Building Inspection Commission
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)
Wednesday August 1, 2001 at 1:00 p.m.
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
DRAFT MINUTES
The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by Commissioner Santos.
1. Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alfonso Fillon, President, excused Denise D’Anne, Commissioner
Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President, excused Esther Marks, Commissioner
Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner
Debra Walker, Commissioner
Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:
Frank Chiu, Director
Amy Lee, Assistant Director
William Wong, Deputy Director
Tuti Suardana, Secretary
2. President’s Announcements.
Commissioner Santos said that he did not have any announcements.
3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]
a. Report on SRO hotels that are affected by the new sprinkler ordinance.
Director Chiu said that item 3a was to give the Commission the list of SRO buildings or hotels that have been affected by the recently approved sprinkler ordinance. Director Chiu said that he believed that the Commissioners had received the package that lists more than 400 buildings that are affected because of this sprinkler ordinance. Director Chiu stated that he wanted to thank the Fire Department and DBI for working hard to put these lists together. Director Chiu said that no action was needed, as this list was for information only. Director Chiu said that there are two ways that this type of sprinkler ordinance requirement will be triggered. Director Chiu said it is triggered if there is any residential hotel building that has more than twenty units by itself, or more than two stories; in other words, hypothetically there could be a three or four unit residential hotel, but if it is more than two stories, that alone would trigger the sprinkler ordinance. Director Chiu said that was the reason why there are more than 400 buildings listed. Commissioner Santos asked if it had to be above the second floor. Director Chiu said that was correct.
Commissioner Marks asked if the ordinance included the Commission’s recommendation that the sprinkler system be tied to the alarm system and if there was going to be any financial help for the hotel owner. Commissioner Marks said that someone had mentioned that there were still funds available from the UMB issue. Director Chiu said that Supervisor Daley was frustrated with the progress of adopting this particular ordinance. Director Chiu said that the background was that Supervisor Newsom initially drafted this ordinance and there was a long period, over two years, of meetings and input from the public and the owners; while they agreed to look into potential funding from other areas this ordinance was so important that it could no longer wait for that kind of funding issue to be resolved. Director Chiu stated that the Board of Supervisors went ahead and adopted it without resolving the funding issues and basically the law is in place without any assistance for providing these particular sprinkler systems. Director Chiu said that at the public meeting, Supervisor McGoldrick was very concerned about any subsidies to the property owner for the installation of sprinkler systems and objected to any assistance or funding of any source. Director Chiu said that the law was passed by the full Board. Director Chiu said that, as to the sprinkler alarm system, that language is in the ordinance as Supervisor Newsom amended it to incorporate the Commission’s recommendation. Commissioner Santos asked when the buildings on this list will have to be in compliance or is there any process in place, such as in a handicap issue where someone can apply for a hardship, or is there no such avenue in this case. Director Chiu said that the law is clear, but does provide for the Fire Department and Building Department to work together as to the detailed requirements. Commissioner D’Anne asked if there were any penalties for not complying. Director Chiu said that the penalty would be that the Department would proceed with its regular abatement process if owners fail to comply with the ordinance, as with any other Building Code requirements or Fire Code requirements. Director Chiu said that if someone fails to comply with those within a certain period the Department would proceed with a Director’s hearing and then it would be referred to the Litigation Committee and eventually on to the City Attorney’s Office for Code Enforcement. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the Code was on the supervised system; is it one hundred heads and more or what is the minimum where the system has to be monitored full time. Director Chiu said that he was not knowledgeable in detail, but said that he was happy to see that a Fire Lieutenant and Fire Chief were present at the meeting and asked if they would answer the question.
Fire Chief Gary Massetani introduced himself as the Fire Marshall for the San Francisco Fire Department and said that in answer to Commissioner Guinnane’s question, it is one hundred heads or more. Chief Massetani said that in response to Commissioner Santos’ question on the survey, the Fire Department is working with the Department of Building Inspection compiling the list and will provide a physical survey to go through these buildings and see how many of the existing buildings today already comply with the new ordinance. Chief Massetani said that when that is completed the Fire Department would know how big of a task they have in front of them. Chief Massetani stated that as Director Chiu mentioned, on the list there are over four hundred buildings, and originally it was projected to be only about two hundred that might be affected. Chief Massetani said that they would not know how extensive this would be until the physical survey was done and the Fire Department hoped to have that done within sixty days. Chief Massetani asked if there were any questions that he could help answer. Commissioner Santos asked who would perform the survey. Chief Massetani said that it would be performed by the San Francisco Fire Department, Bureau of Fire Prevention. Commissioner Walker asked if the Fire Department would go through the records on the buildings and see which buildings would have to be surveyed. Chief Massetani said that it would be more of a physical inspection. Director Chiu thanked Chief Massetani and said that there are some buildings that are already partially, or fully, sprinklered, but when the Department was asked to run the list of those hotels affected by the ordinance, it will now have to be determined what condition each building is in; within the next two or three months the Fire Department will be busy going through the list. Director Chiu said that he wanted to thank the Fire Department for doing the actual physical, detailed work. Commissioner D’Anne asked if the Fire Department does periodic checks to see if these sprinklers are working after they are installed. Chief Massetani said that there is an annual inspection done of the buildings and also there is a five-year certification for the sprinkler systems.
Commissioner Marks said that the document says that compliance is required by June of next year and asked if that was correct. Commissioner Santos said that was a very aggressive schedule. Director Chiu said that it is very aggressive and stated that there was some public testimony at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting, particularly from the building owners, as they felt that the timing is just too short, but the Supervisors felt that this is long needed legislation. Director Chiu said that he was sure this would put a lot of burden on DBI and the Fire Department to try and resolve the buildings that will not be in compliance by that time. Commissioner Walker asked if this was going to stretch the Department as far as staffing is concerned, to get this done and continue with the regular housing and building issues. Director Chiu said that he was sure that it was going to have some impact on staff, but said that by the time this legislation is in front of DBI, the budget session will be almost concluded. Director Chiu stated that in the very near future, the Department will have to see what the impact is on staff, and the issue may have to be revisited with the Commission to see if the Department should go for a supplemental at a later stage. Director Chiu said that at this time he would not recommend any action, as the actual impact to staffing is still unknown.
b. Report on fire damaged Residential Hotels.
Director Chiu said that again this was just a FYI for the Commissioners as this list was provided as requested by Supervisor Newsom and Supervisor Daley, as they were very interested in finding out which SRO buildings have remained vacant. Director Chiu said that the Supervisors have asked the Department to provide a status update every three months. Director Chiu stated that there are thirteen buildings that are in the process of being repaired, brought up to Code and getting ready for occupancy. Director Chiu said that there are some buildings that have remained vacant, even though they were damaged by fire back in 1998 and 1999. Director Chiu said that under the current Code as long as the building is properly secured, while there may be some violations, right now there is no Code that mandates the Department to force the property owner to fix the property immediately. Director Chiu said that this is an area that the Commissioners need to think about for the future, as to what the Department wants to do. Director Chiu said that there may be some legal impact as to whether the owner can be forced to fix the damaged property. Director Chiu said that right now DBI is enforcing the Code that says if the property is vacated and is properly secured, with no problem with break ins, that is where the enforcement stops. Director Chiu said that some of the Supervisors are very interested in figuring out how to solve this issue. Commissioner Santos said that the property would have to be structurally secured as well. Director Chiu said that if there is eminent danger, the Department can do something to remedy that particular eminent danger, but if the property is properly secured, at this point, the Department does not have any additional mechanism to force the property owner to fix it immediately. Commissioner Santos said that the property owner could make the structural repairs and then lock it up and leave it. Director Chiu said that they just have to secure the property. Director Chiu said that maybe the Commission would want to do something in the future to work with the City Attorney’s Office to see whether there could be additional requirements to do something. Commissioner Guinnane asked Deputy City Attorney Judith Boyajian if it were possible to force someone to fix up the property if it is not declared a public nuisance, or there is no exposure to the occupants outside, or nobody living inside. Ms. Boyajian said that there are several cities that have enacted anti-blight ordinances, so just the fact that the building is just sitting there empty might be considered blight of some kind. Ms. Boyajian stated that Supervisor Bierman had tried to work on legislation that would force people to fix these buildings and there were not legal problems, but practical problems of people having to wait for their insurance and so forth. Ms. Boyajian said that she thought it could be done legally if it were done right.
c. Report on DBI outreach program including advertising.
Director Chiu said that he had a few handouts for the Commissioners to give them some background on news articles and billboards that were initiated several years ago. Director Chiu stated that he wanted to give the Commission this background as to how the Department does the outreach and a history of why DBI takes a proactive approach in doing more outreach. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Walker requested this particular item at the last meeting. Director Chiu said that many years ago, before the Department was created, when the Bureau of Building Inspection was under the Department of Public Works, the bureau was criticized for not doing enough to educate the public or informing the people as to what are some of the requirements, particularly a Code requirement, plans submittal or the inspection process. Director Chiu said that when the Department was created, under the direction of the Commission, the Department was told to do more outreach. Director Chiu said that this included the publication of brochures and booklets, or just to simply participate with the community at fairs or festivals. Director Chiu said that additionally, some of the Commissioners might remember, that the Department sought out non-profit organizations, particularly community based organizations, to help assist Housing Inspection Services to do the Code Enforcement outreach. Director Chiu said that within the Department, there are four or five different kinds of outreach. Director Chiu said that the FYI is issued quarterly and the brochures given out to the public are translated into multi languages. Director Chiu said that Department staff has worked hard to complete these brochures and stated that two or three years ago the Commission was concerned about decking with dry rot and so forth, and the Commission asked the Department to provide a publication and to do more outreach to educate the public. Director Chiu said that as a result of that, the Department issued a brochure on how to maintain and take care of decking and appendages. Director Chiu said the Department has budgeted approximately $100,000 for this kind of publication, brochures and so forth; additionally, the Department has the community based non-profit organization that assists the Department to do the Code Enforcement Outreach Program and this has been a very successful program. Director Chiu said that four or five different contractors have assisted the Department to do this, and the cost of this program is about $250,000. Director Chiu stated that within that component there is some advertising; additionally DBI staff on weekends or anytime the neighborhood communities hold festivals, fairs or even parades, has participated in these events. Director Chiu said that there is approximately $30,000 budgeted for these events. Director Chiu said that overall there is between $300,000 - $400,000 budgeted for outreach. Director Chiu stated that in his opinion, it is a good program because he believes that the Department could never overspend by doing more brochures and outreach.
Director Chiu said that recently the question came up about why the Department took out an ad on summarizing the DBI’s annual accomplishments. Director Chiu said that he wanted to remind the Commissioners that this is nothing new, in fact, the newspaper advertising was initiated two or three years ago as a result of the Chinese Progressive Association (CPA) complaining that the Department had not done enough to reach out to the community, or taking out ads to explain to the community about where to call if they have a particular complaint. Director Chiu said that the Chinese Progressive Association had asked him to spend, just within the Chinese Community, about $60,000 per year. Director Chiu said that he had to tell the CPA that there was no way that he could spend that kind of money on just one community. Director Chiu said that he had given the Commissioners a breakdown of some of the requests that the CPA had made, for example, they had asked the Department to do radio and TV in the Chinese Community. Director Chiu said that he felt there was no way that he could justify that kind of money for just the Chinese community and agreed to spend a portion of the money, but spend money in other communities as well. Commissioner Walker said that she did not see a breakdown of the total budget in the package. Director Chiu stated that he has asked MIS for that information, but at this time he was just giving an estimate. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to provide the total budget information. Director Chiu said that three or four years ago, and stated that perhaps Commissioner Guinnane would remember as he was the original founder of the Commission, in addition to the brochures and outreach, the Department did take out some billboard advertising. Director Chiu said that the Department paid for two or three billboards around the City to have people call DBI if there was a need. Director Chiu said that he was aware that Commissioner Walker had received some negative feedback. Director Chiu said that there have been three articles that have been run with the Independent Newspaper and the Examiner; the first article in April was about Housing Safety issues; the second was sometime in June on Earthquake Preparedness; and the last article was to thank the Commission, the staff and the Community by summarizing all of the accomplishments that the Department achieved during the fiscal year. Director Chiu said that those were the three main articles and the cost of those combined ads was about $3,000 each time they were run. Commissioner Walker said that her other question was about what criteria the Department used to decide where to run the ads, as she wanted to make sure that there was an acceptable process for choosing and would like to see how it ties to the budget. Director Chiu said that his goal is to spread the ads to all types of papers and the Department has advertised in local newsletters, and stated that he would like to spread the ads to the San Francisco Weekly, Bay Guardian or some other neighborhoods. Commissioner Guinnane said that there was $100,000 allocated for outreach. Director Chiu said that was for publications, brochures and outreach. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the package he had before him, it showed that DBI allocates $55,700 annually for paid advertising in the Chinese language media so more than one-half of the $100,000 is gone. Commissioner Guinnane asked how the Department allocates money to St. Peter’s Housing and the Housing Rights Committee. Director Chiu said that those are within the $250,000 - $300,000 that is set aside for those non-profits. Commissioner Guinnane asked how the Department knew how much goes to each party. Director Chiu said that there is a contract with those organizations, but stated that he did not have the figures in front of him at this time. Director Chiu said that within the component, part of that money is for advertising, and around April or May if those monies have not been spent, then Director Chiu said that he had asked Assistant Director Amy Lee if there was money left to do more newspaper outreach.
Ms. Lee said that before the contract period starts the Department does competitive bids by sending out the criteria that DBI would like these non-profits to fulfill in their outreach and, they in turn provide a bid. Ms. Lee said that the bids be scaled down depending on the costs associated, for example non-profit A will say that for $100,000 they can reach out to five hundred people, but if the Department cannot afford the $100,000 because DBI needs to address many different communities such as the Mission or the Tenderloin, the Department may say what about two hundred fifty people for $50,000. Ms. Lee said that is how the money gets distributed and that is based on her input, as well as other staff members, and based on the proposals. Commissioner Walker asked if that same process was done for the publications. Ms. Lee said that the publications are done through the City’s Reproduction Department and DBI cannot go outside to say Kinko’s to get it done cheaper. Commissioner Walker said that she was talking about the newspapers, TV and radio advertising. Ms. Lee said that there are not that many newspapers in the City or television stations to do that big of a competitive bid. Ms. Lee said that the Independent is favored because everyone gets it, it is a local free newspaper and the decision to go with the Examiner this time was because they gave the Department a better rate and the Chronicle was more expensive. Ms. Lee said that is some of the decision factors that come into ultimately deciding where the advertising will go.
Commissioner Guinnane asked how the actual money that goes to the Housing Rights Committee and St. Peter’s Housing is monitored and how does the Department know that they truly spend that money for a certain function. Ms. Lee said that the organizations provide monthly invoices to the Department and the program people in Housing forward it to her after their review and she reviews it as well. Ms. Lee said that if they were supposed to outreach to two hundred fifty tenants over the year, they should be doing outreach to at least 20 tenants per month. Ms. Lee said that they provide program justifications every month, invoices detailing what portion of that is attributed to salaries, administrative expenses, etc. Commissioner Guinnane said that his biggest concern is that this money is not going into upper level, large salaries and is actually being used in the way it was intended. Ms. Lee stated that when she reviewed the contracts she sat on the bid process and made sure that the money is not going to high administrative salaries. Ms. Lee said that many times it will be .4% of the Director and one of his staff persons in the non-profit and the Department does monitor that activity. Commissioner Guinnane asked if he could get a breakdown of what goes to those two organizations. Ms. Lee said that she would be happy to provide the information and asked for a clarification of the organizations. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted the information for the Housing Rights Committee and St. Peter’s Housing. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Department gave anything to the Apartment House Association. Ms. Lee said that yes, the Department did. Commissioner Guinnane asked for that information also. Commissioner Walker asked if she could have a copy of the same information in addition to the budgetary breakdown of the whole advertising and PR. Ms. Lee said that with St. Peter’s and Housing, they are sub-contractors and the money goes primarily to Tides, which is a non-profit and then gets broken down to Housing Rights and St. Peter’s. Ms. Lee said she thought that the reason this was done is that Housing Rights and St. Peter’s, as great organizations that they are, they are fairly small and don’t have the abilities to make themselves non-profit for official status and tax purposes, and that is why this is done.
Commissioner D’Anne asked if there was a staff person that does PR. Ms. Lee said yes. Director Chiu said that the Department does not have a full time staff person who does only PR. Director Chiu said that there is a designated person that sort of screens all of the calls and did not want to say that the person does nothing but PR. Director Chiu said in response to the question, yes, the Department has a person who does PR, but as a result of the Sunshine Ordinance requirements, there are numerous requests for records and documentation and the Department, for the last several years, has had somebody to coordinate all of these requests including the media requests. Commissioner D’Anne asked if this person did press releases on different items. Ms. Lee said that most of the press releases are done through the Mayor’s Press Office. Ms. Lee stated that DBI might draft something and send it to the Mayor’s Office and they will release it officially. Ms. Lee said this year there has been no reason for the Department to have an official press release.
Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of Residential Builders said that when the Commission was constituted over much neighborhood opposition especially from the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, SPUR, the Chamber of Commerce, the AIA, the Building Trades Council and in fact, the Chinese Contractor’s Association, $100,000 was budgeted for promotion purposes because they knew that lying in the high willows would be the enemies of the Commission. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commission was breaking with tradition so the $100,000 was to do a promotion to demonstrate the accomplishments that the Commission would attain in the future. Mr. O’Donoghue said that one of the first accomplishments was the heating ordinance, which had been passed in the very early seventies, but had never been implemented. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the first thing the Commission did was, as a result of the creation of this Commission and the promotion, every tenant in this City got heat; the heat ordinance was finally implemented. Mr. O’Donoghue said that landlords were made aware of the penalties and tenants were made more aware of their rights. Mr. O’Donoghue said that in that sense the promotion of the Commission was extremely important. Mr. O’Donoghue said that when the Department created the over the counter permit process, twenty four hours, which benefited 90% of the applicants, and considering that the Department processes about 50,000 permits in all, the consumers and residents paid for the advertising and paid for the funds that make this Department work. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that not one nickel comes from the general fund. Mr. O’Donoghue said that therefore, it became incumbent, as he remembered at hearings years ago, as the over the counter permit process was being created, to educate the public about the process and about the fact that they did not have to hire a plan expediter or an attorney. Mr. O’Donoghue said that this was done through the process of promotion. Mr. O’Donoghue said that in answer to Commissioner Walker’s question, the reality is that this has been done though neighborhood papers, as the Chronicle can generally cost $10,000 and up to $40,000 a page for an ad, but at the same level the Mission News will charge $15,000 and that covers all of the neighborhood newspapers so that every community in the entire City is reached, including Bay View. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Independent, the Weekly, and the Bay Guardian are then separate, but the Bay Guardian has equal rating to the Independent so then it is a matter of choosing the newspaper that represents those that the Department are trying to reach. Mr. O’Donoghue said that there always needs to be fine-tuning, but so far the program has been absolutely successful and objective.
4. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
There was no public comment.
5. Report on the status of MIS regarding online permitting and complaint tracking. [Assistant Director Lee]
Assistant Director Amy Lee said that before she went into what is currently happening she wanted to go back and talk about the history of online permitting and complaint tracking so there is a better understanding of the entire issue at hand. Ms. Lee said that there have been some delays. Ms. Lee reported that last year in early January, 2000 the Department took the initiative by itself to seek out vendors who could help DBI go online with permit processing, specifically for electrical, plumbing and building permits. Ms. Lee said that from January on to early March, the Department had been working with different vendors to see how they could provide the services needed; towards the end of March the Department received a phone call from the Tax Treasurers Office stating that they were doing a City-wide initiative for online services for City-wide issues that would include paying water bills, parking and traffic, getting a death or birth certificate at Health Department, and asked that DBI stop discussions with other vendors and be part of this City-wide process. Ms. Lee said that it would be good for the City because, while the City cannot profit that much when it comes to obtaining a death certificate, the DBI portion would provide more lucrative fees for any potential online vendor. Ms. Lee stated that the City signed a contract with NIC/BAI and they went ahead and started to work with different departments to help them go online. Ms. Lee said that this was probably in May when those negotiations were happening. Ms. Lee said that DBI worked up until October with BAI to help get online and they were able to get familiar with the DBI system and the PTIS system to understand what the mechanics were because it got complicated. Ms. Lee said that by October, 2000 DBI officially had the ability to provide online permits for electrical and plumbing permits, but did not advertise it too much as the Department wanted to make sure that there was a select group of users who could provide feedback to help find any errors and make changes and improvements as a result of that feedback. Ms. Lee said that the plan was then to release this for mass distribution. Ms. Lee said that unfortunately, by early this year, January 2001, there was a repriortization with BAI as they were working with several City departments and they decided that they needed to halt some of the work with DBI and focus on getting the Tax Treasurers online services out and about faster, and also the Health Department and the water bills with PUC. Ms. Lee said that they stopped working with DBI and there was a lapse of time at that point. Ms. Lee stated that while all of this was going on, DBI was still working on the back end with MIS staff and still talking to BAI staff to try and get them to continue to work on DBI issues. Ms. Lee said that what happened with BAI, as happens with many companies, they turned over three times and DBI has worked with two or three different Directors at BAI and three different technical people because they have such a high turn over. Ms. Lee said that was one of the main reasons there was such a delay in getting DBI’s online services. Ms. Lee stated that once BAI got a new technical person, DBI would have to reeducate that technical person with the system again and he would have to figure out where the last person left off and the process ended up going on and on. Ms. Lee stated that DBI was still able to issue permits and still working with a select group of BETA testers to provide permits for plumbing and electrical.
Ms. Lee said that DBI is at the point right now where official hard launch dates have been set, which means that the marketing of the program has been completed, all the testing of it has been completed; so for electrical permits DBI is expecting a hard launch date of August 6, where all of the marketing will be completed by August 30; for plumbing permits the hard launch date and marketing end date of September 3; simple building permits will be provided on line as well as the marketing by September 3. Ms. Lee said that the Department would be able to provide 3-R reports online by August 21 and be able to launch a complaint logging system by August 20. Ms. Lee said that one of the unique things about DBI’s online permits, unlike other jurisdictions such as San Jose and Los Angeles who provide online permits, and initially what DBI was thinking of doing as well, was more of a queuing system where a citizen or customer would submit an application at 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon; all of the online requests would be batched up by the end of the evening and the next morning a staff person would go into the system, pull it out and still do the permit as if it were a counter request. Ms. Lee said that the applicant would then receive a permit by the next business day or the next two business days. Ms. Lee said that this was DBI’s initial model, but after working with BAI and as MIS staff people were doing some of the development, it was decided to take the extra time and have the permit issued instantaneously. Ms. Lee said that unlike all other jurisdictions including Arizona who is known for having quite a fancy system, DBI’s system would be the only one that would provide instantaneous permits. Ms. Lee said that this meant that once the applicant submits a request for an online permit the information gets automatically fed into the PTIS system and then the PTIS system double checks and the applicant is able to print out the permit within the next minute or two. Ms. Lee said that this was another reason for the delay in permit processing, as this system took a lot longer, but the developers and the City-wide group felt that this was something the Department should try to aim for. Ms. Lee said that right now there is user fee of $5.00 per transaction for an online permit application and these are still the BETA testers; they pay $5.00 per transaction and they are able to pay their online permit fees with a credit card. Commissioner Walker asked if they actually scan in their drawings and submit them to the Department. Ms. Lee said that these were very simple, as with electrical and plumbing often there are no plans required. Ms. Lee said that the building permits online would be simple as well, such as reroofing, etc. Ms. Lee stated that the system is not able to do the permits with the plans right now, as that is more complicated. Commissioner Walker asked if these were checked by somebody in person or is it a standard permit that gets cross-checked in some way. Ms. Lee said that the clerks pull all of the online permits at the end of the night and provides a copy to the inspectors. Commissioner Santos asked if a repair permit could be obtained, such as a dry rot repair. Director Chiu said that the Department’s goal is to incorporate all building permits that don’t require plans, such as dry rot or kitchen or bathroom remodeling. Director Chiu said that San Francisco is probably the first City where the customer can apply for a building permit instantly rather than having a couple of days delay in the processing of it. Director Chiu said that online should be instantaneous because otherwise it is just like using a fax machine where the application is faxed and someone completes the process. Director Chiu said that is one of the reasons that this is taking a long time.
Director Chiu asked when the complaint tracking would be launched. Ms. Lee stated that the complaint tracking would be launched on August 20, and the Department is still working out different issues with that. Director Chiu said that he would have to admit that he was as frustrated as everyone else in the room, because initially the Department’s goal was to have a launch date sometime last year in late December or January; and again as a result of not having 100% control over the vendor because the vendor has to service other City departments. Director Chiu stated that he has threatened three times to fire these people, but he could just threaten them, but couldn’t really fire them because they are part of the City vendors. Director Chiu said that Amy and he were frustrated with the time delay. Ms. Lee said that the Department, at several times, also extended the testing period because this is a construction industry and the people that were looking to get the online permits may not be as computer savvy as the Department would like. Ms. Lee said that at first there were not enough users to make the Department feel comfortable that there would not be any kinks in the system. Ms. Lee said that the Department did, at several points, extend the BETA testing and that was another reason for the delay. Ms. Lee stated that there have been several reasons for the delay, and said that she was not making excuses, but unfortunately, they were beyond DBI’s control. Ms. Lee said that she felt that it was a smart decision to wait, especially with being able to do the instantaneous permits.
Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of Residential Builders said that the industry, as well as any industry, has its scam artists and its people who will try to pull fast ones. Mr. O’Donoghue said that as DBI sets up the process, which makes a lot of sense because of parking problems and delays in terms of long lines, the Department needs to ensure that the inspection process is beefed up especially with an online permit like this. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department needs to make sure that the inspection is done, as given the creativity of people, he could envision all sorts of weird things coming from this whole type of thing. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the inspection process the cost, the amount and the value of that work needs to be monitored, and could probably necessitate a new division being created within the Department. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he could see a whole new industry cropping up out of this and stated that he would not want to see the abuses that could happen.
6. Discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance amending Volume 2, Chapter 16, Section 1605.4.3 of the San Francisco Building Code regarding Seismic Forces. [Director Chiu]
Director Chiu said that Mr. Laurence Kornfield requested this item as Laurence’s division handles Code amendments and changes and these are two or three minor changes that need to be corrected. Director Chiu asked for Mr. Kornfield to come forward and explain exactly what the changes would be. Director Chiu said that the Commissioners had a copy of the draft ordinance that was prepared by Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian.
Mr. Kornfield introduced himself as the Chief Building Inspector with the Technical Services Division. Mr. Kornfield said that what was before the Commission was an emergency amendment requested by various members of the public including the Structural Engineers Association who brought this to DBI’s attention that there is an oversight in the Code when the revision was done a couple of years ago. Mr. Kornfield stated that basically the correction would say that buildings that were damaged in an earthquake, when they are repaired, would not have to meet current Code standards, which is actually almost impossible for old buildings in many cases. Mr. Kornfield stated that they would be required to meet approximately 75% of the structural standard that is applied to many other buildings. Mr. Kornfield said that the Department is trying to conform to the same structural provisions that have been used for many years for the upgrading of existing buildings. Mr. Kornfield said that to take an old build, especially a damaged building, and try to make it meet 100% of today’s Code is virtually impossible. Mr. Kornfield said that this was an oversight when DBI rewrote Chapter 16 and Chapter 34 of the Code even though all of the other issues were picked up. Mr. Kornfield said that the concern and the reason there is an emergency legislative change before the Commission is that if there is an earthquake before the Department can go back and review the Code in its entirety, the Federal Government, FEMA, will hold San Francisco to the standard as it is currently written in the Code, and will require all buildings to meet this Code of 100% upgrade or they won’t provide FEMA funding to the City. Mr. Kornfield said that this was being done as an emergency change while at the same are the Department is proceeding under the CAPSS program, the Community Action Plans for Seismic Safety, to reconsider in general, what the repair standards are and should be. Mr. Kornfield said that the Department will be coming back to the Commission within the next year or so with a consensus of the community, building owners and engineers as to how the standard should be rewritten. Mr. Kornfield said that for the moment the Department wants to plug the hole, so that if there is an earthquake before any further standards are written, this is covered.
Commissioner D’Anne asked if these standards would cover health and safety issues. Mr. Kornfield said that this was strictly a structural standard, so that if a building is structurally damaged the repair of the structure of the building has to meet either the 75% standard or the standard that was in effect when the building was built, whichever is the higher standard. Mr. Kornfield said that it does not really affect other health and safety issues, as it is strictly a structural issue.
Commissioner Santos asked if there was any action that the Commission needed to take on this issue. Director Chiu said that this needed to be approved and moved on to the Board of Supervisors.
Commissioner Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker to recommend the proposed ordinance amending Volume 2, Chapter 16, Section 1605.4.3 of the San Francisco Building Code to clarify that damaged buildings will not have to be brought up to 100% compliance with current seismic requirements when repaired.
The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 5 to 0.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC-039-01
7. Discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance on banning
wood burning fireplaces and similar devices. [Director Chiu]
Director Chiu said that this item was being brought before the Commission once again because Supervisor Chris Daley is ready to reintroduce it. Director Chiu said that to summarize, this ordinance would prohibit the installation of wood burning stoves and other devices where typically wood or other fuel cannot be burned, and would prohibit any remodeling, such as a horizontal additional, that would include adding a fireplace; this would also prohibit a fireplace in new construction. Director Chiu stated that there is one type of fireplace that would be acceptable and that is a fireplace certified by the Northern Sonoma Air Pollution Control District. Director Chiu said that he asked Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield to research exactly what this meant. Director Chiu said that this particular item was heard in October or November of last year and at that time, the Commissioners expressed concern about this item and the Department also has concerns. Director Chiu asked Chief Inspector Laurence Kornfield to give an update as to what meant by the certification of this Northern Sonoma Air Pollution Control District and stated that other members of the Code Advisory Committee are concerned about this issue. Director Chiu said that his understanding was that Supervisor Chris Daley’s office was very interested in it and said that the Supervisor’s office had been invited to come in and help the Commission understand this legislation.
Mr. Laurence Kornfield introduced himself as being with the Technical Services Division. Mr. Kornfield said that this issue was first brought to the Board of Supervisors by Supervisor Alicia Becerrill about two years ago and was then sent to the Committee that she was working with, Health and Human Services; and it then got referred to the Code Advisory Committee through the Building Department. Mr. Kornfield stated that the Code Advisory Committee talked about this legislation, but when Ms. Becerrill’s office did not pursue it, and she was no longer a Supervisor, it was not pursued further at the Code Advisory Committee and was brought up again by Supervisor Daley. Mr. Kornfield said that the Code Advisory Committee is now taking another look at it. Mr. Kornfield said that the whole issue has to deal with air quality and reducing the particulates in the air and there is certainly a lot of concern these days about small micro-particulates, particularly as being causes of asthma and other kinds of health disorders. Mr. Kornfield said that there has been recent mold and mildew legislation, which is really a micro-particulate problem as well. Mr. Kronfield stated that in 1982, the State Air Resources Board passed some standards that they wanted cities to try and meet for target goals on particulate matter and in response to that the Bay Area Quality Management District, which is headquartered here in San Francisco, did quite a lot of research and developed a model ordinance to reduce the particulate emissions from fireplaces and stoves. Mr. Kornfield said that in the meantime, in 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Feds basically, passed a standard for wood stoves which is not binding on San Francisco, but set some standards for what they would consider to be reasonable particulate emissions from fireplaces and wood stoves. Mr. Kornfield said that there was two phases for this, standards the first phase went into effect in 1990; the second phase went into effect in1992. Mr. Kornfield reported that these two phases tended to increase the efficiency of wood stoves. The second phase of the EPA guidelines in 1992, said that they would allow a maximum of 7.5 grams of particulate matter per hour, which is exactly the same standard that was set by the Northern Sonoma County Air Quality Management District. Mr. Kornfield stated that basically what Northern Sonoma County is doing is saying that if there is a fireplace or a stove and it is not certified by the EPA as meeting their standards, there can be an alternate method of certifying a fireplace or stove by meeting the same EPA standards through a different mechanism. Mr. Kornfield said that someone would not have to send it to the EPA, but it can be independently tested.
Commissioner Walker said that effectively this is saying, no fireplaces unless they are compliant. Mr. Kornfield said that this was correct. Mr. Kornfield stated that this ordinance says that there shall be no fireplaces installed unless they comply with the phase two, 1992, EPA rules and that can be met by buying one that has certification that says "EPA Approved" or by buying one that is not certified, but has met the Sonoma County standards which is the same standard as EPA, but does not have an EPA label on it. Commissioner Walker asked if Mr. Kornfield had heard any negative response to this and what is the downside to this. Commissioner Walker said that she believed air quality to be important. Mr. Kornfield said that perhaps he gave a little too much background, but there are some interesting bottom lines. Mr. Kornfield said that the first is that there are fireplaces that are available that meet EPA guidelines and said that everyone would have to acknowledge that, except for affordable housing in San Francisco, most new units have a fireplace installed; it is very common and people see them as amenities and life style features. Mr. Kornfield said that fireplaces are relatively inexpensive to install when a contractor buys one off the shelf as a contractor and the fireplace distributor comes out and installs it, typically they run anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 totally installed. Commissioner Guinnane asked when the last time Mr. Kornfield put a fireplace in. Mr. Kornfield said that he had not put one in himself for about ten years, but had called a number of fireplace companies. Commissioner Walker asked what the bottom line was. Commissioner Guinnane said that putting the metal box in is cheap, but finishing it all off with masonry brick and everything else is expensive. Commissioner Guinnane said that he preferred a brick fireplace and did not like the steel ones, which are mainly used for weight problems. Mr. Kornfield said that most of the installations are steel, factory made, steel fireplaces that are installed by the distributor and then a contractor finishes it off. Mr. Kornfield stated that indeed the finish is not included as part of the distributor’s installation cost. Mr. Kornfield said that the distributors and fireplace people he spoke to told him that this legislation would increase the cost of putting a fireplace in by anywhere from two to four times for the distributors. Mr. Kornfield said that the installation is not particularly more difficult, but the equipment is much more expensive to buy as these fireplaces that are fully enclosed, tested and are very high in efficiency. Mr. Kornfield said that one of the problems, of course, is that these new guidelines would increase the cost of construction, as it does not prohibit the use of fireplaces, but makes it more expensive.
Mr. Kornfield said that another problem is that there are very few of these fireplaces available and there is not a wide range of aesthetic types, as there are only a couple of types that are currently available on the market. Mr. Kornfield stated that the fireplace companies that he spoke with told him that the customers don’t like them yet, but of course consumer demand will drive changes to that.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he personally thought that the Commission should put this legislation off and get some more information on the actual cost and designs. Commissioner Guinnane said that there should be some public input and stated that there was no one present at the meeting to discuss this or no one from Chris Daley’s office. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was not inclined to go forward with this legislation at this time. Commissioner Walker said that she thought that the Commission did need more information, but wanted to go on record to say that anything that is done to make construction a bit more green, as in ecologically sensitive, she would be likely to support. Commissioner D’Anne said that she wanted to know what a pellet fueled wood heater is. Mr. Kornfield said that San Francisco does not see many or any of them and basically they are a type of stove that burns small pieces of compressed wood or other wood products and feeds it slowly into a wood stove. Mr. Kornfield said that this is mainly used by people who actually use wood stoves for heating and wood stoves are not commonly used for heating in San Francisco. Commissioner D’Anne asked about the pressed logs that are sold at Walgreen’s and places like that. Mr. Kornfield said that they are actually much more efficient in reduced particulate emissions, much more than just wood, but said that very few people, even though there are thousands of these fireplaces, nobody burns wood. Mr. Kornfield said that in San Francisco it is uncommon for people to buy or store wood. Commissioner Guinnane said that might be one of the reasons that this legislation does not need to go forward if that is the case. Commissioner Walker said that people are burning something. Commissioner Santos asked if Commissioner Guinnane was suggesting that this item be agendized for a future meeting. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to pass on it for now and get more information for the Commission. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he was particularly concerned about the price of them and looking at four times the original cost of a fireplace, as that is a lot of money. Mr. Kornfield said that was the estimate according to Blaze Fireplace Suppliers.
Commissioner Marks said that she did not consider a fireplace a necessity in people’s lives and said that it is a luxury. Commissioner Marks said that if it helps the air quality, then the homeowner or the builder will just make that choice if they want to pay x number of dollars for this luxury. Commissioner Marks stated that, to benefit Commissioner Guinnane, if he would feel more comfortable having more information, it was fine with her. Commissioner Santos said that the Commission would discuss this at a future meeting.
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. File No. 010887, Ordinance No. 124-01 from the Board of Supervisors regarding Human Health and Environment Protections for New Electric Generation.
b. July 23, 2001 commendation letter from Director Frank Chiu to Assistant Director Lee
regarding DBI’s 1999-2000 Annual Report.
c. Thank you letters received from the public commending DBI employees and Director Chiu’s response letters to the public.
Commissioner D’Anne asked if Item #8a was submitted for the Commission’s approval. Commissioner Walker said that it was just a communication item. Commissioner D’Anne said that the issue on this item was that if certain requirements were met on this generator then it would be allowed. Commissioner D’Anne said she wanted to know why there needs to be a generator in the midst of residential areas to begin with, as generation can come from any source and it doesn’t necessarily have to be, as the City is importing stuff from Texas, and asked why does there have to be a generator in the middle of the City that is polluting. Commissioner D’Anne said that she did not know who to ask this question of, but did not see the necessity of having a generator here. Commissioner D’Anne said that on top of that the proposals that are going to be on the ballot for solar energy should be considered to see if there needs to be any generation.
Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the letter from Frank Chiu to Amy Lee he thanked Amy once again for a great job and said that there should be some better wording in there such as thanks again for an awesome job. Director Chiu said that next time he would use Commissioner Guinnane’s wording.
9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC meeting of June 20, 2001.
Commissioner Guinnane said that there was not a quorum present to approve those minutes. This item was carried over to the next meeting.
10. 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.
There were no inquiries to staff.
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 Marks said that it was disturbing to see the list of hotels that have been closed down and remained closed for whatever reason. Commissioner Marks said that Director Chiu stated that is the possibly the Commission could consider other action, and asked what Director Chiu saw as options. Director Chiu said that as Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian stated perhaps there could be a blight ordinance where a law could be passed saying that a building cannot be vacant. Director Chiu said that there are other cities that have similar ordinances, but stated, that he did not know how successful they have been. Commissioner Walker said that she thought that at a prior meeting, the Commission had talked about forming a committee to look at this issue when the noticing of tenants came up and about when a building was uninhabitable. Commissioner Walker said that issue was dealt with in trying to get something drafted to expand the noticing, but said that the Commission talked about forming a committee that would include people from the tenant community, as well as the building owner’s community to actually look at this issue. Director Chiu said that he did not remember this issue coming up. Commissioner Walker said that she had missed a meeting, but thought that this issued was discussed. Commissioner D’Anne said that she remembered this as well. Commissioner Walker said that instead of the Commission creating something without a lot of input, since there are at least two communities that are directly affected by this, the tenant community and the building owner community, maybe it makes sense to sit down with a couple of people from each community as the Commission thinks about it to get input so there are no roadblocks to the solution. Commissioner Walker said that this was just a suggestion. Commissioner Santos asked what form Commissioner Walker was talking about. Commissioner Walker said that it could be in the form of an outreach forum, as the Department is already meeting with the tenant community and maybe it could be a joint meeting. Director Chiu said that the Department could invite property owner organizations and tenant organizations to let them know what the Department and the Commission’s intention is. Director Chiu said that even before that he could get some examples of ordinances from other cities and send those to Commissioner Walker to start taking a look at those. Director Chiu said that in that way there could be some direction before an actual meeting. Commissioner Santos asked if this should be agendized. Commissioner Walker said that maybe it should be agendized, for not necessarily the next meeting, but for the one after, so the Commission can actually sit down and figure out what action needs to be taken. Commissioner Walker said that she did not think that a solution to propose would be ready in a month and thought that there should be some preliminary meetings before it is actually agendized. Director Chiu said that he could report on this in his next Director’s report and would hopefully have some of the examples of the ordinances from other cities to give the Commission a chance to look at them.
Commissioner Marks said that she did not hear what Ms. Boyajian had said when she stated that Supervisor Bierman had introduced a proposed legislation, but there wasn’t a legal problem, but a practical problem with wording. Ms. Boyajian said that she did not know if Supervisor Bierman actually ever introduced the legislation, but stated that Supervisor Bierman had worked on it for quite a while with another City Attorney. Ms. Boyajian said that there was an issue about insurance, as a lot of times people cannot get their insurance for a year. Commissioner Walker asked if the legislation was a blight type of enforcement or was it an actual loss of housing type of enforcement. Ms. Boyajian said that she was not the City Attorney that drafted the legislation, but thought that it was a blight type of ordinance.
Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to thank Director Chiu for working so closely with the tenant community and stated that Director Chiu has been meeting pretty regularly with some of the people. Commissioner Walker said that she thought that these meetings have really done a good job to promote outreach and education, and said that she thought that this was working as there was a lot more trust building. Commissioner Walker said she wanted to thank Director Chiu for the community.
11. Adjournment.
Commissioner D’Anne made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC-040-01
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
_______________________
Ann Marie Aherne Commission Secretary
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS | |
Outreach Budget Information. - Commissioner Walker |
Pages 4 - 6 |
Breakdown of funds to non-profits, specifically St. Peter’s Housing, the Housing Rights Association and the apartment House Association. - Commissioner Guinnane |
Page 6 - 7 |
Future agenda - proposed ordinance on banning wood burning fireplaces. - Commissioner Guinnane |
Pages 13 - 14 |
Director Chiu to get examples of blight ordinances from other cities. - Commissioner Walker |
Page 16 |