i recognize that the first step was to put it on the agenda and get it tracked so we could monitor the system and watch it for continuous improvement, and i welcome that development and look forward to seeing it evolves and become an efficient system that might be a shining light for the rest of the nation for the people to be used by the people. thank you very much. >> and more public comments? seeing none. >> item 3d, updating activities on the administration of the department. >> yes, we are preparing and doing the final walk-through on our fourth floor remodeling project and getting ready to move our stop from 1650 over 21660, which will mean a

reference department will be on the fourth floor of the entire records department. we have fire plan checksd andpw -- fire plan check and dpw fire planchette, and we will vacate 1650, and we have another tenet ready to move in, which means our rent will be reduced also, which will mean more income for our operating fund. we currently have budgeted at the rate of rent we are paying now, so that will be a reduction in iran. the other thing that is happening right now is we have implemented several changes, and i will be writing all of the operating procedures for the department, but to do that, first, i have to write theab -- the ab regarding how to write an office report, and i will bring that back to the commission so we can get it completed, so i can write the office t seizures.

that will be coming to you probably in september -- the office procedures. that will be coming to you probably in september. >> public comment? see 9. >> item four, public comment. bic will take public comment on matters within its jurisdiction and not part of the agenda. commissioner murphy: you have three minutes. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. i just wanted to mention one thing that is that we have had a lot of layoffs at dbi, throughout the city because of the economic situation. one thing i noticed and i was impressed by, really, was that nearly having retired a few weeks back, the director is

working on the first floor hands-on. i think it is really great to see her down there, and i think everybody likes to see the director is not just sitting up on the sixth floor. they really want to be hands on on the first floor and dealing with the customers and staff. thank you. commissioner murphy: 90. next speaker please. >> commissioners, first of all, on the fifth floor, it is really working very well. it is a good system. but the one little thing that gives us trouble oftentimes, from an applicant's point of view is it was usually the wait time to pay, and you get the thing finally issued. it takes a lot of work. it is a good hour to an hour- and-a-half. we are sitting there on the fifth floor twiddling our thumbs, waiting to get someone to take our application.

we are happy to pay the fee, but it takes an hour and a half, and it is a constant kind of irritation, so i just bring that to your attention to areas other than that, the fifth floor is wonderful. we can go from station to station a real quickly and get the information we need, even if we are filing for a permit that day or not. thank you very much. commissioner murphy: next speaker please. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm here to go over a complaint i have filed with the department of building inspection, back on april 19. the unit under construction just below my unit has been working without the proper permits.

i have filed a complaint, and just today, i have heard that the inspector from my district is going out to speak to the owner. i have a few photos i would like to show you because the work is causing severe damage to my unit, and i have been pleading for assistance from department building inspection. i do not know if it is due to budget cuts and work furlough days that nothing has been addressed for three months, by -- anyhow, here is a copy of my complaint, and i have some before and after pictures of what it looks like, and you can see that permits are not exactly true. right here, you can see this is what the original structure look like on each wall of our building. this was the original entrance under construction of the unit

at 1824 mean streak. this is one that they moved to the exterior wall, which started only major damage to my unit. i have given a packet to ann, too, for some of the commissioners. here's what the structure looks like now. here is more photos of what the unit is looking like now, which is quite a bit of an additional square footage. the damage is done to my unit are severe cracks in my granite counter top, severe cracks all throughout my unit. that is over my stove.

walls, ceilings. on march 10, my tenants came home to a major home -- hump in my hardwood floor in the hallway that enters the kitchen. he is the level that shows how it has affected the floor. the contract came in and tried to fix it, and it is not actually what it should be. he has told me that he believes that at home was there prior, which there never was -- that a hump was there prior. due to the debris clogging our storm drain, there has been combustion up -- and how an -- yho -- anyhow. i was just hoping that the commission might be able to get thething achieved so that damages can stop to my unit,

possibly a red flag the property. thank you. >> we will talk to stop and maybe get it on the agenda for the meeting. next speaker please. >> good morning, commissioners. i want to bless you and all your family. thank you again for the request that i have been given justice. i feel i am treated like a citizen, although many people in my community know me for my dedication to defend justice, not only at our city and county of san francisco that i love,

but also that level when when i see is now societies decaying because of the idea that money is more important than people. after my public comment of last month on june 2010, i have been told that my case has no jurisdiction, so i would appreciate it very much if you could give me a written answer in detail of what you think i have no jurisdiction. i do want to tell you that i have been following the process for many years, and especially with the department of building inspection.

i started at the department of building inspection in 2002, and there were alterations of what was a defective demolition -- a de facto demolition. wanted to convert the units into luxury units, destroying some of the units. he bought the building in 1994, and the remote on the unit went beautifully, and then he lived there for five months. since 1994, there were going to destroy it, from the very

beginning. anyway, i have of the documents. he appealed the board of appeals, and he appealed the superior court, and then the judges made a decision in my favor that he could not touch affordable housing. it has to be preserved. so please, give me a chance, and thank you very much. >> can i just remind, back in may, i requested that we have a hearing basically reporting on our notification requirements when an adverse change comes forward. i think it would be helpful to discuss this because it could have maybe remedied this issue in the beginning. if we could just put that on the agenda for the next meeting may be, and let's talk about the

process and maybe get a determination. if we could change the notification process, or if that has to go through the board of supervisors on an address change. >> we have added a report at this notification, as i stated, notifying the tennis -- we have added the breadboard -- we have added the rent board at this notification, as i stated, on notifying the tenant. >> i'm very glad to hear that the city budget questions have been resolved, that a lot of the and banks have happened. and many of them, of course, address questions of senior housing. -- many of the ad backs have

been happeneing. the issue of senior housing is going to involve many departments. the apartment building inspection, probably not going to be a major one, but there are certain things that you can do, and i think one of them is to try to remedy the situation of jose morales. it is just the tip of the icebergs, but it is a festering tip, and it should be resolved. thank you. commissioner murphy: thank you. next speaker. i see none. >> item 5, discussion and possible action regarding and what it is amending the san francisco building code by adding section 105a.3.10 to require that an agenda and packet of materials for each matter to be decided by the

access of appeals commission shall be sent to the mayor's office of disability at the same time and in the same manner as they are sent to the commission member. >> i do not see anyone here from the supervisor's office, so i will summarize what had been at thecac -- at tehe cac meeting. it was determined by the code advisory commission that we should amend the proposal to only include those items which the mayor's office on disability has input into, such as publicly funded buildings or any other buildings that they would have control over. otherwise, the plan check duty for disability access remain within the department of building inspection. so we decided that it would be

appropriate to send the packages to the mayor's office on disabilities, that they do have some control or plan check on, and that was the recommendation in a letter that was sent to the commission. walker -- commissioner walker: so rather than just send everything? >> right, it is very expensive to reproduce the packages and plans, and has nothing to do with the mayor's office and disability. that is at the cost of the applicant. >> how much cost are we looking at? >> it depends on the plans for a brand new building here you have to reproduce the whole set of plans. you cannot just reproduce a portion of the plans that it is applicable to. >> i believe that the mayor's

office on disability also advises the mayor on disability issues as well. i think that is probably at the basis of this, just making sure that our new building construction is consistent with policies. >> that is the decision of the building official, not the mayor's office on the housing of the state. >> i think there's advisement that comes forward, and i think that is probably underlying this. >> are we going to get any fees for doing all this extra work? >> no. >> i have another question. for instance, if we did it for just the projects that the mayor's office on disability had some jurisdiction over, on other

instances, if they request plans, just like the public request a copy of things, then they could get it but paid for it? there are certain circumstances where plans can be copied. it has to be for the maintenance of the building. it is state law, for the maintenance of the building or the use of an architect to help improve the condition of the building, but anybody can do the plans. we have been. city agencies can come in and he plans any time they wanted. we have the ability once they are scanned, and we give it to several office that did cut the budget office's that come in and view the plans. vector -- to reproduce the plans for another department is very costly for our department. >> we could technically be amended to provide scanned images? >> we would not have to if it

was on appeals. we do not have the scanned images until the project is almost finished. >> is there anything that prevents the mayor's office of disability to, and asked the department to see the agenda package? >> we sent a copy of the agenda to the mayor's office, and if they want to see an item on the package, it is there. it is online, yes. >> i'm sure it is similar to what i do when i see an agenda item on the board of supervisors. i go down to the clerk and just ask. is that correct? >> yes. >> any further comments? the question is what was the main reason why the supervisor wanted a copy sent at the same time >> i do not know.

i was never contacted. i was never asked. this just showed up. it was sent to the access appeals commission by an art instead of sending it to this commission. -- by ira b --y error -- by error instead of sendind to this commission. >> so they could view the documents without having to incur the costs of getting a copy. >> yes. >> i would like to propose that we just continue this and have someone from the supervisor's office come over and explain what exactly they want. >> i would, too. the only thing is this is going to the board of supervisors, so it will happen if we continue to the meeting, and it is a done deal anyway. >> let them know that we asked. >> we do not know much about it. >> it would be helpful to know

the underlying reasoning. i value the work that they do, and i want to make sure we at the department of mares office of disability --of the mayor's office of disability, that they have a chance to come and tell us what this is about. >> is there anyone from the code advisory committee here that could tell us what their discussion was? >> we did not ask for public comment yet. we asked if there is someone from code advisory. >> he is code advisory. >> my apologies. >> and actually on the disability subcommittee. we looked at it in a number of ways. this is creating another layer of bureaucracy. i do not really see why we have

to go to the city, to the mayor's office to do that. you have another layer of bureaucracy, but also, we have had stuff go to the jobs, and they will wait forever to get a response from them. it is not like dbi where you can get the plan checked over the counter. when these go out in the field, they check for the correct dimensions here we as of this was really a necessary to be done. for every job to go in, we just feel it is unnecessary. >> good morning, commissioners.

i'm also on the code advisory committee. there may not even be an interest from the mayor's office on disability in doing and receiving a packet, from what i understand, this seems to be some miscommunication going on. they would like to discuss it among themselves, but i do not think there is a lot of support for this, from what i understand. >> maybe that is why there is no representative from the mayor's office of disability. >> when we had our code advisory committee, there was not any input from the office, and we typically request that when a supervisor proposes legislation and wants us to review it, that they send a representative to speak to us to explain the purpose of what he would like to

have done, so i think your suggestion of tabling it may be a good idea. >> and we notified the supervisors that it was on the agenda. all right. >> thank you. >> move to table. >> public comments. and i had an experience when i was going through the planning commission -- >> i had an experience when i was going through the planning commission. i think they were more open before. there is more bureaucracy. that is why -- how i discovered that this alteration of the building was not an alteration a de facto demolition, so i went to the planning department, and the plans were available to me, but when i complained after

winning, was that i still wanted to have a plan of demolition, but they did not allow me to save for the plan, although i was a tenant that was effected with the demolition, so i would like to request action to make it more accessible so that the tenants or whoever is involved has to be given a copy. it has to be a full sized plan. >> thank you. any further public comments? seeing none. >> so move to continue, or maybe, procedurally, what do we

do if we want to continue? >> if you want to continue it, you can continue to the call of the chair, so it can be put on the [inaudible] bic hearing. your other options are to recommend approval or recommend rejection. i remind you that under the charter requirements, we need to hold a hearing on legislation that would amend the building code, so if you decided to continue it, there is board approval for it. >> i move to continue to the call of the chair.

commissioner murphy: let's have a vote on that. no. hechano-- commissioner hechanov. lee yes commissioner mar: yes. >> the motion carry 4 vote of-2. next item is 6, discussing possible action regarding amending 26 of the sentence is the fire code by adding section 2611 -- of the san francisco fire code adopting findings required by california health and safety code section 1.95, dipping the club of the board to

forward the amendment and findings to the california commission. this is sponsored by supervisor mirkarimi. >> good morning, commissioners. the supervisor was unable to attend and asked me to come in his place. what we have before you is what we feel is a public safety issue. it is a band towards apply roofing noncombustible roofs, and the california fire code does is moving that is two minutes using membranes of your by heating with the torch and melting as fullback instead of laughing for good reason, basically, you have these rules that are put on a moving, and propane torching used to attach them. it is an open flame on a wooden roof, and in san francisco, with our high density of wooden structures, this is a recipe for disaster, and it would only

apply noncombustible roofs. it would not apply to non- combustible. they would still be allowed to use them. we have heard from the fight apartment at about 7 to 10 and moving fires happened a year -- we have heard from the fire department. this came to our attention a few years ago when there was a fire in our district that destroyed several apartments where there was a neighboring building where the fire lead to a neighboring apartments and destroyed several apartments. primarily, this is a safety issue. it bans using open flames on a combustible roof. it is also a competitive fairness issue. we have heard from local union

40 that they support this issue. because reputable movers do not use a torch-apply roofing on combustible moves. there are other alternatives. it is really sort of fly by night roofers undercutting the more responsible roofers. when you get one of these ro by nightofers -- fly by night roofers. so we feel that maybe this will eliminate this unfair competitive advantage that can be had by using this unsafe practice cheery lastly, i will practice cheery lastly, i will bring up the point of the