it inaccessible.  Mr. Tom said that there was equipment stored at the Moscone Center for the 1,000 mutual aid personnel that would come in to help the City.  Mr. Tom said that there were underground tunnels that would move that equipment over to the Marriot Hotel. 

Commissioner Walker said that the Department had a mobile unit and said that in the recent hurricane communication was a real issue because people were trying to rely on cell phones and all of the transponders were down so having a redundant phone supply would be helpful.   Mr. Tom said that all of the staff has been taught to expect that no cell phones will be working in the event of a major emergency and said that the training is geared toward using the City’s radio system.  Mr. Tom said that the mobile unit had the capability to be a redundant phone source.

Commissioner Fillon asked if the training of staff included exercises in particular events.  Mr. Tom said that the Department tries to incorporate a new wrinkle every time there is training and said that at the last training he created a scenario involving an unreinforced masonry building and had Inspectors calling in information to the command center.  Mr. Tom said that the Department tried to implement situations that were hands on to give staff a feeling of what might happen in an actual situation.  Mr. Tom said that DBI learns from other departments and said that he had been to training that was provided by FEMA.  Commissioner Fillon said that he thought that the best training would be to create situations where staff has to actually get to the equipment, make it work and use it because there are always unforeseen glitches.  Commissioner Fillon asked if there were on going practical training with other City departments where the actual command structure is tested under worse case scenario.  Mr. Tom said that each year in April the OES operations center is activated and DBI sends staff to this exercise, sets up the departmental operations and actually sets up the communication lines.  Mr. Tom reported that the Department has held three training sessions regarding personal and work site preparation for the Managers and down to the clerks who will all be invaluable in a disaster situation.  The Commissioners thanked Inspector Tom for his presentation.

Mr. Francisco DeCosta said that he was present to speak on this item and said that during the 1989 earthquake he worked for the Presidio and knew of the Army’s involvement first hand.   Mr. DeCosta said that in San Francisco there are 900 miles of sewer and 1,500 miles of clean drinking pipes most of which are 65 years old.  Mr. DeCosta stated that during a big earthquake many of these pipes would break and said that the City needs to evaluate the reservoirs and large holding tanks.  Mr. DeCosta said that the City’s electricity and gas should be evaluated and standard operating procedures should be in place for DBI to interact with PG&E and the Office of Emergency Services.  Mr. DeCosta said that there is a $300M backlog in DPW as far as street repair is concerned so if there were a big earthquake many of the City’s roads would be in bad shape.  Mr. DeCosta spoke about landfill areas such as the Marina and the Richmond and said that many homes would collapse like matchsticks. Mr. DeCosta said that Mr. Tom spoke about having a good communication system in place in four months and said that the City needs a good GPS system in place immediately.  Mr. DeCosta stated that General Hospital needs seismic retrofit and said that major facilities where supplies are stored should not be revealed to the public as a security measure. 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that after hearing the staff report he was joining the ranks of Americans who have no confidence in the government’s ability to cope with a disaster.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there were many items that were not discussed including the fact that all of DBI’s vehicles with the back pack emergency kits are located at one site.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that nothing was discussed about what would happen if 1660 Mission Street goes down in a major earthquake and said that there should be at least five alternate sites.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the plan that was presented today shows that the City is not prepared for an earthquake such as the one that happened in 1989.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there was no report or handouts for the public on this item and said that this did not give him much faith in the persons heading up the emergency efforts.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there was a preparedness map after 911 and it showed why the whole process broke down and why it broke down in FEMA down in New Orleans.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there should be flow charts showing the different levels of magnitude and the responses for those different magnitudes.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he did not hear anything mentioned about contacting WebCor or Mr. Cassidy for demolition equipment in the event of a disaster and nothing was discussed about how to get that equipment in place in order to open up communications.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this shows why the American public has lost confidence and why he has lost confidence in this Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department did not have the methods in place and said that he would guarantee that the Residential Builders would be prepared along with other members of the construction industry to make sure that their people are safe and said that he would pity the rest of the City.

Assistant Secretary Sonya Harris said that she had two extra copies of the documentation for Item #10 if anyone should want one.

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that he would ask for the Commission’s help on a couple of items as he had experience working with the Inspectors after the 1989 earthquake.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he wanted to thank Zan Turner who was no longer with the Department for her extraordinary job in keeping DBI staff informed and focused on earthquakes and natural disasters.  Mr. Hutchinson said that neither he, Frank Chiu or Amy Lee were able to convince the Controller’s Office, the CAO or the Mayor’s Office how important it is for City vehicles to be dispersed throughout the City.  Mr. Hutchinson said that in 1989 when the earthquake hit at 5:09 p.m. the Inspectors had left the Department at 4:00 p.m. with the emergency packs in their cars along with radios and they did not have to come back to 1660 Mission Street to retrieve those.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the pluses of the Inspectors driving the cars home used to be that the clerical support, inspectors and engineers had the communications and the supplies available in their neighborhoods so there was a City presence out in the Sunset, the Richmond, Noe Valley, Bernal Heights and all of the City neighborhoods where these inspection personnel lived to radio in.  Mr. Hutchinson said that now personnel would have to come into the Department and go back out to the neighborhoods wasting valuable time.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he would like to revisit this issue so that City employees working for DBI could once again take the City cars home to be better prepared for an earthquake or other disaster.

Mr. Hutchinson said that Commissioner Walker spoke about having redundant phone supplies, but said that the City Administration is bragging about cutting down on this type of technology and saving money.   Mr. Hutchinson stated that DBI needs more technology and could not have enough and said that DBI had to take away cell phones from the Inspectors and other personnel because of cost savings, but said that DBI has the funds to support these things and should have them. 

Mr. Hutchinson said that with the recent hurricane DBI should be sending personnel down there to volunteer and for the experience.  Mr. Hutchinson said that these three items, the cars, the phones and hurricane relief would help DBI to be better prepared in the event of a disaster.

Acting Director Amy Lee said that she had been in contact with Ann Marie Conroy of OES to send some senior staff people to New Orleans.    Ms. Lee said that on the other two points she thought that the Administration might finally listen to DBI being that the New Orleans disaster is fresh on everyone’s mind and because the Department had been criticized in the past for having a surplus.  Ms. Lee said that the surplus is needed not just for a financial rainy day, but for an earthquake or disaster rainy day.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department had made numerous arguments about the cars and the cell phones and said that she was hoping that maybe this time around someone would listen.  Ms. Lee said that it is important that senior staff be allowed to take the cars home at night so that there would be a presence in the neighborhoods and said that DBI should be seen as an enforcement agency along with DPW, the Police Department and the Office of Emergency Services.  President Hirsch asked who would make the decision about DBI’s cars.  Ms. Lee said that it would have to be done through the City Administrator’s Office.

President Hirsch said that many of the items that were discussed do not come under the purview of the Commission or DBI, but are under DPW or the PUC.   President Hirsch said that he would rely on Mr. Tom and staff to respond to those issues that could be addressed by DBI. 

11.      Discussion and possible action to set items for an agenda for a joint meeting between the BIC and the Planning Commission.

President Hirsch said that Commissioner Walker had asked for this item.  Commissioner Walker said that she hoped the BIC would vote to have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and said that she had spoken with some of the Planning Commissioners who are also interested in having this joint meeting.  Commissioner Walker said that some of the items to be discussed would be demolitions, the process around plan checking, and projects such as the Filbert Street project that came before the BIC on an appeal.  Commissioner Walker said that she was sure that other items would come up as the two Commissions moved forward to have the joint meeting. 

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by President Hirsch , that the Building Inspection and Planning Commission have a joint Special Meeting and work together to come up with an agenda.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that bureaucrats love to have meetings and said that as the cost to the public is increasing the service to the public is diminishing.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was not saying that he was opposed to all meetings, but said that he wanted to point out that recently the Board of Permit Appeals met in a joint session with the Planning Commission and the net effect was that it was a total waste of time.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that was the conclusion of some of the Commissioners on the Board of Permit Appeals as nothing was resolved.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the issues that Commissioner Walker had talked about, especially demolitions have been an issue with the Commissioner for years and years and was a matter that did not need a joint meeting.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that when Planning holds a joint meeting it means that Planning is foregoing one of their regular meetings and this causes delays in their backlog.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this means that permits are not getting processed over at Planning.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Commissioner Walker lives in a building that is not on the property tax rolls and said that there was no contribution coming from the building in which the Commissioner lives because it is tax exempt from property taxes.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this means that the Commissioner is getting subsidized so she did not care about costs.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he cared about costs and said that he was pointing out the cost function of Commissioner Walker’s proposal that is going to cost DBI money.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that demolitions are only ¼ of 1% of all properties in the City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this would be ludicrous and said that no wonder the people in this country are disillusioned with the processes of government.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there would be privatization of the services that are being provided inadequately right now by the departments because the function of the government is a failure in terms of giving the services that are needed. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the builders would gladly be involved in a joint meeting, but said it would be a total waste of time.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that regarding the issue of the processes it is the Director’s function to make decisions, but the Director has decided to pass the buck as what happened with Filbert Street and with the Goodwin case today.

Commissioner Walker had to leave the meeting during Mr. O’Donoghue’s public comment.

Mr. Charles Marstellar said that he had attended the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Permit Appeals and said that the entire meeting focused on demolitions to the exclusion of any other items. Mr. Marstellar said that he would recommend a structured agenda with time limits for each action item.  Mr. Marstellar stated that he thought the meeting was a little too free form.

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

The motion failed on a vote of 2 to 2.

Commissioner Fillon said that the reason he voted no on this issue was because he felt that some of the items needed to be dealt with in a timely manner and said that he did not want to wait for a joint meeting. 

12. Review and approval of the minutes of the May 2, 2005 meeting.

This item was continued until the next meeting.

13.  Review and approval of the minutes of the May 16, 2005 meeting.   

This item was continued until the next meeting.

14.  Review of Communication Items.  At this time, the Commission may discuss or take  possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.

• Memorandum dated September 1, 2005 from Chief Building Inspector Carla Johnson to BID/CED/DAS Staff regarding district assignments.
• Field Report prepared by Hanson Tom, S.E. and Willy Yau, P.E, regarding 368 Elm Street (under construction) and 835 Turk Street (existing).
• Thank you letter received from a member of the public and Acting Director Lee’s response.

President Hirsch asked if there was any public comment on any of the communication items.

Mr. Charles Marstellar said that he wanted to thank the Building Inspection Department for its thorough analysis of 835 Turk Street and said that he appreciated Ms. Johnson’s attention to detail.   Mr. Marstellar showed an overhead illustration and pointed out sandy soil that was still a concern because there was buttressing of a wall that was excavated and might fall inward during a seismic event. 

Mr. Marstellar said that he had spoken to Carla Johnson about the issue of notification to tenants in buildings adjoining construction in order to avoid concerns or complaints coming into DBI from several sources.   Mr. Marstellar said that there should be one point of contact and that should be at DBI. 

President Hirsch said that since a technical matter was raised he wanted to point out that sand would not be holding up a wall or restraining the sand; the wall would have to stand on its own.

Ms. Carla Johnson said that she wanted to thank Mr. Marstellar for his thanks to the Department, but said that she wanted to let everyone know that the field report was prepared by Hanson Tom and Willy Lau with information supplied by the field Inspectors. 

15.  Review Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

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

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association referred to a conversation that had taken place earlier in the meeting where it was alleged that the Mayor was through the DHR Director, by procrastinating doing a job description, delaying the selection process for a new Director of this Department.   Mr. O’Donoghue said that Commissioner Guinnane advanced the argument that the Mayor was waiting for Commissioner Guinnane and Commissioner Fillon to no longer be on the Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this was not hearsay because Newsom had already stated that he would not reappoint Commissioner Guinnane or Commissioner Fillon.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the rebuttal from Commissioners Romero and Walker was that their time would be up in December also.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the fallacy of that conclusion by Commissioners Romero and Walker was that yes, their time is up, but the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors have given no indication that they will be replaced as the Mayor has said he would replace Commissioners Guinnane and Fillon.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that even if Commissioners Romero and Walker were replaced by the angry dwarf, (Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was using this phrase as a soverique on the President of the Board of Supervisors) he would no doubt replace them with someone from the Harvey Milk Club because that is the commonality that Commissioners Romero and Walker have and the Harvey Milk Club has always been opposed to everything that the construction industry has tried to do in terms of building.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the delay in the process has been the agendized program of the gurus and the appointees from the Harvey Milk Club and this is the way they do it.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the fallacy therefore is that it did not make the allegation by Commissioner Guinnane any less credible; in fact it authenticated it because the fact is it is a delaying tactic.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that from the Residential Builders standpoint, the RBA welcomes the delay because he said that he thought that the Commission should go slow in getting a selection process established and said that the Commission should go to the Board of Supervisors to get the necessary salary adjustment so that the Commission could hire the brightest and the best and get on with the search process which should include the very bright and able members of this Department. 

Mr. Michael Tsang said that he wanted to share some ideas with the Commissioners about how to improve customer service at DBI.   Mr. Tsang said that he enjoyed his time at DBI working as an Assistant Civil Engineer for three years up until 2000.  Mr. Tsang said that he believed the plans would get checked faster if DBI would hire more engineers because the engineers are able to check both architectural and structural plans, but Building Inspectors only check structural plans.  Mr. Tsang stated that it would help all plan checkers if the plan checkers had more clerical support because the plan checkers, building inspectors and engineers spend a lot of time photo copying documents or handwriting letters so actually there is a need for more secretaries in the Department.  Mr. Tsang said that this would give the higher paid staff more time to work on plan checking so that time would not be wasted on clerical issues.  Mr. Tsang suggested that staff be hired to answer the phones and said that this would help the plan checkers get the plans checked quicker and would help reduce the backlog.  Mr. Tsang also suggested that more functions be programmed into Oracle to help with the scheduling of the plans so that plans are checked on a first come, first served basis.

17.   Adjournment.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 058-05

The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 p.m.