2.

3.

4.

 

Acting Director Hutchinson welcomed the two new Commissioners and stated that it had been suggested at previous meetings that the Department report on statistics on a biweekly basis, as most people do not realize the volume of work that comes through DBI.   Mr. Hutchinson reported on the Customer Service Division and said that he was very proud of this service because, unlike many City departments, at DBI when a customer walks in the front door they immediately find the Customer Service Desk with staff in red blazers to help answer questions and to walk customers through the building or even take them to Planning.  Mr. Hutchinson said that there were over 1,500 interactions with the public seeking information in the past two-week period.  Mr. Hutchinson said that in the Central Permit Bureau there were over 2,000 permits issued and CPB received over 825 applications.  Mr. Hutchinson reported that in the Plans Approval Division where Tom Hui is the Deputy Director it was evident that there has not been a drop off in the amount of work and DBI has seen a strong economy. 

Mr. Hutchinson reported on the four inspection programs, Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Housing.   Mr. Hutchinson stated that in Building there are approximately 20 districts and those Inspectors did over 1,750 inspections in the past two weeks.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he would not go into detail on the rest of the programs because the figures were in front of the Commissioners, but said that he appreciated the public recommendation to come forward with this information.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this would be part of the Director’s report from here on in.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he wanted to start off by saying what a wonderful job former President Rodrigo Santos and Vice-President Bobbie Sue Hood did while on the Commission and said that he wanted to thank them for a job well done.   Mr. Karnilowitz congratulated new Commissioners Ephraim Hirsch and Frank Lee on their appointments.  Mr. Karnilowitz talked about Channel 26 and how important he thought it was for these hearings to be accessible to the public through the Government Channel.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that he thought that the Planning Commission meetings should still be televised and suggested that perhaps advertising could pay for the meetings to be televised.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that he thought it was very important for the public to know what is going on and urged the Mayor and whoever the powers may be to implement some way of bringing in the funds to have the Planning meetings televised again.

5.

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

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he was present to respond to obstacles such as appeared in today’s Chronicle, which seemed to imply because special interest groups exist that somehow or other that was a disfavor to the public.  Mr. O’Donoghue said the Mayor’s Office had decided to make DBI the target and had used the Chronicle through misinformation to malign this Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that several contractors sued this Department, including the City and the Controller’s Office to put back funds of $10M, which was taken from DBI.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Mayor’s Office criticism was that this Department was exercising undue influence.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that when hearings were called before the Board of Supervisors, not one single instance of undue influence was found exercised by any member of the staff, any Commissioners or any members of the public.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that as he indicated previously that 98% of permits are approved in 30 days, which is the best in the State and 94% within 48 hours and asked where would the undue influence be.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the remaining 2% of permits that are not approved within 30 days belong to RBA members, so if as was implied by the Chronicle that undue influence had been exercised, the RBA has not being doing a very good job as watchdogs for getting influence for their members.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it takes RBA members months to get their permits out, including the big developers.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that if permits are not issued in time, then that uncertainty is what drives business out of San Francisco and big developers are moving out of the City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that uncertainty has crept into the systems and that is a bad indicator for the construction industry.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that not one of the RBA members had bought a lot in the last year-and-a-half and said that the health of this City depends on a healthy construction industry. 

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he is a frequent customer of DBI and said that he also applied for permits in many other jurisdictions.   Mr. Karnilowitz said that DBI is one of the best departments there is because everybody within the Department is very accommodating, friendly and helpful.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that the permits do get issued quickly unless notification, surveys, soils reports and other such things are required and of course those things are going to take more time.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that he has experience in other jurisdictions, but said that DBI is really one of the top ones in California. 

There was no further public comment.

6.

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 welcomed the two new Commissioners and explained that there was a lengthy discussion held at the last BIC meeting regarding the budget as the Department is required to have two hearings before the Commission before submitting the budget to the Mayor’s Office.   Ms. Lee said that she would follow-up on some of the questions from the last meeting and then go over the budget in general if needed. 

Ms. Lee said that Commissioner Guinnane had some questions about DBI’s fleet of cars and the service maintenance contracts associated with new purchases.   Ms. Lee reported that she had spoken with Darrell Burton, the Administrative Services Director, and said that Mr. Burton would be happy to come before the Commission to discuss other car issues.  Ms. Lee reported that all new cars do have a maintenance contract that ranges between 3-5 years depending on the type of car purchased.  Ms. Lee said that as a result any repairs or maintenance required during that time would be taken care of by the car manufacturer or dealer without any cost to the Department.  Ms. Lee said that any repairs done by Central Shops are on cars that are beyond the maintenance contract period.  Ms. Lee reported that with new purchases of vehicles it is negotiated by the brand of car purchased and the quantity Citywide.  Commissioner Guinnane said that what he wanted to explore was getting extended warranties on the vehicles beyond the manufacture’s time to bypass Central Shops completely.  Ms. Lee stated that she discussed that with Mr. Burton and Mr. Burton said that this would not be cost effective as the extended warranty is so expensive.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department’ car expenses have gone down because the Department has started to replace most of its cars.  Ms. Lee said that with the new budget cycle of car replacements DBI would not have any cars older then five years old and in the past the Department had vehicles as old as 12 years.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he still thought the warranties would be less expensive than servicing the cars through Central Shops.  Ms. Lee said that Mr. Burton could come to a BIC meeting and give a detailed report.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was also interested in the Department getting small Ranger pick-up trucks that would be more efficient for the Department versus cars and said that the trucks would be better for parking issues.  Ms. Lee said that she had worked with the Inspection staff regarding new vehicles and said that the Department did not need a whole fleet of trucks because the parking issue is really limited to the downtown area.  Commissioner Guinnane asked about a budget item referring to leasing vehicles.  Ms. Lee said that the item was for when the City decided to have all the departments lease from the City itself and have everyone participate in a carpool. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about the City Attorney’s bill and said that it looked like the Department was going to run over what was allocated versus what was actually spent and asked about an item for life insurance.   Ms. Lee said that she believed that the life insurance had something to do with worker’s comp, but said that she would get the details for Commissioner Guinnane.  Ms. Lee said that Commissioner Guinnane had asked about a cost-benefit analysis of the City Attorney’s Work Order and said she had included that in the Commissioner’s meeting packet.  Ms. Lee reported that in looking over the past couple of years it was a loss.  Ms. Lee stated that in looking on the pure profit base, it was a loss to the Department using the City Attorney to move forward in trying to help DBI enforce the Code.  Ms. Lee said that the numbers she provided in the July 1, 2004 report show on average that the Department is losing about $1M comparing what DBI had collected and the expense of the City Attorney’s Office.  Ms. Lee said in this fiscal year it would probably be a profit because of the AIMCO settlement.  Ms. Lee said that it would be up to the BIC to decide if there is public policy separate from the pure profit/loss analysis, to pre-empt people and encourage them to comply with all the Building Codes.  Ms. Lee said that in backing out the Jimmy Jen case the Department collected $1.8M, but the work order with the City Attorney was about $2.9M so backing out the cost of $1M for the Jen case it would still be a net.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department has to also look at the penalties collected by DBI staff that is separate from the involvement of the City Attorney.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to keep those two items separate and did not want to mix what the City Attorney’s Office collects with what DBI collects. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked what the City Attorney’s fees are for.   Ms. Lee said that because DBI is a Special Fund Department, DBI gets billed by the hour on the work that the City Attorney does for the Department.  Ms. Lee stated that most of the work is work that DBI refers to the City Attorney, as most of it is Code Enforcement and less than 20% is actual advice on the operations of the Department, Administrative Decisions and Personnel Advice.  Ms. Lee said that the Department does not get charged as much by the City Attorney as a downtown attorney would charge.  Commissioner Ting said that otherwise the Department would have to hire a private attorney on its staff.  Ms. Lee said that the Department did not have the authority to do that in the Charter and said that the Department does not have the authority to seek outside counsel unless there is clear conflict.  City Attorney Judy Boyajian confirmed that very few departments could hire outside counsel without the permission of the City Attorney.  Commissioner Hanrahan asked about the cases that are won by the City and why the attorney fees were not passed along to the losing party.  Ms. Boyajian answered that there is not a system in the U.S. courts where the prevailing party automatically gets the attorney fees, however, in Code Enforcement cases and Housing cases the Department can get penalties and attorney’s fees.  Commissioner Ting said that this was a cost of doing business and said that he thought it was helpful to have a City Attorney present at the BIC meetings to give advice.  Commissioner Fillon said that the main reason for legal action was to keep in the minds of people that if they break the law there are consequences. 

Ms. Lee continued to report on the budget and spoke about the three main programs in the Department, the Permit, Inspection and Administration programs.   Ms. Lee explained that some of the numbers were kind of deceiving because last year DBI transferred $5.4M to the Planning Department and that was not happening this year.  Ms. Lee reported that the Department was proposing a supplemental appropriation for increased staffing for new projects and because there is a backlog of 1,000 applications.  Ms. Lee said that there were almost 2,000 permits that are behind 30 days or longer. 

President Hirsch asked about quality control measures and how that worked.   Ms. Lee said that about two years ago the Department implemented a quality control measure to make sure DBI is effectively accomplishing its mission and stated that there is a standard checklist of things that Plan Checkers should look for depending on the type of project. Ms. Lee said that about 5% of all the applications that were approved are reviewed to make sure the Plan Checker who reviewed the plan did not miss certain issues and that the approval is complete. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to go back to the $5.8M in last year’s budget for Planning and stated that he wanted the new Commissioners to be aware that DBI did not transfer the money, but the money was taken from the Department.   Commissioner Guinnane said that there was pending litigation on that money for 2004/2005 and 2003/2004 totaling almost $10M.

Ms. Lee said that the Commission Secretary had provided the new Commissioners with a lengthy detailed justification by program, per staff requested.   Ms. Lee said that in the Administrative program the Department was seeking staff to do analysis and staff for the Public Services Division because most of that staff had been temporary “as-needed” staff and it is obvious that the Public Services Division needs permanent staff.  Ms. Lee said that in the 3-R Department turnaround time has been increased due to lack of staffing. 

Commissioner Lee asked about the budget for the Commission.   Ms. Lee said that it has been nominal as there is only the Commission Secretary and an Assistant Secretary. 

Ms. Lee gave the Commission highlights of the budget including:

 

*

Revamping of the entire computer system to move forward with a system for the future to get a coordinated system for all permitting agencies.

 

*

Justification for more employees due to an increase from DBI’s individual customers, but also from City agencies, such as the PUC, the Port and especially the Bayview Hunter’s Point Shipyard transition.

 

*

Succession planning for DBI staff and the level of expertise needed to conduct tasks.

 

*

The General Plan for Bayview Hunter’s Point parcel “A” is done, but there are over 100 buildings to be reviewed to abate deficiencies with in 5 to 7 years.

 

*

Anyone is free to file for a permit, but City projects are not pushed ahead of the general public without the supplemental.

 

*

Changes will be received during the budget process and the Commission will be kept informed of any changes.

 

*

Remodeling of the first and second floors at a cost of $1 - $3M.

 

Commissioner Guinnane thanked Ms. Lee for her presentation.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that the projected revenue for the Department was $40M and the projected expenses are also $40M, but said that there is not really a nexus between the total $40M of projected expenses and the revenue.   Mr. O’Donoghue said that the building industry was subsidizing expenses such as lead abatement enforcement and code enforcement that are not related to the nexus of remodeling permits.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the industry does this willingly, but gets no credit for that and said that the industry also subsidizes complaints.  Mr. O’Donoghue explained that the General Fund does not have to pay any of these expenses and said that this $40M of revenue generates $3.4 billon in cost valuation and approximately 1% of that goes for the general sales tax to the General Fund.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is the cash cow for this City because the $3.4 billion of valuation then becomes anywhere from $6.8 billion to $10 billon when the buildings are finished and sold.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that then there are property taxes of 1.1% and this is what generates an awful lot of the General Fund obligations.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is not understood by the general public or even by the Controller’s Office because the City has never hired an economist to explain this.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the building industry wants quality control by the Department having trained inspectors and said that it is self-interest groups that have pushed DBI for the benefit of San Francisco.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that unlike the Planning Department the building industry has done a good job with DBI, but SPUR and the Chamber of Commerce have not done a good job with Planning.  Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.

After much discussion it was decided to have a Special BIC Meeting on February 14, 2005 to give the new Commissioners more time to review the budget.   Assistant Director Lee explained that the budget would have to be to the Mayor’s Office by February 21, 2005 and it would take approximately 10 days for staff to enter the figures into the system. 

There was no further discussion on the budget.

7.

Discussion and possible action regarding the Commission’s request to review projects      submitted by Project Sponsor James Li and other contractors with respect to foundation permits. [Commissioner Guinnane, Manager of Special Projects Hanson Tom]

Mr. Hanson Tom said that he was requested by Deputy Director Tom Hui and Acting Director Jim Hutchinson to present this case.   Mr. Tom stated that this case had been heard about six months ago, but would give some history for the benefit of the new Commissioners.  Mr. Tom explained that this project was concerning an existing foundation with a very tiny add-on foundation that did not have a lot of reinforcement.  Mr. Tom showed a drawing of a vertical addition designed by Engineer James Li for 4109 Irving Street.  Mr. Tom stated that Tom Hui, now Acting Deputy Director, was the Plan Checker assigned to review all of James Li’s projects six months ago and said that the Department spent a tremendous amount of time to identify which of Mr. Li’s projects were of concern.  Mr. Tom said that the Department was concerned about a foundation system due to a vertical addition to an existing building and stated that there were some 40 projects that met the criteria.  Mr. Tom said that DBI staff looked at any vertical, horizontal, or vertical and horizontal additions.  Mr. Tom reported that there were 17 projects of horizontal additions, one vertical addition, 17 projects that have vertical and horizontal additions and two projects that were related to the replacement of foundations.  Mr. Tom said that there were also three projects that were creating a parking garage.  Mr. Tom stated that as a result of the investigations on those projects he summarized that most of the horizontal additions usually have new foundations that meet the Code requirements; there were no projects issued with the foundation details shown in the approved plan of 4901 Irving Street; there were approximately nine projects, vertical and horizontal additions with existing foundations where the size was not identified.  Mr. Tom said that the Department would look for the size detail on all future projects and said that a team had been created with then Commissioner Santos, Pat Buscovich, Tom Hui, Director Chiu and Jeff Ma to review the entire report.  Mr. Tom showed an example of what the nine projects where the size was not identified looked like.  Commissioner Ting asked how Mr. Tom first became aware of Mr. James Li.  Mr. Tom stated that he had been requested by Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau to take a look at this project that was reported for having gone beyond the scope of the permit.  Mr. Tom said that he was surprised that the project had been approved by the Plan Checkers so he suggested to the Deputy Director that the job should be stopped.  President Hirsch asked if Mr. Tom found fault with the approved detail.  Mr. Tom said that was correct and said that he was asked to look to see if there were other jobs that had a similar detail.  President Hirsch asked if Mr. Tom found other violations of the intent of the Code.  Mr. Tom stated that fortunately the Department did not discover that type of approval of detail anywhere other than 4109 Irving. 

President Hirsch asked Mr. Tom to go over the detail to show what was insufficient.   Mr. Tom said that in looking at the detail there was no identification of the existing foundation size and said that the add on foundation was only 12 inches into another expansion with the enforcement four feet on center which is a very small reinforcement.  President Hood asked if there were any calculations provided for this.  Mr. Tom said that there were no calculations and said that he thought the calculation did not calc out the foundation’s capacity.  Mr. Tom said that in looking at this out in the field he felt that this really was not substandard detail. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that originally he was out driving around on a Sunday and observed demolition at 4109 Irving Street that he thought might be unlawful.   Commissioner Guinnane said that Director Chiu then gave him a set of drawings on the property and that was when the Commissioner discovered this foundation detail.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he conferred with Commissioner Santos about this detail and it was concluded that the foundation detail approved was inadequate.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that Hanson Tom tried to tell him that there was rebar in the existing foundation, but said that when he, Director Chiu and Wing Lau looked at some of the foundation removed, there was no rebar of any kind.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Department never caught this defective detail, but said that he was the one who discovered this defective foundation.  Commissioner Guinnane said that at a previous meeting he asked Mr. Tom how this got approved and Mr. Tom told the Commission that this was an isolated case and was an error in the Department.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Mr. Li also appeared before the Commission and acknowledged that he had three engineers in his office that follow this standard detail.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that this was why he went back to the Department to see if there were any other jobs like this with Mr. Li.  Commissioner Guinnane said that when he queried the computer system he pulled up 50 such jobs all with the same foundation detail, yet the Department tried to tell him that this was an isolated case.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he asked Mr. Tom to do a random check in the bin on vertical/horizontal additions on other engineers to see if they were doing the same detail.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Mr. Tom told him absolutely not, but at 788 Victoria the project sponsor left the old battered walls in and showed rebar in the embedded walls, but there was no proof such as a core sample or an x-ray. Commissioner Guinnane said that as far as he was concerned 4109 was the start of a huge problem in San Francisco and said he believed it was not isolated to one job.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he believed that there were over 40 such jobs and other engineers that have approved and designed this same detail.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that it was his position that those foundations that were approved by the Department with three-story floors on top of them are not in compliance and are in violation. 

Hanson Tom said that there were no guidelines in the Department on how to do a vertical addition, but because of this incident he issued a guideline.   President Hirsch asked what the guideline was and Mr. Tom said that the guideline was included in the Commissioner’s package. President Hirsch said that it was not the concept of the detail that was in question, but how it was carried out in this particular case.  Mr. Tom said that he wanted to clarify a few points and said that he did not say that there was reinforcement in the existing foundation.  Mr. Tom stated that what he did say was that there were some very minimum details showing the reinforcement being added from the new into the existing.  Mr. Tom said that he did not have the data Commissioner Guinnane had showing that he found 50 such properties and said he would be the first one to take a look at those details and identify what kind of deficiencies were present.  President Hirsch said that these details might be perfectly okay if calculations back them up.  Commissioner Guinnane continued to questions the nine properties that had no details where this type of foundation system was used.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was not an engineer and asked President Hirsch about a situation when someone stacks a three-story building on a foundation where the load factor is; is it at the narrowest point of the wall or does it carry down to the spread footing.  President Hirsch said it would be the spread footing because concrete is stronger than soil. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that believed that there were nine projects with deficiencies or no calculations identifying the existing foundations and asked what the remediation would be.   Acting Director Hutchinson said that he thought the Department should go back to these nine buildings and sit down with the Engineer to answer Commissioner Guinnane’s questions. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department does not design the building, but does check it and said that it was incumbent on the design professional to provide a design that is safe and Code compliant.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department would meet with the Engineers to see if there is a course of action appropriate whether that is a violation requiring repairs, or a soils report with justification saying that it is safe because at the end of the day the building has to be safe. 

Commissioner Hanrahan said that she wanted to know who would bear the cost of any repairs.   Commissioner Hanrahan stated that she felt that the homeowner or property owner was at a disadvantage.  Acting Director Hutchinson said that he thought that when a homeowner enters into a contract with an engineer and a building contractor the end liability would be on the professional, if it is wrong a the City agrees to check these properties for minimum safety.  Mr. Hutchinson said that if there was an error he did not know if the City would have any liability for that or not. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that when James Li was in front of the BIC Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Li questions about the details and Mr. Li acknowledged that this was a standard detail.   Commissioner Guinnane stated that he queried the computer and came up with 40 jobs done by Mr. Li with the same foundation detail and said that he thought it was the Department’s duty once this was resolved to notify the property owners of a possible defective foundation.  Acting Director Hutchinson said that he would agree and said he wanted to make it clear that the Department was not picking on James Li.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that this particular engineer submitted a design that the Department found substandard which triggered the Department to go back at look at not only Mr. Li’s projects, but to look at other’s projects as well.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if DBI found any similar details to Mr. Li’s and asked if Mr. Tom had gone back and done a random bin check to see if others were following the same detail.  Mr. Tom said that he did last August and said that in looking at the vertical additions there were about 20 projects at that time that had to be revised.  Mr. Tom stated that he did not find any projects that had the same detail as Mr. Li’s, but said that some were close.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he had done the same kind of a check and found engineers that have used the same detail and said that he could not find the same information. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Tom how that type of foundation would be capsulated if the project is on the property because if someone tries to capsulate it they would go over the property line next door.   Mr. Tom showed various types of foundation details.  Commissioner Guinnane said that one of the examples that Mr. Tom showed would take a lot of time because someone would have to shore or temporarily underpin the wall.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it would be cheaper to completely remove the battered wall and put in new foundations.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Department would encourage that versus doing the kind of detail Mr. Tom was showing.  Mr. Tom said that it was up to the engineer of record.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was happy with the detail of beefing up these foundations compared to the old detail that was being approved because obviously it was not adequate. 

Acting Director Hutchinson said that in the case of 4109 the party was going to come in with a demolition permit and a new building permit rather than an alteration.   Commissioner Guinnane said that he had been concerned because he did not think that 4109 was an isolated incident and said that he wanted to demonstrate that it was not isolated, but was an ongoing problem.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Mr. Li said that all of his jobs had the same detail and said he could not see how the Department was stuck with nine when he was able to discover many more. Mr. Tom said that when he first spoke on this issue he said that he hoped that 4109 was an isolated case, but did not say that it was the only case.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he remembered Mr. Tom saying it was an isolated case and blamed an engineer from Technical Services who had checked the foundation detail who had no experience and that was how this detail was approved.  Mr. Tom said that he did not say that and said that Commissioner Guinnane should look at last year’s record.

Mr. Tom said that as a result of this investigation the Department was now implementing a policy to correct this from happening again and said that he had extensive discussions with engineers, outside professionals, the Code Advisory Committee and all engineers in the Department.   Mr. Tom said that he wrote a letter on April 23 that shows the guidelines and said that the Department would require field tests from the engineer of record. Commissioner Guinnane said that it should be mandatory that field tests be done on the old foundations.  Acting Director Hutchinson said that this had been an ongoing discussion that was put off a few times and said he appreciated that it was finally coming to a head.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he would work with Hanson Tom and Tom Hui to make sure that when an engineer says that they have an existing foundation, there is something to prove they have that foundation.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Commission was proactive and hands-on and said that he appreciated the help that staff received on this issue, on unlawful demolitions and any number of issues that comes from the Commission to do a better job.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department would go back to the homeowners where the Department thinks there might be deficient foundations and get the issues resolved to make the buildings safe.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this could not have been done without Commissioner Guinnane’s efforts.

Mr. Tom Hui spoke about what the Department looks for in the foundations and said that in doing vertical additions the Department would have to look at the Richmond or Sunset in particular because when those properties were built sand was used and mixed with the concrete and that is why it is disintegrating.   Commissioner Fillon said that if the Department were going to require the public to verify the strength of their footing he would encourage DBI to come up with standard things that people can equate a price to when they are thinking about remodeling their homes.   Commissioner Fillon stated that the standards should be easy to understand and the structural engineers should get a handle on how much this would cost so that the public knows.  Mr. Hui said that there were two types of testing, one that is very expensive.  Mr. Hui said that this would require taking a core sample of the concrete to have it tested.  Mr. Hui said that the other method would be an impact test to test the strength of the concrete and that is a fast and easy method.  Commissioner Fillon said that he just wanted to make sure that whatever the Department requires should be clear and perhaps the Department should do a handout in the lobby that states specifically what DBI will require when the customer’s plans come before plan check. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about problems where there is a conflict when a Plan Checker checks the plans inside and then does the inspection outside himself.   Acting Director Hutchinson said that guidelines had been put in place to have the Managers monitor that because there had been problems with respect to that in the past.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was one instance where there is still an ongoing investigation.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he has stipulated that with 4109 Irving Street the Department made a mistake because the Department does rely on professional engineers to provide DBI with Code complying plans.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he thought everyone was in agreement that this particular project fell through the cracks and said that the Department would go back and revisit the nine others.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Hutchinson thought that because Mr. Li was a former employee of DBI there was any favoritism given.  Mr. Hutchinson said that former members of the Department have an intimate knowledge of how DBI works, but stated that DBI had instituted a Professional Code of Conduct, has had meetings and talked to staff about preferential treatment and has let staff know that conduct of that nature is unacceptable.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he was proud that these problems were brought to the light of day to be dealt with and said that the Department would continue to do a better job.

Ms. Sue Hestor said that she was glad that Commissioner Guinnane was pursuing this issue because there is a huge incentive for people to not show a demolition in San Francisco or California because of Proposition 13 and rules on demolitions.   Ms. Hestor said that at the Planning Commission and in the neighborhoods there is a real cynicism about statements that something can be built on an existing foundation.  Ms. Hestor stated that people are doing site permits because the standards for a site permit are grossly reduced.  Ms. Hestor stated that she did not know whether the Planning Commission threw up their hands in horror about four or six weeks ago on a project where the plans had been drafted and representations were made about where certain things were in the lower unit, and it came out that the engineer who drafted the plans had never been in the unit.  Ms. Hestor stated that the Planning Commission got epileptic.  Ms. Hestor said that this is a very serious matter and said that the BIC needed to work with other Commissions regarding building additions.  Ms. Hestor thanked Commissioner Guinnane and the Department for looking into this and said that the BIC should work with the Planning Commission on this issue.  Ms. Hestor said that she thought that there needed to be staff training in the Planning Department. 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association (RBA) said that the RBA were the ones along with Commissioner Guinnane that started an investigation prior to the present administration taking office, because it started during the Brown Administration.   Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the RBA went to the Federal Government concerning some of the issues and said that some of those issues are still out there waiting to be resolved because the RBA did not know with specificity whether or not those cases will involve criminal liability.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that if an engineer or an architect chooses to lie to the Plan Checkers then they could only believe what is on the plans submitted.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he did not think Hanson Tom was responsible for what was happening.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the engineer of record on the Irving Street property found the methodology, either to put or convey misinformation, which then became credible or he had someone working with him in concert within the Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this was not prevalent as 98 – 99% of all people out there abide by the law; there are always the scofflaws who decide to break it.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Planning Department put some conditions on demolitions and then de facto demolitions started up in the community.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was the one that called it de facto demolitions whereby people in order to get a building improved decided that they would try to reduce it to the point where it was, in fact, a demolition.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is where the abuse comes in so if the BIC is going to work with the Planning Commission the Commissions have to recognize that if too many constraints are put on people’s ability to be able to expand for their families and other needs then there are going to be violations of the law and people pushing the envelope to the edge and beyond it.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Building Inspection needs to work with Planning, but the Planning Department has to be educated to work with the needs of the people.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this issue has still not gone away and said that the RBA is still working with Federal authorities.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Hanson Tom had done an excellent job in the Department. 

8.

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.

 

a.

Memorandum dated January 10, 2005 from Todd Rydstrom, Director of Budget & Analysis and Peg Stevenson, Director of City Services Auditor to James Hutchinson, DBI Acting Director and Dean Macris, Acting Planning Director regarding User and Development Impact Fee and Service Charge Studies for the Department of Building Inspection and City Planning Department.

 

b.

E-mail dated February 2, 2005 from Assistant Director Amy Lee to Todd Rydstrom, Director of Budget & Analysis  regarding participation in the RFP Panel.

 

c.

Request for Qualifications to Provide Fee/Rate Calculation Study and Related Financial Services, RFQ #CON2005-2, dated January 24, 2005 sponsored by the Office of the Controller.

 

d.

Memorandum dated January 25, 2005 from Acting Director Jim Hutchinson to All DBI Staff regarding Permit Processing Code of Conduct.

 

e.

Letter dated January 25, 2005 from Acting Director Jim Hutchinson to Honorable Aaron Peskin, Board of Supervisors regarding Implementation of Recommendations for Compliance with the Comprehensive Lead Poisoning Prevention Ordinance by the Department of Building Inspection.

 

f.

Memorandum dated January 14, 2005 from Victor Yong, Land Use Committee, Board of Supervisors to the Building Inspection Commission regarding Legislation Introduced, File No. 050054.  This is an Ordinance amending the Subdivision Code by amending Section 1359 with clarifying language and providing a grandfather provision for specified two-unit building where the owner won in the 2001 condominium conversion lottery but failed to convert at that time.

 

g.

E-mail dated January 31, 2005 from Acting Deputy Director Tom Hui regarding Peer Review Panel for 80 Natoma Street.

 

h.

The BOMA San Francisco ADVOCATE dated January 27, 2005.

 

i.

Copies of thank you letter received from the public commending DBI employee and Acting Director Hutchinson’s response letter to the public.

 

Commissioner Fillon explained that typically the BIC does not cover each of these items unless there is a particular item that a Commissioner might want to discuss or a member of the public.   Assistant Director Lee said that she wanted to comment on Items 8a through 8c regarding a fee study for DBI.  Ms. Lee reported that at a previous meeting the Commission voted not to participate in the fee study, but said that she had subsequently been informed by the Controller that this is not something that the Commission or the Department can choose to participate in or not.  Ms. Lee stated that under the Charter Section 3.105, the Controller’s Office will conduct a fee study and the Department must participate.  Ms. Lee said that she informed the Controller that the Department would be cooperating.  Commissioner Fillon asked if the Department would be required to pay for the fee study.  Ms. Lee answered that the Department was required to budget $100,000 and said that she could not explain why the mandate was not provided to the Department or the Commission. 

Acting Director Hutchinson referred to Item 8b and said that Ed Harrington had sent an e-mail to Assistant Director Lee and looking at that e-mail would give a false impression of what occurred. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Department invited one of the Directors from Mr. Harrington’s office to come and testify before the BIC because everyone had questions.   Mr. Hutchinson said that at that time both he and Amy told the Controller’s Office that they had been provided instructions by the Commission that DBI was not going to be part of the study, however, the Controller’s Office was invited to a BIC meeting and there were several meetings in the office.  Mr. Hutchinson said that not once did this individual tell the Commission that the Charter mandated this process.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he did not think that Assistant Director Lee should have gotten this e-mail as DBI has always been cooperative with the Controller’s Office and had the Department and the Commission been told that this was mandatory this highly insensitive e-mail would not have been necessary.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that he thought this bordered on harassment and said that it was disrespectful to women managers in general in the City.  Mr. Hutchinson said that Amy did contact the Controller’s Office and the Department is going to work with them.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that the staff person who came to the BIC meeting was very ill prepared.   Commissioner Guinnane said that DBI is very prudent and that is why the Department has money from year to year.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that about four years ago the BIC and the Department did look into studying the fees of other jurisdictions and found that San Francisco was probably the lowest.  Commissioner Guinnane said that with this recent presentation the Commission was never told that this was mandatory under the Charter.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commissioners gave Mr. Rydstrom a tongue lashing about wasting $100,000 and said that it would not go along with the study. 

Acting Director Hutchinson said that the Department did a fee study a few years ago and the Planning Department decided that they would try to set a fair level for what services cost.   Mr. Hutchinson stated that it ended up that fees for a homeowner for example replacing a window skyrocketed and as a result the press was in the lobby and it was on the evening news that night.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department collects fees from businesses and homeowners and those fees subsidize inspectors going into residential hotels, following up on complaints, lead abatement and many works outside the scope of plan checking and inspections.  Mr. Hutchinson reported that many works are done in the community where the Department does not get any fees.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he was concerned that the fees could go into a system that would be up-ended where a homeowner’s cost could triple or quadruple.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that when he meets with B.O.M.A. or other people downtown they constantly tell the Department that San Francisco’s fees are the lowest among other agencies they deal with in Northern California and that they are even willing to pay more to get more services.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that the $100,000 could be used more wisely in the City, but if the Department is mandated to do it the $100,000 should be allocated to do a study to give better service on the permit issues. 

Acting Director Hutchinson said that he would like to have a choice.   Assistant Director referred to Attachment “C” and said that an R.F.P. had already been drafted and was posted right now about what the gist of the study is going to be.  Commissioner Fillon said that the Department should cooperate and be as helpful as possible.  Ms. Lee said absolutely, a DBI staff member would sit in on the R.F.P. process.  Commissioner Fillon said that he appreciated the professional way the Department was dealing with the Controller’s Office.

Commissioner Guinnane asked about item f and asked how many units were going to come under the grandfathering provision.   Commissioner Guinnane also asked who introduced this legislation other than the Land Use Committee.  Secretary Aherne reported that it was Supervisor Peskin who introduced the legislation.  Assistant Director Lee said that the amount of units bordered between 500 and 2,000 and said that this was the exception to the requirement of, or the legislative initiative on the Board’s part of requiring two-unit buildings to be part of the City lottery.  Ms. Lee stated that this was a way to not be unfair to present owners of two-unit buildings and to protect those rights of the protected tenants and senior and elderly tenants.  Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that there had been some litigation over some of the recent ordinances passed by the Board around conversions and tenants in common.  Ms. Boyajian stated that some of the people were disadvantaged by the timing so this would allow them to convert and at this time this is just advising the BIC.  Secretary Aherne said that Acting Director Hutchinson had sent this proposed legislation to the Code Advisory Committee and it would come back to the BIC with their opinion and be on a later agenda for action. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about item g and the peer review for 80 Natoma Street.   Acting Deputy Director Tom Hui reported that he had not been able to contact the Professor who is heading the peer review. 

Commissioner Fillon said that he wanted to announce that Mr. Norman Guiterrez had received a letter of commendation for his work and said that he would like to thank him for doing a good job.

Acting Director Hutchinson said that on item d the Commissioners had in their packet the Code of Conduct.   Mr. Hutchinson stated that this had been distributed to all DBI staff and was posted in the building.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department continues to work with the Controller’s Office regarding the Standards of Conduct and this is ongoing and changing.  Mr. Hutchinson said that in Mr. Nothenberg’s report he made it one of his main concerns that the management of the Department needed to speak out against preferential treatment.  Mr. Hutchinson said that preferential treatment was not allowed within the Department of Building Inspection and stated that management had made this very clear; this is a consistent message that goes out to all managers.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he hoped that other City agencies would use this as a tool to look at their own needs; DBI has now set the bar because this Department is eliminating preferential conduct and staying on top of this concern.  Commissioner Fillon asked if there was an accompanying workshop or training session that went with this code.  Mr. Hutchinson answered that the Department was developing the second piece of this, which is an internal bulletin that will be circulated.  Assistant Director Lee said that this item would come before the Commission for  discussion because it has serious implications to the way the Department handles permits. 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that regarding preferential treatment the RBA would be going to the ballot in November.   Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the RBA had never lost an issue when going to the ballot for Charter reform and said that his organization wanted reform that will eliminate preferential treatment.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that no case was ever demonstrated before the BIC and none would ever be, but said that the EBA found out preferential treatment was given to people over in the Board of Supervisors’ Office and the Mayor’s Office.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was presently writing up the language and would be seeking the signatures from the public to qualify stating that under no circumstances can any member of any Board of Supervisors or the staff contact any department head or departmental staff including any Commissioners; this would include the Mayor’s Office.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was finding that Planning is dominated by Aaron Peskin and his wife and also Supervisor Maxwell is a visitor of the Planning Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that DBI has gotten calls from various Supervisors’ aides in the past to move permits forward and said that this was not fair.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that unfortunately when Barbara Kaufman was Board President she initiated Charter changes that led to more interference without retribution on the various elected bodies in the City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the legislation that he would be proposing would be total independence to not only Commissioners once appointed, whether by a Board member or by the Mayor, to act independently as they should, have and hopefully will do in the future and this will apply straight across the board.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that with Department heads Aaron Peskin will call up Planning and ask for someone to appear before the Board stating that he is in charge of finance and if his wishes are not followed the Department will not get their budget approved.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is a huge weapon and an intimidation factor going beyond coercion.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that clean government is necessary and said that the RBA would start back at the grass roots, at the basic levels, to improve efficiency which can only be improved by ensuring the Department’s total independence. 

Secretary Aherne said that the Commission should return to item #2.   Commissioner Fillon said that he thought the Commission should wait for Commissioner Romero to be present.  Commissioner Guinnane said that since the Commission was having a Special Meeting next week this item could be included with the budget.  Ms. Aherne said that she thought that the election had to take place at the first meeting in February, but the City Attorney advised that if the Commissioners wanted to continue the election they could do so.  The Commissioners decided to continue item #2, election of officers. 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he welcomed the new Commissioners and suggested that either Commissioner Lee or Hirsch become the President of this Commission because from an industry viewpoint the industry wants stability and wants to get on with business.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he did not see any reason why the election should be delayed. 

9.

Review Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

 

a.

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

 

b.

Future Meetings/Agendas.  At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.

 

Commissioner Ting asked if at each meeting there could be an item regarding the various Committees within the BIC such as the Litigation Committee.   Secretary Aherne said that since Commissioner Santos was no longer on the Commission someone would have to replace him on the Litigation Committee so that would be an item for a future agenda.  Ms. Aherne reported that a general overview of the Litigation Committee meetings could be discussed at the BIC, but in general the Litigation Committee is held in Closed Session so most of the information is confidential. 

Commissioner Ting asked if at a future meeting staff could report on the availability of staff to help with those customers who speak a language other than English, such as Cantonese, Mandarin or Spanish. 

Commissioner Lee said that as a result of the discussion on item #7 he would like the Department to have an agenda item regarding what type of education program the Department has for the public regarding hiring grid architects, engineers and contractors.   Commissioner Lee said that he feels that DBI is in charge of safety and safety comes with a price because everything cannot be done on the cheap.  Commissioner Lee stated that it looked to him like there are too many contractors, architects and engineers that are trying to slip by and tell their clients that they can circumvent the bureaucracy at DBI.  Commissioner Lee said that he thought it was the Department’s responsibility to educate those people that they need to spend time or budget money for their projects to get a good product.  Commissioner Lee said that he would like to see an outreach program to teach the public how to hire professionals. 

Commissioner Lee said that he was going to make a statement that he hoped the Commissioners would not take out of context or misinterpret.   Commissioner Lee said that he was a little disturbed that the Commission did so much investigation into this matter and said it was a lot to ask a Commissioner to do to investigate these issues.  Commissioner Lee said that he wanted to know if there was a mechanism in the Department where the Commission can defer these problems.

Commissioner Fillon said that typically the Commissioners ask DBI staff at the BIC meetings to follow up on a particular issue and in this case Commissioner Guinnane chose to follow up on his own.   Commissioner Fillon said that this was a common practice for Commissioner Santos also.  Commissioner Lee said that this was a lot of work and said that it could take hours so he would like to see what type of resources are available to the Commissioners.  Commissioner Fillon stated that if there is an item that a Commissioner is interested in having staff follow up on, the Commissioner should just bring it up and the appropriate people will follow up on that and report back at the next meeting.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it does take a lot of time, but said that he likes to look at the property, the issues and the staff report because sometimes what is seen in a report is completely different to what can be seen out in the field. Commissioner Guinnane said that the unlawful demolition issue is just one example and said that a very select few have been doing this and getting away with it and that is why he has been adamant and strong about this issue.  Commissioner Guinnane said that since these items have been coming up at Director’s Hearings this practice has slowed by about 90%. 

Commissioner Ting said that he wanted to add to what Commissioner Lee said earlier and said that even though he is a Real Estate Professional he sits on the General Public Seat.   Commissioner Ting said that he found it hard to hire an Architect and a Contractor when he was doing a home remodel.  Commission Ting said that he thought is was important to provide that resource to the public and make them aware of what some of the pitfalls are. 

Commissioner Lee said that, lastly, he just wanted to say that he looked forward to working with all of the Commissioners in the next year or two.   Commissioner Hirsch said that he also looked forward to working with the Commission and hoped to make a contribution.

Commissioner Hirsch asked when the next meeting would be.  Secretary Aherne said that the next meeting would be a Special Meeting on February 14, and since February 21 was a holiday the next regular meeting would be held on March 7, 2005 as the BIC meetings are held every 1^st and 3^rd Monday of the month.  Ms. Aherne said that since the Commission meetings were switched to Monday’s there are about three times in the year when the meeting conflicts with a holiday.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he would like an agenda item on the next meeting to switch the meetings to Wednesday afternoon.  Ms. Aherne said that the problem with Wednesday afternoons was that Room 400 was not available and the hearing could not be televised; when the Commission wanted to have the meetings televised it was very difficult to get this slot.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he would still like it to be considered.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would strongly oppose any change as the Commission has been on Mondays for a long time.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that anyone who comes on the Commission has to work around the Commission’s schedule.  Commissioner Hanrahan said that she thought the consideration was deserved, but said that routine is important for public access.   Commissioner Ting asked if the Secretary could check into other times.  Commissioner Fillon said that there might be times opened up now that some meetings are not being televised.  Ms. Aherne asked if it was the Commission’s direction to have her check times that would be available to have the meetings televised.  Commissioner Hirsch said that was what he wanted. 

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


Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he wanted to welcome the new Commissioners.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this Commission regrettably involves some political decision-making because again it has become political, mainly because of appointments, which began with Barbara Kaufman and now Mayor Newsom’s agenda.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he wanted to commend Bobbie Sue Hood as she was, contrary to what the Chronicle said, not appointed by Mayor Willie Brown, but appointed by Mayor Frank Jordan.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that she was selected because she was a former President of the AIA, even though the AIA did not support the creation of this Commission.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that at time everyone knew that in order to make something function there had to be outreach and inclusiveness of everyone.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this was the policy at the time, but unfortunately, presently at the Mayor’s Office that does not seem to be the policy.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it was the same with Commissioner Rodrigo Santos who took his place on the Commission because the nominee at the time turned out not to be a structural engineer; he was a civil engineer.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Rodrigo Santos stepped into the Commission and did an excellent job.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Commissioner Guinnane did inspections and did not profit from this because he does not do any private contract work.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that any allegation or impression that Commissioner Guinnane was benefiting from these site visits was not true.

11.

Adjournment.

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

RESOULTION NO. BIC 005-05

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,



________________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary