2.

3.

Acting Director Jim Hutchinson said that at previous meetings the Supplemental was discussed and said that the Department was now prepared to move ahead with a request for $3,043,920 that will incorporate thirty-two positions.   Mr. Hutchinson stated that sixteen of those positions would be for special projects such as Bayview Hunters Point and the Port of San Francisco.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the other sixteen positions were requested previously.  Mr. Hutchinson reported that a request for six cars was included along with $1.7M for DBI’s Management Information Systems which would include document tracking and things of that nature.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that Supervisor Daly was going to introduce the Supplemental on Tuesday and said that the Department appreciated Supervisor Daly’s help on this issue.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he wanted to make it clear that the Department would not have to seek this supplemental had the Department been able to hire the people needed during the last budget cycle. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about documentation showing sixteen new vehicles being requested.   Assistant Director Lee said that six cars were in the Supplemental Appropriation and the others were in the budget.  Commissioner Guinnane asked about $1.7M for MIS.  Ms. Lee said the budget amount that the Commission wanted the Department to put forward for 2004/2005 was not approved, but now there were mandates by the Board of Supervisors for DBI to implement a document tracking system in two years.  Ms. Lee stated that in doing so the Department would have to upgrade the current systems and would also move forward with digitizing most of the Department’s records.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he had no problem with spending money for MIS, but said that he wanted to make sure the Department was not throwing good money after bad.  Ms. Lee said that the Department was moving forward with a RFP to find a vendor to give a current assessment, not just of DBI’s service, but with other permitting agencies such as DPW and Fire to determine what is salvageable and what is not.  Ms. Lee said that steps were being taken to standardize the permit processing systems and to tie all the departments in together, but with digitizing records DBI would not need to involve other agencies. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that in the 2004/2005 budget there was $500,000 or $600,000 allocated to MIS that was subject to the approval of the Controller’s Office and asked if any of that money had been spent.   Ms. Lee said that very little of it was spent and said that the Department is looking at diverting some of the monies and suggested meeting with the subcommittee of the BIC to discuss the Department’s MIS plans.  Ms. Lee reported that DTIS was no longer managing DBI’s system and said that the Department was working with a vendor to maintain its current systems and to move forward.  Ms. Lee stated that DBI was getting a history or corporate profile of the vendors in order to avoid mistakes that were made in the past.  Ms. Lee said that the Department was looking at vendors who had provided services for other jurisdictions and was doing a comparative analysis to decide what portions of the current system could be salvaged.   Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Department needed more staff to accomplish its MIS goals.  Ms. Lee answered that the Department certainly did need more staff for MIS. Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he wanted to make a comment on the questions asked by Commissioner Guinnane.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Commissioner Guinnane asked why the DBI could not move forward on its own and said that the reason is because DBI is government by the Civil Service Systems and that is tied down in efficiencies and inefficiencies so the good gets mixed in with the bad.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the worst run department in the City right now was Planning and said that this was not a reflection on staff at Planning, but it is just the system.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Planning just had a huge increase in fees and were now asking for more fees.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that everyone knows that DBI is the most efficient run department in this City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he thought that DBI needed its own Public Relations Officer who has the skills to separate DBI from the pack.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that DBI was being hauled down by the inefficiencies in Planning.

4.

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

Mr. O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that at the BIC meetings the Department used to report on the efficiencies of the productivity level of DBI and said that he would like that to happen again because the Commissioners could then see the level of productivity, the great efficiency and the great work of the staff of DBI.   Mr. O’Donoghue stated that DBI had been on the defensive from the attacks, which are now diminishing in the press.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that a Public Relations Office could use these reports to educate the Supervisors as to what is actually going on in the Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the big firms downtown were getting outraged because they could not get a permit though Planning and said that by the time a project is assigned to an E.I.R. staffer three to six months have gone by.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the industry suffers and the private sector suffers along with staff because their workload is going up.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that when Planning is behind in forwarding their permits to DBI, revenue is being lost and the General Fund is losing revenue.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that DBI is losing employees, but should be hiring them and the reports would show how important that is.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there is not going to be any honest reporting from the press except for Beyond Chron.org.

Commissioner Guinnane said that there are two-parts in Planning and said that the Director in Planning should have accountability from all of the employees.   Commissioner Guinnane stated that secondly Planning put a fee schedule in place that only raised the fees by a very small amount.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was accountability in different departments and asked if a Plan Checker submits a report every week on jobs that he or she had checked and what is being checked. 

Acting Director Hutchinson said that every employee has performance standards that have been in place for years.   Mr. Hutchinson stated that Management goes through them routinely to update, increase or decrease them; the Controller’s Office and the many people who have done audits of the Department have accepted these performance standards.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Building Inspectors are required to do eleven activities a day and be in the office an hours in the morning and in the evening.  Mr. Hutchinson said that Plan Checkers are required to pick up a certain amount of jobs and also do counter time.  Mr. Hutchinson said that these weekly reports are rolled into monthly, quarterly and annual reports.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he would be happy to bring the reports to the Commission.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would be interested in looking at the Plan Check and Engineers because that seems to be where the problem is in the Department. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about Housing M.B.O.s.   Mr. Hutchinson said that Housing levels of activity have risen and reported that Housing is a bit different from Building Inspectors because the Housing Inspectors have a lot of recordkeeping to do, therefore their levels are not at eleven inspections per day, but are more likely about five.  Mr. Hutchinson said that Housing also takes in the complaints, does the routine inspections and does full inspections of a building room by room.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he understood that the problem with the Housing was paperwork and that is where the computer system and hand-held would come in to eliminate some of these issues.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Housing Inspections had increased from two per day to five per day.

Assistant Director Lee said that Management does spot checks and quality control measures to make sure that staff is doing what they say they are doing.   Ms. Lee said that for the past year there have been problems because the Department is short staffed.  Ms. Lee said that in Plan Checking the Department has lost staff through general attrition, deaths and retirements and the Department has not been able to fill those positions.  Ms. Lee stated that there was a backlog of nearly 1,000 permits.  Ms. Lee said that initially the Commission submitted requests for a lot more positions for the budget, but the Department did not get those new positions and were told to cut many vacant positions.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Department needed more clerical staff on top of what the Department should be fully funded for.  Ms. Lee said that would not be necessary if the Supplemental Appropriation and the budget requests were approved.  Ms. Lee stated that there are other issues in terms of educating DBI customers better so they submit proper documentation so that adds to the workload and the delays. 

Acting Director Hutchinson said that he did not have the Housing Inspection figures in front of him, but said that there was a freeze on positions; then when the Lead Program was set up two District Housing Inspectors moved to that program.   Mr. Hutchinson said that Housing would be losing a Senior Housing Inspector shortly and there had been retirements so all of these things add up. Mr. Hutchinson stated that in Plan Checking the backlogs are growing due to the fact that staff retired and unlike private business DBI can not go out and get someone on board next week.  Mr. Hutchinson said that most likely it would be six months to go through the process to hire someone. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he understood that last Friday at 5:00 p.m. was a cutoff date for applications for Housing and Building Inspectors and asked how many applications were submitted.   Mr. Hutchinson said that he did not yet have that number, but would step out of the meeting and call the Department for those numbers.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he wanted to talk about the qualifications for Building and Housing Inspectors and said that there had been a freeze put on hiring Housing Inspectors.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the freeze was put on in 2001. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the freeze was still in place.  Mr. Hutchinson said that it was lifted to go ahead and do the testing to get the applicant pool in.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the freeze was put on to require Housing Inspectors to have a better construction background.   Mr. Hutchinson stated that after working with the Union, DHR and the parties involved the qualifications for the Housing Inspectors came pretty much in line with the Building Inspectors qualifications. Mr. Hutchinson said that the announcement for Housing Inspectors reflected those changes.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was concerned that the Housing Inspector qualifications still included Health Inspectors and Building did not.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that two years as a Health Inspector would not qualify someone to be a Housing Inspector.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was still very concerned about this issue.  Mr. Hutchinson said that thanks to the Commission there is now a deck certification program in place and fire escapes are inspected.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he had other comments that would be brought up later in the meeting.

Mr. O’Donoghue said that if the Department had its own Personnel Division the information on the number of applicants would be readily available.  Secretary Aherne said that this issue could be discussed under item #9 for a future agenda.

5.

Report, discussion and possible action on the proposed budget of the Department of Building Inspection for fiscal year 2005/2006. [Diane Lim, Administration and Finance, Manager and Assistant Director Amy Lee]

Assistant Director Amy Lee stated that she was going to make a brief overall presentation and then would have Diane Lim, the Department’s new Manager of Finance and Administration make the rest of the presentation.   Ms. Lee reported that the proposed 2005/2006 budget represents goals and expenditures related to DBI’s mission and were set forth by the BIC.  Ms. Lee said that the Department’s priorities for next fiscal year would be to achieve adequate staffing levels to address demands for service.  Ms. Lee said that this year there was a huge increase in DBI revenues and the demands for services are increasing.  Ms. Lee said that back in 2000 when DBI did a minor fee adjustment with Central Permit Bureau, the Department projected that demands for services would probably go up by the year 2006/2007.  Ms. Lee said that the economy is getting better, but said that DBI lost a lot of staff through attrition and would need to increase staff to respond to the demand for services.  Ms. Lee said that the Department focused on succession planning as most of DBI staff have been with the City for many years and the Department would probably be severely hit by the aging baby boomers.  Ms. Lee said that this is a problem because there is at least a year of a learning curve for new hires so the Department wanted to make sure to have adequate training and secession planning to plan for retirements that are coming.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department would be losing a Senior Manager in April who has been with DBI for over twenty years and the Department has to prepare for that.  Ms. Lee said that there is a focus on training in this budget because of these retirements.  Ms. Lee said that there was money in the budget for technology improvements and also to improve the Department’s fleet of vehicles.  Ms. Lee reported that with this budget the fleet would reflect the oldest car being 1999 with average miles of 20,000, which is severely different from most of the cars being 1995 with 65,000 City miles. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Department could buy extended warranties for the new cars that it is acquiring to avoid large Central Shops bills.   Ms. Lee said that the Department is required to go through Central Shops.  Ms. Lee stated that she could explore with the Administrative Services Director, as it is something that the Commission has recommended, but is not something that the Department could do at this point.  Ms. Lee said that the Department has to bring the vehicles to the shop, but said she did not know if the shop then brings the car to the dealer.  Ms. Lee said that she would look into that issue for the next budget discussion.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he thought that buying extended warranties would save the Department a lot of money and asked Ms. Lee to look into that situation.

Ms. Lee said that she was asking for two 1823 positions, which are Principal Analysts in this budget.   Ms. Lee stated that she wanted to do this to establish a section where there will be audit analysis continually done and where the strategic plan is updated.  Ms. Lee stated that right now the Department has an Acting Director, is short one Deputy and short several Managers.  Ms. Lee said that with all of that there is very little staff for her to delegate work to, especially staff that can conduct analysis.  Ms. Lee said that if the Department had additional analysts staff to do this, it would help in terms of the overall better management of DBI. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about an item showing $2M for a one-time litigation settlement and asked if that was for the AIMCO property.   Ms. Lee said that was correct.  Commissioner Guinnane said that one issue he was concerned about was fees paid on prior projects that never went forward and asked if Ms. Lee had any idea how much money the Department would have to refund.  Ms. Lee said that she did not have any idea. 

Ms. Lee reported that the Department was projects $36.7M in revenues for the current year and said that the budget is $32.5M so that is the difference of some of what the Supplemental Appropriation is based on.   Ms. Lee stated that in plan check the revenues have increased by 40%; Building Inspection revenues increased by 20%.  Ms. Lee said that if Plan Check activity has grown so much due to lag time that next year the Department will have further increases in the inspection side.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department did not increase the revenues by that amount even though larger projects are being built and there are other projects in the pipeline such as Bayview Hunter’s Point and the Port.  Ms. Lee said that based on pipeline projects DBI is estimating revenue in the amount of $36.6M for next fiscal year.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department only increased the revenue projects by 10% in order to be conservative.

Commissioner Ting asked if the Department was getting any resistance regarding the non-profits with deferring payment or not paying at all.   Acting Director Hutchinson stated that people are unhappy about that, but said that he had been holding the line to make sure that there is fair and equitable treatment.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Building Code is explicit in saying that the only entity that enjoys special benefits when it comes to filing permits is the San Francisco Housing Authority, but everyone else needs to go through the process.  Mr. Hutchinson said that in the past City agencies felt that they enjoyed some specific benefit by being able to not pay up front.  Mr. Hutchinson said that unfortunately this was accepted and DBI did this over a period of time.  Mr. Hutchinson said that when the Department was getting a bad time about preferential treatment he looked at that policy and started to deny these unusual types of filing requests.  President Santos asked what agencies attempted to make these arrangements.  Mr. Hutchinson said that it would be agencies such as the P.U.C. and the Port.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was nothing in the Code that granted him the authority to engage in dealings with every separate City department differently.  Mr. Hutchinson said that in the past when DBI Inspectors working in the downtown area went out in City cars they were able to park in a yellow, white or red zone and not be ticketed.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that now the Inspectors couldn’t do that and have to pay exorbitant rates in private lots; the reimbursement for these costs goes through DBI Administration and Finance to be checked and then to the Controller’s Office for payment so it is incredible bureaucracy.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this does not make sense from a public standpoint as it is not an efficient and good use of public monies, but the Department is treated like any private citizen. 

Vice-President Hood said that she could not agree with Acting Director Hutchinson more. Vice-President Hood stated that this parking adds to the time it takes to do an inspection and adds to administrative time when the fees have to be reimbursed.   Vice-President Hood said that the Department is being hit by having to act like a private entity and this is not in the taxpayers’ interest.  Assistant Director Lee said that when an Inspector receives a ticket the Inspector must pay for that ticket out of their own pocket.

Acting Director Hutchinson said that he had offered the City agencies and the non-profits the opportunity to come before the Commission if they so wished.   Commissioner Ting said that he thought it was dangerous when the Department has been doing things a certain way for a number of years that it then makes changes without notifying these agencies and said that he thought there should be some sort of Memorandum of Understanding issued to explain the situation.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he would be happy to do that.  Commissioner Ting said that he fully supported Mr. Hutchinson’s policy as long as people have notice. 

Administration and Finance Manager Diane Lim stated that she worked closely with Management in the Department on the proposed expenditure budget for 2005/2006.   Ms. Lim said that the Department was requesting nineteen new positions that were a combination of Administrative, Clerical and Inspection staff.  Ms. Lim reported that the budget included $650,000 for temporary salary lines, which included some positions for the Public Services Division, as well as for Inspection Services.  Ms. Lim said that temporary positions are necessary to address peak periods with the Building Inspection Department between May and November.  Ms. Lim said that overtime was increased from last years budget by 5% and travel expenses were estimated at $69,000, which is a slight increase from last year.  Ms. Lim stated that training is estimated at $382,000, which includes Management training, certification and technical training. Commissioner Guinnane asked where staff would be traveling and asked why in-house training could not be done.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was some of the training that the Department could not control, but said that the Department would try its best to get an instructor to come to the Department as much as possible.  Ms. Lee said that some of the expense is for conferences that staff should attend, but because they are nationwide conferences DBI cannot control where they are held. 

Ms. Lim reported on many items in the budget totaling $38.8M, but said that this amount did not include any transfers to any other departments in this year’s baseline budget.   Ms. Lim said that any transfers to Planning, the Department of Public Health and Fire were not included in the baseline budget as reflected in the Controller’s report.  Ms. Lim said that if these requests were approved DBI would need $5M worth of surplus funds to accommodate these request.  Ms. Lim reported that there was $3.76M in DBI’s deferred credit account and a balance of $2.42M in unreserved appropriation account to address additional costs.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if Ms. Lim could include MIS equipment as one separate item so he could determine how much was being spent on MIS.                  

President Santos asked about the budget associated with the City Attorney’s Office.   Ms. Lee reported that DBI had not received any information about what the work order would be, but as a placeholder the Department had set aside $2.25M. Ms. Lee stated that realistically this amount should go down because the Jimmy Jen lawsuit had been settled and the AIMCO case would just be a matter of monitoring the settlement.  Commissioner Guinnane asked about the income back into the Department from Litigation cases.  Ms. Lee said that this year was a net-net for the Department, but in the past that was not always the case and said that there is no guarantee that the Department would recover all monies spent.  Ms. Lee said that the recovery amount was substantial last year.  President Santos stated that the monies recovered did not account for the actual man hours incurred by DBI because with some code enforcement the Department does not recoup any of its costs.  Ms. Lee said that last year the Controller’s Office asked DBI to do an analysis of the cost benefits of what the Department does and what is received from the City Attorney’s Office.  Ms. Lee said that she would provide a copy of that analysis to the Commission.  Ms. Lee stated that sometimes the Department does lose money because as a public agency DBI wants to encourage code compliance so not everything would be at cost. 

Commissioner Ting asked about the Department budgeting $36.6M in revenue and estimating $38.8 in expenses.   Ms. Lee said that the estimate was actually $38.8M for the budget and another $2M for the proposed supplemental so the overall budget would be $40M+.  Ms. Lee reported that the Department would be using surplus funds and deferred credit funds to make up the difference. 

President Santos said that in summarizing and in talking about 2005, 2005 would be the year of plan checking and 2006 would likely result in more inspections.   Ms. Lee said that was correct.  President Santos asked which was more lucrative to the City, plan checking or inspections.  Ms. Lee said that it was difficult to do that sort of analysis and this is why state law requires overall that the Department’s fees must reflect the overall expenses and why there is no per project or per activity balance. 

Commissioner Ting asked how much surplus money was available.   Ms. Lee answered that the amount was $2.4M.  Ms. Lee stated that she believed that the Department should have a stronger surplus in case of earthquakes or other emergencies and luckily DBI did have a surplus available these past couple of years.  Ms. Lee said that the Department needed the surplus to fund just basic skeletal services.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department was following the Commissions direction of asking DBI to continue to spend more of the surplus rather than keeping it as in the past given the current past two years’ lessons of having the money taken for other departments. 

Commissioner Ting asked if the supplemental appropriations were for positions that were already approved, but not funded.   Ms. Lee said that they were not approved.  Ms. Lee reported that the budget that the Commission submitted to the Mayor’s Office in February of last year was significantly decreased in the budget approved to the Board and the Mayor’s Office at the end of July this past year.  Ms. Lee said that the Department was just asking that these new positions be returned back to raise some of the staffing levels especially in light of legislative mandates regarding Information Systems.  Commissioner Ting asked what happened to the long list of staff that DBI had approved, but never got funded.  Ms. Lee said that the Mayor’s Office finally approved those positions to be funded at the end of December.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department is still severely understaffed.  Commissioner Ting asked Ms. Lee if the Department could detail how each of these new positions would help increase the performance of the Department.  Ms. Lee said she would provide that information. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about the Lead Abatement Program and stated that with the exterior abatement program the cost for a six year period was $2.5M, yet the revenues brought in were only $250,000.   Commissioner Guinnane said that he was concerned about both the exterior enforcement program and the new interior program.  Acting Director Hutchinson said that he was working with Louise Kimbell the Manager of this program at DBI and Neil Gendell, of the non-profit that has been spear heading this since 1992 and said that they were trying to come up with a formula for the interiors. Mr. Hutchinson said that he and Louise were to come back in 30 days with a potential plan.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the interior had not really started yet because he was waiting to get people on board.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not think it would be fair to put an assessment on a building that takes a permit out that is not affected with lead.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the legislation was written to exclude those buildings.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Hutchinson was still intending on creating a Chief’s position for the Lead Abatement Program.  Mr. Hutchinson said that was his intention and said he thought it was warranted based on the fact that there will be a staff of ten people and the job carries great responsibilities.  Assistant Director Lee said that this position would also consolidate other sections such as Health & Safety.  President Santos said that it sounded like the Department was exploring the options of how to minimize any potential loss.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department would continue to keep the Commission updated on this issue. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about an increase in plan check revenue.   Ms. Lee said that she would supply the information in the next report.  Commissioner Guinnane asked about non-sufficient checks and said that it seemed to be a very high number; Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was a policy in place about a customer passing three or four bad checks in a year so that customer would not be able to write any more checks.  Ms. Lee said that DBI only gave the customer one chance before they were put on a list for unacceptable checks.  Commissioner Guinnane asked for information on credit card fees and what was the maximum amount on a credit card for a permit.  Ms. Lee said that she would report back to the Commission on that issue. 

Assistant Director Lee introduced William Bass from the Mayor’s Office as the new budget analyst for DBI.   Vice-President Hood asked about the monthly revenue report for fiscal year 2004/2005 and said that the cumulative total was $28M.  Vice-President Hood said that in six months the Department had already collected $19M and asked how these numbers compared with the previous fiscal year.  Ms. Lee said that as she mentioned before the Department was running 10% – 40% ahead in some areas.  Vice-President Hood asked how the Department was projecting its expenditures.  Ms. Lee said that it was difficult to compare to previous years because the Department no longer had the revenue transfers to other departments.  Ms. Lee stated that she was confident in saying that the Department might collect even more than what is being projected for June and said that although she felt very leery about having very little in surplus she thought that ending in August the Department would have some surplus despite spending all the other items.

President Santos thanked Ms. Lee and Ms. Lim for the presentation and thanked the representative from the Mayor’s Office for attending.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he thought that there needed to be two reports as Commissioner’s Hood and Ting hit upon.   Mr. O’Donoghue said that there is a need for a macro separate from the actual journal entry accounting.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that DBI was going to bring in about $40M and said it was important to know that this $40M is coming from the private sector, not one single cent comes from the General Fund.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Mayor’s Office has refused to acknowledge that reality because of a political vendetta.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this $40M that comes from the private sector subsidizes the Housing Department and inspections for code enforcement of older buildings.  Mr. O’Donoghue said this has nothing to do with new buildings or the remodeling of buildings.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the private sector is also subsidizing the Lead Abatement Program.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he could show that there is no nexus between the fees and the subsidies that building contractors are paying for and the Residential Builders and remodeling contractors have generously taken on a public social commitment to these issues.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Mayor’s response to this issue was to take $7M last year; rather, he stole it with the Controller’s Office.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Mayor’s Office did a “Jesse James” raid on DBI’s banking and good efficiency and the private sector.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the RBA challenged that and went to court to get that money back because the loss of that revenue was then causing a layoff of DBI employees.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that these layoffs in turn were causing inefficiencies so while the revenue is up the productivity level has now been impacted in this Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that DBI would never get as bad as Planning and said that DBI should be used as a model department for other departments in the City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there was not another Commission in the City where there is such diversity and such qualification skills and this is the reason why the Department has been able to make money.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there were 25,000 units of housing under construction in the pipeline and that is why the revenue is up 40% over last year.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the City might never see the 25,000 units built because if the Planning process is not processing those permits rapidly enough when interest rates go up then those projects will never get built.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this would mean less money for the General Fund.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that building is the economic engine for the City because the primary revenue for the General Fund is property taxes which increase every year because of sales, new buildings and remodeled buildings which increase in value.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that when this fund suffers San Francisco General suffers, monies for police and fire suffer and the entire City suffers.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that DBI should give the whole economic view even if there are dismal signs because an economic narrative would show how DBI functions and its vitality to the system.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he would probably be going to the November ballot to make this Department completely, totally independent on its own.

Commissioner Ting said that he thought that it was important to have a budget that will justify increasing personnel by showing that the Department will expect an increase in productivity. 

Vice-President Hood said that she would like to add one more thing that the Department has never done before and that is to track construction costs because the construction cost is goods, services and labor bought in the City of San Francisco.   Vice-President Hood said that she thought that bottom line number would say volumes about what construction means to the City.  Ms. Lee said that the Department did track that figure and said that last year it was about $3.9B.  Vice-President Hood said that she thought this money would be right up there with the amount of money brought into San Francisco by tourism.

At 10:35 a.m. the Commission took a recess.

The Commission reconvened at 10:55 a.m.

6.

Discussion and possible action regarding correspondence received from Mr. John Kelly.

 

a.

Letter dated November 9, 2004 regarding Complaints Concerning Biased and Unprofessional Manner of Complaint Processing.

 

b.

Letter dated November 10, 2004 regarding DBI’s responsibilities for homeless shelters.

 

President Santos called on Mr. John Kelly and thanked him for his patience.   Mr. Kelly stated that he had three separate, but related matters before the Commission and said that each of these matters relate to the Department’s processing and decision making on his complaints that two homeless shelters are in violation of the Building and Housing laws in San Francisco.  Mr. Kelly reported that these two shelters were Multi-Service Center South and the Episcopal Sanctuary, the two largest homeless shelters in San Francisco.  Mr. Kelly said that some people believe that homeless people are a bunch of riff raff who do not deserve the protection of the law and said that based on the Department’s processing of his complaints he believed the Management of the Department fell into that category.  Mr. Kelly said that homeless people are human beings like anybody else and deserve the protection of the law.  Mr. Kelly said that according to City records, about 15%-20% of the homeless people in the shelters are age 55 years of age or older and have had circumstances beyond their control; such as injuries, illnesses and other things that cause them financial difficulties resulting in their homelessness.  Mr. Kelly said that another significant segment of the population of the homeless is the mentally ill because when the State closed the major mental institutions in California it promised that there would be sufficient community facilities built for these people, but to no small degree the State broke its promise.  Mr. Kelly said that another significant segment of the homeless population consists of people with addiction problems and said that San Francisco has the longest waiting list for substance abuse treatment than any other county in the State. 

Mr. Kelly said that his first item on the agenda was his letter dated November 9, 2004.   Mr. Kelly said that this letter related nine complaints concerning the biased and unprofessional manner in which the Department processed his complaint.  Mr. Kelly said that he discussed this issue at the November 15^th BIC meeting and the Commission asked Mr. Hutchinson to provide a response, but said he had not seen a response from Mr. Hutchinson.  Mr. Kelly stated that he was asking the Commission, based on his complaint, to reprimand the Department, including Mr. Hutchinson for the biased and unprofessional manner in which his complaints were processed.

Mr. Kelly said that the second matter before the Commission was stated in his November 10, 2004 letter in which he made four requests of the Commission.   Mr. Kelly read his four requests:

1) That a Certificate of Final Completion not be issued to the Episcopal Sanctuary until the Commission heard his request for review of the Department’s decisions on his complaints; (Mr. Kelly withdrew this request because he addressed this issue in item #6c.) 2) that the Multi-Service Center South’s maximum occupancy is 205, but it currently has 345 people with 45 women living in the basement and the Commission should direct the Department to investigate limitations that were previously put on M.S.C. South that have been violated; 3) That the Commission direct the Department to investigate if S.M.S.C. South is in compliance with the 50-foot rule; 4) That the Commission direct the Department to investigate all homeless shelters regarding this 50 foot rule and that the Department investigate whether each of the homeless shelters in San Francisco is in compliance with their occupancy load and has a certificate of final completion and occupancy.   Mr. Kelly said that this request was based upon the fact that the Department has allowed the Episcopal Sanctuary to operate for almost 20 years without a CFC.

Mr. Kelly said that the third matter before the Commission was stated in his December 16, 2004 letter.   Mr. Kelly said that this was his request for review of the Department’s decisions refusing to issue Notices of Violation to M.S.C. South and the Episcopal Sanctuary regarding the failure of their compliance with the 50-foot rule.  Mr. Kelly stated that the Department has taken the position that the 50-foot rule and these other laws do not apply to M.S.C. South and the Episcopal Sanctuary and said that he thought that the facts presented in his letter clearly refute the Department’s position in this regard.  Mr. Kelly suggested that the BIC should direct the Department to do an investigation to determine that these shelters are in compliance with the 50-foot rule and the other laws that are stated in his complaints and issue Notices of Violation where appropriate.  Mr. Kelly said that he was also asking that the Commission direct the Department to interpret the 50-foot rule to allow each occupant 50 square feet of sleeping space as that is how the law reads.  Mr. Kelly said that the Department has taken a different position that would allow an unreasonable and inhumane interpretation of the law.  Mr. Kelly said that his last request in his December 16, 2004 letter was for the Commission to direct the Department not to issue a C.F.C. to the Episcopal Sanctuary while the sanctuary remains in violation of the 50-foot rule. 

Mr. Kelly stated that he had visited the sanctuary last week and there were noted improvements since his visit almost two years ago, however, he said he believed that the sanctuary was still in violation of the 50-foot rule and in violation of disabled access laws.   Mr. Kelly said that he had contact with Mr. Leo McFadden of the Code Enforcement Division at DBI to follow up on the abatement proceedings against the Episcopal Sanctuary for failure to have a C.F.C.  Mr. Kelly said that Mr. McFadden told him in a telephone message that he believed the sanctuary was closed and therefore, the abatement proceedings were not going forward.  Mr. Kelly said that he left a message for Mr. McFadden to let him know that the sanctuary was only closed for two or three weeks for remodeling and asked him to continue with the abatement proceedings.  Mr. Kelly asked that the BIC make sure that this would happen. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked Acting Director Hutchinson if a C.F.C. had been issued at 201 – 8^th Street.  Mr. Hutchinson replied that a C.F.C. was issued in mid-December when the Department received word from the Health Department that it was acceptable to have a sink located outside of the examination room so this took care of the outstanding disabled access issue.  Commissioner Guinnane said that since the C.F.C. had been issued then all of the violations were abated.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that regarding the 50-foot rule he did not believe that it applied there because the shelter was up and running before that rule ever came into play so the shelter would be exempt from the 50 square foot rule.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this had been the Department’s consistent position.  Commissioner Guinnane said that this was his position also.

President Santos asked for a brief overview of the 50-foot rule.   Mr. Hutchinson said that he appreciated Mr. Kelly coming before the Commission to have an opportunity to have a dialogue to see if any questions could be solved.  Mr. Hutchinson said that in 1986 there was no such thing as a homeless shelter when 201- 8^th Street applied to change a former bath house into a new classification to house people that were chronically homeless.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was nothing in the Building Code to address this.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Superintendent at that time, Mr. Franklin Lu sat down with the Fire Department and other departments of his choosing to decide how they would deal with the plan check for this facility.  Mr. Hutchinson said that out of that meeting came a two-page document about what was needed and the safety features.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the head of the Building Department came up with a criteria and this shelter is still operating under the original criteria which predates the code ruling for homeless shelters which came into effect in 1991 and has been updated over the years.  Mr. Hutchinson explained that 201 – 8^th Street and 525 – 5^th Street, which applied for permit in 1990 pre-date those rulings.  Mr. Hutchinson said that basically, today, and from 1991 forward there is a table at the back of an Administrative Bulletin talking about lateral forces, conversion of use to a shelter, the number of toilets and showers, how to deal with disability access and then there is a section which says that there should be 50 square feet per person in homeless shelters.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department has explained to Mr. Kelly over the years that both of these homeless shelters pre-date the 50-foot rule. 

President Santos asked who developed the ruling in 1991.   Mr. Hutchinson said that it would be something that would typically come out of staff, go to the Code Advisory Committee and then would become an Administrative Bulletin.  President Santos asked if there was any mention to grandfathering in the other buildings that might not qualify for the 50-foot rule.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this would not be unlike an older building in the Sunset that was built under the code at the time of construction and would not comply with today’s requirements for seismic safety and other things.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department would not go back retroactively and have that homeowner retrofit their house.  Mr. Hutchinson said that if the same homeowner came in to the Department and said that they were going to tear the house down and build a new one or do an addition that homeowner would have to comply with the new codes, but that is not the case with these structures. 

Vice-President Hood asked questions about bunk beds and said that she thought that Mr. Kelly was concerned about the fact that this was legally grandfathered in, which she said does seem to be the case, but asked if there was a hazardous situation.   Vice-President Hood said that she thought this was the basis of Mr. Kelly’s concern and said it was the basis of her concern as a Commissioner.  Vice-President Hood stated that she relied on the judgment of the Building Department to look into that and said that maybe the Department should clarify how this is calculated when the beds are stacked.  Vice-President Hood said that she thought the Department should check into Mr. Kelly’s statement that there are 45 people sleeping in the basement and said she was concerned about inadequate exiting from that basement. 

Acting Director Hutchinson said that both of these properties were referred to the Code Enforcement Division and finally 8^th Street received a C.F.C. and 5^th Street is in the process of expanding their occupant load.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Building Inspection Division keeps track of the homeless shelters, temporary and permanent ones within the City by doing annual investigations and the investigation of complaints.  Mr. Hutchinson said that both of these properties have been the subject of complaints by Mr. Kelly and DBI has gone out and taken action.  Mr. Hutchinson said that temporary shelters open and some open only for the winter so the City scrambles to find places for people.  Vice-President Hood said that the idea of the City turning people out in the cold weather is a heartless thing to think about, but said that she wanted to follow up on her two issues.   Vice-President Hood stated that there had been 188 separate communications since Mr. Kelly’s first complaint and said that Mr. Kelly must have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours dealing with this, as had the Department and said she could understand how staff might feel that Mr. Kelly was continually questioning their responses.  Vice-President Hood said that she thought there was a tremendous commitment in DBI to help people in transient hotels and homeless shelters.  Vice-President Hood stated that she hoped Mr. Kelly would understand that the BIC really does care about these people and want them to be safe and treated adequately, fairly and with respect. 

President Santos asked about the 5^th Street property and asked Mr. Hutchinson if this property was with Code Enforcement.  Mr. Hutchinson said that was correct and typical with any permit process they would need to file the plans and show where the occupants would be housed; then that would require review by the Fire Department.  Mr. Hutchinson said that DBI would have to be in agreement before a permit would be issued.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that the request was in Code Enforcement for lack of compliance because DBI found overcrowding as Mr. Kelly alleges. Mr. Hutchinson said that if there were any violations the Department would take steps. 

Vice-President Hood asked if these buildings have sprinkler systems.   Mr. Hutchinson said that he believed they did. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Kelly about the 525 – 5^th Street property and asked Mr. Kelly if he wanted DBI to put these people out on the street.  Mr. Kelly said that he wanted the law enforced on 5^th Street as the law is not enforced and said that contrary to what Mr. Hutchinson said the 50-foot rule as contained in the Administrative Bulletin did apply to 5^th Street.  Mr. Kelly said that the City Ordinance 365-87 was approved on September 9, 1987 well before the shelter began operations.  Mr. Kelly referred to Administrative Bulletin AB-046 and said that it was first promulgated by the Department in 1989 and the shelter complied with the provision of that law at that time because they got a temporary provision for an emergency shelter.  Mr. Kelly said that there was no question about the law applying to M.S.C. South because the law went into effect in 1987 and the shelter did not begin operations until 1990.  Mr. Kelly stated that both A.B.-046 and A.B.-029 says that shelters existing prior to 1987 will be per Code in effect at time of approval so that means that the shelter since 1987 has to comply with the administrative rules.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission got that, but said that the other thing that he did not like about Mr. Kelly’s conversations was his allegations of the Department being very rude and having no respect for homeless people.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that if DBI was like that people would’ve been out in the streets a long time ago and said that obviously that is completely wrong.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought the Commission had spent enough time on this and said that the Department could look into the issues. 

Commissioner Romero said that in looking at the amount of times the Department has had to deal with this he felt that the Commission should uphold the Department’s decisions on this and that this would be the end of it.   Commissioner Guinnane said that he would agree.

Commissioner Romero made a motion that the Commission uphold the Department’s decisions on this matter.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had gone down to the 8^th Street property and spent three or four hours there and had gone through ten years of permits regarding Mr. Kelly’s first complaint to the Commission about no C.F.C.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that then the Department was ready to issue the C.F.C. and then Mr. Kelly does not want that; he wants one thing and then another. 

Commissioner Romero stated that he felt that Commissioner Hood was being very generous in suggesting what Mr. Kelly’s motivations are, but said that in any of Mr. Kelly’s correspondence there was no preface of any kind saying that Mr. Kelly was looking at the care of the folks that are in the shelters.   Commissioner Romero said that the only two things that he could see that would come about by filing charges against a homeless shelter is that they would not be allowed to shelter homeless folks or that it would diminish the amount of people in these shelters.  Mr. Kelly said that they would have to comply with the law.  Commissioner Romero said that the Department is saying that Mr. Kelly’s interpretation of the law is not correct and said that his motion says that the Department’s interpretation of the law is correct and as far as the Commission is concerned this matter should be closed regarding this issue.  Mr. Kelly asked if Commissioner Romero’s motion included all of his letters.  Commissioner Romero said that was correct. 

Vice-President Hood said that before a vote was taken she wanted to hear from the public. 

President Santos asked Commissioner Romero to restate his motion.   Commissioner Romero said that his motion would be that the Commission would uphold the decision of the Department in terms of the interpretation.  Commissioner Romero asked what Code that would be.  President Santos said that it would be the Administrative Bulletin of 1991.  Mr. Hutchinson said that it would be a body of evidence based on meetings with Laurence Kornfield from Technical Services, with Alan Tokugawa, Director Chiu, Amy Lee, Wing Lau, Hanson Tom, Leo McFadden and Carla Johnson.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that field staff looked at this and staff was in agreement that the buildings met the letter of the law and that they pre-dated the 50-square foot rule.  Acting Director Hutchinson said that staff had an ongoing dispute over this with Mr. Kelly and unfortunately staff had been unable to satisfy Mr. Kelly or put this to rest.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he wanted the Commission to know that he had been referred to the State Attorney General’s Office and the District Attorney regarding this issue so there was still a part of this that was going to be ongoing over some records that were alleged to have been destroyed.

Secretary Aherne said that the Commission should take public comment.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he would agree with Commissioner Romero’s motion and the intent of it.   Mr. O’Donoghue said that Mr. Kelly comes before the Commission and makes a great case, but at the same time Mr. Kelly wants his cake and eat it too.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Mr. Kelly is saying that DBI must enforce the law, but the Episcopal Sanctuary has housed homeless people for 20 years and assuming it was in violation of the law, which it is not, the homeless people would be put out on the street.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that for Mr. Kelly to say that he was doing this to help the homeless because he is inspired by the Works of Mercy as the church teaches is very disingenuous.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this would be like him saying he was going to arrest somebody because it would be for their protection and said that this is what the Nazis basically said in World War II and that protection ended up being the concentration camps.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was using this absurd conclusion because that is the essence of this case; 61 letters were sent to DBI and the Department has spent too much time on this case already.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it was a tribute to democracy that this Department was created and Mr. Kelly could get a public hearing, exceed the three minutes and engage in a debate.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that if anything speaks for the greatness of this Commission it is that the Commissioners have allowed this dialogue, but said he totally disagreed with Mr. Kelly.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it was time to bring this case to closure even though he could respect Mr. Kelly’s tenacity.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he respected tenacity and people like Mr. Kelly who come to a meeting to speak out on issues because there is not enough of that at these meetings.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this has to be balanced out and said that this is being done at great cost because at some point it looks like this person is operating on a vendetta. He is operating on a vendetta because he does not like the homeless shelter next to where he resides, if he resides close by.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that what makes him question the credibility of this case is when Mr. Kelly made the accusation that Jim Hutchinson was unprofessional; he never made the case, but came in and impugned the reputation of the Acting Director.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that anyone who has dealt with Mr. Hutchinson, as the public knows, it is not in his nature to be hostile.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it might be in his own nature as he is a street fighter and makes no bones about it, but Mr. Hutchinson is the epitome of diplomacy.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the motion should be accepted after public comment.

Assistant Director Lee said that she was glad that this issue came up because it ties in with some of the budget issues.   Ms. Lee said that the chronology of this issue begins in August 2003 with daily, weekly, monthly and yearly letters and meetings and those letters and meetings took up staff time.  Ms. Lee said that this issue is just one of many that the Department has to constantly deal with and no permit fees are generated; it does not have to do with inspection of new construction, remodeling or plan checking, but it is a service that is provided by the Department. Ms. Lee stated that it took over 15 senior staff members to deal with Mr. Kelly and that was staff making salaries of $80,000 or more.  Ms. Lee said that this highlights and illustrates what DBI staff does on an everyday basis and said that probably 40% of staff time is spent on complaints.  Ms. Lee said that when there is a complaint investigation staff goes on a site visit, there is follow up, letters, documentation and research.  Ms. Lee stated that this sort of situation highlights many of the activities and demands placed upon DBI. 

Acting Director Hutchinson said that he wanted to make a clarification before Mr. Kelly would speak.   Mr. Hutchinson said that the discussion that Mr. Kelly was having about 525 – 5^th Street being subject to the 50-foot rule, the Department did write a letter on October 18^th going into excruciating detail about how there was a Genesis for a law to take effect.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that it did not take effect until the Department wrote it in 1991 and gave Mr. Kelly the rationale as to why legally it did not apply retroactively.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department had made its best-case efforts and reported that the Department had done 120 activities on this issue. Mr. Hutchinson spoke of numerous meetings with Mr. Kelly and said that he and Mr. Kelly were in disagreement; Mr. Kelly and the Department are in disagreement over how to interpret the law, but DBI is the best authority for interpreting that law. 

Vice-President Hood said that she did a quick calculation and said that she figured the Department had spent $50,000 in staff time on this.   Ms. Lee indicated that the amount was much more. 

Vice-President Hood said that she would second the motion made by Commissioner Romero.

Mr. Kelly said that a small fraction of the communications that were written in this case would not have been necessary if the Department had issued a decision following his complaints that were in accordance with the law.   Mr. Kelly said that it was only after Mr. Hutchinson became involved in this case that this case has gone in the direction that it has where the Department has refused to enforce the law.  Mr. Kelly said that it took from July when he first filed the complaints until September to get a decision from Mr. Hutchinson concerning those complaints.  Mr. Kelly stated that the Department did not comply with his public records requests and had the Department complied he would not have had to go to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to get the Department to comply with his request, which in fact they were not cooperating.  Mr. Kelly said that because his communications were met with resistance in regards to compliance with the law it required him to go to the task force.  Mr. Kelly stated that the task force issued two different orders of determination findings significant violation of the Department in public records law.  Mr. Kelly said that he was going to take it that the Commission had read his December 16, 2004 letter and were rejecting his claims and deciding to support the Department as far as compliance with the law was concerned.  Mr. Kelly said that he wanted to reply to Mr. O’Donoghue’s comments and said that he had never been referred to or compared to a Nazi.  Mr. Kelly said that he would not make this personal.  Mr. Kelly said that the plain fact of the matter is that if there was a law not being enforced, it should have been enforced and homeless people would not have been put out on the street; the law should have been enforced, period. 

President Santos said that Commissioner Romero had made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hood.

Vice-President Hood said she would like the Department to check the clarification of the way the Department evaluates square feet per person in homeless shelters especially in cases where there are stacked beds.   Vice-President Hood said that she wanted confirmation of the exiting at the facility where there were 40 people sleeping in the basement to make sure there are two means of egress.

President Santos asked the Secretary to take a vote on the motion.

The Commissioners voted as follows:

 

The motion carried unanimously. 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 001-005

7.

Review and approval of the minutes of the September 24, 2004 meeting.

President Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, that the minutes be approved.   The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 002-005

8.

Review and approval of the minutes of the November 1, 2004 meeting.

Vice-President Bobbie Sue Hood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, that the minutes be approved.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 003-005

9.

Review Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

a.       Inquiries to Staff.  At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.              

Commissioner Guinnane asked Acting Director Hutchinson if he had received the information about the number of applicants for Building and Housing Inspectors.   Mr. Hutchinson stated that he had numbers for the Housing Inspectors and that Amy Lee was checking on the Building Inspectors.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Housing Inspector’s announcement closed on Friday and there were 52 applications and of those 12 were women.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that the number might be deceiving as the Department had not gone through the applications to make sure that the applicants were actually qualified. 

Commissioner Guinnane did a comparison of the qualifications for a Building and Housing Inspector and said that the salaries are the same, but there were a few differences.   Commissioner Guinnane said that both classifications talk about an applicant having a B-1 license issued by the State of California, but the individual that holds that “B” license as a Building Inspector has to do a gross contract value of $500,000 a year and that is not required for the Housing Inspectors.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Building Inspector qualification also states that if someone is a licensed civil engineer or an Architect they would automatically qualify and said that this should be tied into the $500,000 contract value also.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought the process was flawed as these qualifications should be consistent and clearly they are not. 

Acting Director Hutchinson said that in setting the standard the Department looks at what the pre-existing standing have been and then works with DHR, and the employees groups because this is a meet and confer issue and then the Department tried to come up with getting the Housing more in kind with the Building.   Mr. Hutchinson said that this occurred back in 2001 and the Department just carried forward that standard.

Assistant Director Lee said that she had called Personnel and gotten the figures on the applicants for Housing and Buildings.   Ms. Lee said that for the Housing Inspectors there were 55 applicants, of those 11 were female, 44 were male and in terms of ethnic breakdown, 24 were Caucasian, 6 African-American of which there were 3 women and 3 males; there were 8 undeclared, 8 Hispanic, 7 Asian and 1 American Indian.  Ms. Lee reported that 4 of the applicants were from DPW, 5 from the Health Department 1 from PUC, 1 from the School District, 1 DBI and the remaining were outside individuals.  Ms. Lee said that in terms of the Building Inspectors there were 45 applications; 6 were female and 39 were male of which 29 were Caucasian, 3 African-American, 10 Asian and 5 undeclared.  Ms. Lee stated that from these applicants 3 came from DBI, 2 from Public Health Department, 2 from the School District, 2 from DPW, 1 from Muni and the remaining from outside.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how many applicants were from the Health Department and what those individuals did at the Health Department.  Ms. Lee reported that the Department would have to review each application, but stated that there were 5 applicants for Housing Inspectors and 2 for Building Inspectors from the Health Department.  Commissioner Guinnane said that these applications should be reviewed carefully because the freeze in Housing was put on a couple of years ago and said that he thought that the qualification of a Health Inspector had been taken out of the Housing Inspector job description.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that perhaps the Health Inspectors would be useful in the Lead Abatement Division because obviously that is a health issue.  Vice-President Hood said that she never understood why health people could transfer into DBI and said that there seemed to be a very tiny bit of overlap between a Building Inspector or a Housing Inspector and a Health Inspector, but it is very, very tiny.  Vice-President Hood said that in looking at the history of how this has worked as far as getting really good people into these Inspector positions in DBI she did not believe that it has been the best route for the best employees.  Vice-President Hood stated that she thought the best ones have come out of construction or the design fields.  Vice-President Hood said that there is a fairness issue here and then there is the competency issues, but said that the BIC could not take any action because this item was not calendared.  Vice-President Hood said that this would be a good item to calendar for a future meeting even though it would probably have to go through Human Resources.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this issue would have to go through Human Resources if there were any changes. 

Acting Director Hutchinson said that the Department had not gone through and screened any of the applications yet, but said that there is some expectation that the Department will continue with this process.   Mr. Hutchinson said that he could direct Human Resources not to further process the applications before the matter comes back before the Commission.  Vice-President Hood asked for a description of the qualifications for a Health Inspector and said that she did not believe that it would not overlap very much with the responsibilities of Housing and Building Inspectors.  Mr. Hutchinson said that years ago Health was a ticket by which people came over to DBI, but those qualifications have changed over the years.  Mr. Hutchinson said that if someone were coming over from the Health Department today they would have to meet the criteria which says that they would have to have some construction experience so that has tightened up quite a bit.   Commissioner Guinnane said that the way the positions were advertised it is not part of the qualifications to get into DBI; the advertisement just says that the minimum qualifications require two years whether someone is a Housing, Building, Fire and /or Health Inspector so if someone has been a Health Inspector for five years they would qualify.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that when the freeze was put on hiring in the Housing Division it was for the simple reason of collapsed decks and there were buildings that were completely rotten that had been inspected within the last 24 months.  Commissioner Guinnane said that obviously this was never caught in the inspection and that was his concern with putting on the freeze.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he would hold off taking any action at this time and asked if this would be for the Building Inspectors also.  Vice-President Hood said that she thought it would be both Housing and Building Inspectors. 

Commissioner Ting said that it would be helpful for him to know what the Personnel guidelines are and what process needs to be followed in terms of altering job descriptions.   Commissioner Romero asked if he could get copies of the requisitions minimum qualifications.  Vice-President Hood said that all of the Commissioners should get copies.  Secretary Aherne said that she would mail copies of the Inspectors qualifications along with those of the Health Inspector to all of the Commissioners.

Commissioner Ting asked if the documentation for the meetings could be sent to the Commissioners earlier than the Friday before.   Secretary Aherne said that it would help her if she received the documentation earlier and said that she would work with Acting Director Hutchinson and DBI staff to get the meeting package to the Commissioners as early as possible.

Commissioner Ting asked about City Attorney’s appearing at the BIC meetings and asked if there was a set guideline for the City Attorney to attend.   Commissioner Guinnane said that it was for Closed Sessions and Secretary Aherne said that the City Attorney is present if there is an appeal before the BIC.  President Santos said that it could also happen at the request of the Commissioners particularly if there is a sensitive subject.  Vice-President Hood stated that the BIC used to have a City Attorney at every meeting and this was done for the first five years, but it was really a large bill.  Vice-President Hood said that at some point the Secretary and other people in the Department could answer most of the issues that came up so it did not seem to be a good use of money and the Commissioners decided to have the City Attorney representative present on an as-needed basis.   

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that he wanted to put the issue of the Housing Inspectors into perspective and said that when DBI was created it was created under the model of the General Motors plan.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that in General Motors staff moved horizontally through departments and never stayed in one position.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that then staff was moved vertically when they moved up the ladder and this created a better Manager. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Housing Inspectors were given the opportunity to go into the Building Inspection Division so that the Inspectors could cover both divisions.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that for that to happen the Housing Inspectors needed to gain knowledge that would allow them to be Building Inspectors and said that most of the Housing Inspectors came from the Health Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it was then decided to hire Housing Inspectors from the construction industry.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Housing Inspectors write a lot of reports, unlike the Building Inspectors and the Building Inspectors are not much intensified with the Code Enforcement interpretation, as are the Housing Inspectors; they are two different disciplines.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the problem was that the Department went to the construction industry, but only to the carpenters, which was traditionally all white males.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that by making the qualification for the Housing Inspector carpentry experience the Department has excluded all other disciplines in the construction industry, such as plumbing, sheet metal, painting and the whole works.   Mr. O’Donoghue said that he could make the argument that a plumbing background would be more important for a Housing Inspector than a carpentry background.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this put the qualifications into one section and then this created a discrimination factor by excluding others.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there are very few women carpenters and very few black women carpenters.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this has diminished the ability of African-American women to come into the Department as Housing Inspectors.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he knew one of the people that applied and said that she would not qualify, a black lady, as a Housing Inspector.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department needs to rewrite the qualification aspect to open this up to all construction.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he was the leading representative for Local 400 at Civil Service Commissions in the 1960s and said that the whole of the examination process was brought to a halt when they set the test for 7,000 limited tenured employees.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that those examinations that were given were discriminating simply against certain minorities and matters like that.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Civil Service Commission took unprecedented actions by putting a freeze on to straighten the mess out and they did straighten it out.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that DBI would be straightening out a slight problem because the Department can always hire on a temporary basis while preparing for a permanent list.

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 asked when the Department planned to have the budget over to the Mayor’s Office.  Secretary Aherne said that the next meeting would be on February 7, 2005 so there would be ample time for the budget to be heard the required two times before the Commission.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to put some items on the calendar.  Commissioner Guinnane said that one of the items discussed in today’s meeting was new cars coming on board and said he wanted to check into the Department being able to purchase an extended warranty.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to know what kinds of cars the Department was getting as he felt small Ranger pick-up trucks would be better than cars. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had some items that got derailed because of 80 Natoma and said that there were some issues with vertical/horizontal additions with defective foundations and an Engineer in question named James Li.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that there were over 50 projects and said that the Department was going to get back to him to let him know how many of these projects had the same kind of detail.  Commissioner Guinnane said that on a separate he had requested that the Department go back and see if there was a pattern with other Engineers using the same kind of detail.  Commissioner Guinnane said that clearly the detail that was approved by the Department and what was put in place for the buildings was defective.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought the Commission should address this issue by notifying the property owners in the future with defective foundations. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to get the issue of the Building and Housing Inspectors solved quickly because of the number of jobs in the pipeline.  Acting Director Hutchinson said that he would come forward with a process for how the Department could go about changing the qualifications, bring it before the Commission and then take it back and work it through the process.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he had no problem with Health Inspectors, but said that perhaps they could be put into the Lead section. Commissioner Guinnane said that the only other problem he had with the Building and Housing Inspectors would be to try and tie in the General Contractor with the Engineer and the Architect and have the $500,000 requirement apply to all three. 

Vice-President Hood said that the Department would have to be careful how this was stated because she understood that to mean that the construction budget had to be $500,000, not the fees of the Architect because that would exclude a great many Architects.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the requirement is the gross income of $500,000.  Vice-President Hood stated that this amount would make sense for a Contractor, but said that probably 80% of Architects in San Francisco do not make $500,000 so that would really be discriminatory. 
 

11.

Adjournment.

Vice-President Hood made a motion, seconded by President Santos that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 004-005

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,



________________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary