Building Inspection Commission approves amended response to civil grand jury report

The Building Inspection Commission voted unanimously on Sept. 5, 2013, to approve an amended response to the civil grand jury report, directing staff to forward the letter, today's public comments and the roll-call vote to the presiding judge of the Superior Court.

Commissioners debated whether the reply should 'agree' or 'disagree' with portions of the grand jury report and ultimately accepted editorial amendments that change selected findings to 'partially agree.' Commissioner Maher proposed two friendly amendments to move the public-perception finding and the notices-of-violation finding to 'partially agree,' language intended to acknowledge problems while reserving the commission’s ability to describe corrective steps. Staff agreed to incorporate the wording changes before submission. The commission was reminded that the response must be submitted by Sept. 16.

During the public-comment period, architect Joe Butler, who said he has been a DBI customer for more than 26 years, urged the commission to focus on the smaller share of problematic cases and alleged improper practices by senior DBI management. Butler said the report’s 85 percent satisfaction figure is useful but that the commission should address the remaining 15 percent of complaints, and he recommended hiring a director from outside the department. "[Senior management has been] approving permit applications for final inspections on projects that have never begun," Butler told commissioners. He also alleged forged signatures on plans and other practices he characterized as favoritism.

Jerry Drattler, a former civil grand jury member who helped prepare the report, told the commission he found the department’s partial disagreements vague and urged clearer enumeration of disagreement areas. Drattler cited the grand jury’s review of notices of violation for two sample periods (February 2008 and February 2010), saying the report reviewed 8,875 NOVs and that a substantial share remained open or unresolved in those samples. "This indicates there's a process problem," he said.

John Malamud of the City Attorney’s Office advised commissioners that, if the BIC votes to submit, the document will stand as the commission’s formal response and that staff can include the vote tally and today's comments in the submission. The commission accepted that approach.

A roll-call vote followed the amendments. The tally recorded: President McCarthy—Yes; Vice President Maher—Yes; Commissioner Clinch—Yes; Commissioner Lee—Yes; Commissioner McCray—Yes; Commissioner Melgar—Yes; Commissioner Walker—Yes. The chair announced the motion carried unanimously.

The commission’s next step is to have staff finalize the editorial amendments and submit the response to the presiding judge by the stated deadline. The city attorney offered to brief the commission at a later meeting on subsequent steps beyond submission, including any Board of Supervisors or controller follow-up.