congratulations to jeffrey, who has retired after 36 years of public service. you will be sorely missed. good luck to your new pursuits. i would also like to congratulate wendy, who is in our records management group. sorry to hear that our loss is the comptroller's office gained. hopefully we will find someone of equal, if not the same effort in level of work to replace you. -!+ howard z, who has been appointed to the international building code structural code committee. in itself, that is major kudos, having the international zf francisco, along with that

national scale and, more importantly, as much as the representation from our director at the state level has been added to the icc. overall, looking forward to 2012, making it better than last year. significantly, we know that a staff level of services that can be intimately provided, we will get there and end of this 2012 much better than where we are at now. thank you. >> ok. thank you. r)y>tuwis there any public commn the president's announcement? this is for the president's announcement, or general public comment? >> general public.

>> just one moment. you can stay there. item #3. the building inspection commission will take public comment a part of the agenda. please state your name for the record, sir. >> gabriel ing. i am an architect practicing in san francisco for over 25 years. this time of year is the worst time amongst all of those years. but i want to address is the permit application cancellation procedure. it is very frustrating and annoying. in the last six months i have run into nine permit cancellations. a couple of them got picked up. but most of them, what i want to tell you is that the procedure is very bad.

the notice of cancellation, i moved three years ago. aby address change. someone just copied it from the application to the computer and checked my address. the certified mail was in the file. i do not know how this can happen. someone told us that we had a cancellation. the fee is outrageous. take a million dollar project, they would charge about $2,000 for each year extension. in today's economy, everyone is

trying to survive. people already living on the edge, a developer, a hallmark, and you have to charge them $2,000 per year? can the staff or department have any sympathy on things like this? giving people a grace period? rather than telling us to submit new central plans for those projects. it feels like we are printing hundreds in paper. we are cutting trees? it is not the money, it is the tree. ratting it throughout the department is fine. the problem is, i looked at several permits.

month, this was about six months or seven months ago, in three months later it will be canceled again. by the time it comes back down, it is going to be canceled and over. i would like the commission to look at the procedure. is it fair to everyone? it seems like the department is putting salt and people wounds. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is jeremy. i am also from gabriel architecture. i have been the person who has actually gone in to deal with the representatives regarding extending the permits. y have had to make chips down to the offices three times because

i have received 3 separate phone calls on what dbi is requiring. the first time they wanted an extra set of plans. we said fine, we dropped off the addendum. then they said they needed extra copies of the site permits and applications. i asked why. they said because it had the word canceled stamp on every single signature on the front and back of the plan applications. i said fine, but that is a little weird. the next time, later that day, i got a phone call saying that they needed two copies of each set of plans. so, in one job it is another 100 sets of large drawings. 100 sheets of large drawings. it is a huge waste of paper.

even with the delay of the procedures, it will have expired in another month. if there was a way of simply marking canceled on the plans, as opposed to writing all over it and completely wasting a legal set of documents, instead of wasting our time and the department's time reviewing this, i was in front of the unit on the ground floor. took them one hour to go through three applications and double check everything in front of me, because they did not want to send me a way and call me again to have them come and give them more documents. there has to be a better way of j' thank you. >> good morning.

president, commissioners, director, my name is steve and in the president of the outer merchant residents association. i think that the director knows me very well. we are in contact with them a few times per month. we had a board meeting on monday night where we basically lost it. we are sick and tired, every time a for sale sign goes up in our district, our association being half of district 11, every time a for sale sign goes out, we just cringe because we know what is going to happen. illegal billing will take place. for example, this is just a small file from 2011. i will give you some of the addresses. 71 curtis, the mother died, the tvk not afford to live there.

the electricity was turned off. there was no sewage, no garbage pickup. they were dumping their waste between 71 curtis and next door. not only building inspection, but the department of public health. we are still dealing with that. 1060 cross street, in legal building. i know that the inspection services have been out there. i have spoken to them. 1219 maple, it has been going on for five years, there were squatters in the building. the kansas city and -- we have the city attorney dealing with the problem, but they said they could not afford to fix it. i know that when the director and the p.w. -- dpw, whenever

there, we talked about who to -- to. backyard. one of my board members is here to talk about winding way. 161, 25 years this has been going on. seville is the newest one. when i confronted the owner after the building inspection signed off on the building it was doing and illegally put in -- i have the picture, illegally put on a back unit. he came down the stairs with a pipe that he was going to swing at me. i made an assault complaint. i have not used it yet, but if i have to, i will.

this is going on time and again. i want to work with your commissione#o which we do do, work together. i have been in my house for 20 years and i've put an addition on that. i have gotten the permits that i needed. i did it the right way and i think that everyone else should as well. ú9#'l,qi wanted to bring that to everyone's attention. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. i said that i would not return, but in the spirit of the administration -- the new administration, i changed my mind. i would like to thank the initial speakers for pointing out the confusion i will get you in the next few minutes. myanmar -- my arguments on this day are the malfeasance written

for its staff over three years. i wanted to mention how preposterous the concept was to take the permit clerk from palomino and transport her to 6ew inspector for that city and county of san francisco, doubling her salary at the same time. does that sound like a likely situation? she is not only underqualified, she is not qualified by state law. there she sits -- >> mr. gosh, please address more of what our department issues, but not in a personal attack. >> i did not see that is personal, but i will do my best. the next appointee would be ms. levin and her failed [unintelligible]

project. i believe the vendor has already been paid off, but they have not delivered a viable product. this sounds like malfeasance to me. i see that this is cementing her alibi in the future failure of the multimillion dollar permit tracking system. when confronted with the disappearance of millions, you can say that i showed you what i was not capable of with the schematic -- [unintelligible] ;é my advice to you is to hire a team of computer science graduate students to oversee the computer project to make sure it u as badly as i suspect that it will. now we come to the real problem.

due to my mistreatment at the hands of your political appointees, i have been forced to look hard at my years of employment. the result is that i have identified the one person most responsible for the problems and confusion in the department of building inspection. that would be mr. hansen tom. three minutes up? 27 seconds. he is the one person is placed and has caused the most problems. the cost of his malfeasance is truly fantastic. tens of millions of dollars for our side, far in access -- excess of the customers. if no one goes under mr. lee's new administration, the one person that has to go, keep ms. day, remove mr. tom.

thank you. >> good morning. i said on the board of omera. in a san francisco native and happy to be here. i wanted to reiterate some of the facts that stephen courier already mentioned. gía-fttñthey applied for a permt winding way, no structural permit, just t-shirt remodeled. there was follow-up, but nothing has changed since november 14. i know that they tried to go into the property to see what the issues were. still outstanding, i wanted to know why it took so long to get the process rolling. if there were stricter rules and guidelines for permits, a

steeper fines to get people to abide by the law of the permit processo!çh;ot, i also did exte renovations in my house, went through the proper channels and had to do revisions. it was all part of the process. ç$y legit with the whole process. but it needs to be equal for everyone and i feel that the people that are going through the process correctly kind of look like in the full, as i am following the process. i want everyone to follow the process. we are here to make the city beautiful. we want to be able to increase the value of the property and increase the neighborhoods in san francisco. not just the proper areas. we do not want parking lot in front of people's homes. we want it to be green and an enjoyable place for everyone.

the issue that i see, the city is losing lots of revenue for get in fines, what have you, i want it to be " caught him -- want it to be equal for everyone. thank you. >> i am on the boardc album version -- outer mission resident association. we are really frustrated. zwe see this illegal building going on, we called 311, we write letters. 1299 geneva is an eyesore. we talk about torching it, because then at least it would be gone. then we would not have to see it anymore. not advocating that, in a legal citizen, but it is frustrating. i own property in the area. why are these things being done? why is it that people think they

can pave over a front yard and turn it into a parking lot? it is interesting that district 11 has to undergo redistricting because of census numbers, but we have to lose 6000 people. because we started to count all of the legal departments -- the gold -- illegal apartments in the district? i implore you, please, became down here today because we are not being heard and would just like to see some action and have it put on an agenda item in the future, so that we can see our voices are being heard. we do pay property taxes. thank you very much. ?oj0@ further public comment? seeing no one, item no. 4, report, discussion, and possible action on the proposed budget

for the department of building inspection for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. vvt this is the first meeting on the two year budget that we are required to do for 2012-13 and 13-14. if you want me to give a short presentation? >> this will be -- this will be a major overview in the category of continuous this. if the commissioners can hold your questions or discussions until you have completed your presentation. that will be about 10 minutes or so? >> does this work? >> yes. >> thank you.

>> this does not work. >> the microphone? >> it is ok. it is all right. >> ok. >> i wanted to first go through the> you know, if you want to use that one, i have to switch it. which one do you want? >> reconstruction activities. we need to continue to meet the demands for permanent inspection services that we are facing. we need to increase housing and code enforcement in house, with our partners and nonprofit, community-based partner is, increasing the fiscal health of the department. last month he requested a list were looking at.

couple of these with titles, not descriptions. we all know the transit bay terminal, the central subway, which also includes union square and chinatown stations. we have all heard about sales force, no. 2 hunters point development, 18 washington street, the base isolated high- rise residential building, which is where the new pacific dental school will be. 1275 market street, we have all heard about twitter. we may move some of the city departments in there. that is what we are hearing. 1190 mission, trinity plaza, 350 mission street, 1,304th street -- the public safety building.

185 channel street. these are just the major developments that we are will -- we are looking at. in terms of revenue, what we are projecting for the non- interagency agreements, the nine agreements with trans bay and central city subway, we have not worked that out in terms of how it will come in in terms of payments, but there is broke between the projected 11, 12, 13 budget. it is a 2% growth in revenues. these are the roads we have seen over the last five years. when you exclude the changes that have occurred because of the inter agency agreements. in terms of expenditures, we are

still lower, requesting a budget that is lower than 2007-2008. what we are expecting, because of large increases in the cost to personnel and the fact that we will have additional positions approved, along with filling positions, we have 5% growth between 13 and 14. we will talk a little bit after we go through these graphs about the reason the budget is growing. the next shows the changes in authorized positions. as you know, we had a very large dip between 2008-2009 and 2009-

2010. we have steadily increased the authorized position. we are requesting 23 fte's in annualized for the following year, we have a request for six new positions that will actually be nine, because 22 its annualized for the following year. we are still below the 2009-2010 level, but it does notvyky+gñ ie the practices be looked at. dk[r positions that were here, that were not really budgeted, if they were -- if those were eliminated in 2008, in the 2009- 2010 budget. in other words, we have more

people that were laid off in the 2009-2010 budget because of the cut that had to be made to balance it. so, the positions, there are various reasons why the cost to personnel has changed. one of the first things -- the first things is that the assumption in the budget is that the furlough days that were agreed to by the unions would be taken away and people would be getting a cost-of-living increase. rather than taking time off, and we would get improvement over a 4.6 cost of living increase. the city is negotiating with the unions. 27 of the 40 agreements are

open. so, they are negotiating whether to extend the furloughs or to give the cost of living increase, or something else that would not cost the city as much money. all of that is still very much up in the air. we also have the impact of the new position. in terms of the other personal costs going up and fringe benefits, we are seeing increased ratesevttl; care, all of the things that we expected to continue to go up. there was also a discussion in the paper where it is still being decided what retirement oyqg need to increase the amount of money that the city puts into retirement. and whether that will be done for city employees. this is over and above prop c,

by the way. training for inspector code, as well as supervisory training, we have increased the community outreach activities based on the discussions you have had with us. the details are in the documents that we gave you last week. the city's grant program, we had an rflp that was put out in 2011 for the program. we equalize the services, actualizing but they had to provide. contractors came back, requesting additional funding. we said to that that the current year would beg[/crw fixed on e budget, the current year being

january through july. we request that additional money in the budget. that reflects the equalize units of service and the inclusion of the current cost of providing mq5o

we are asking to reinstate the vehicle >> the work orders we are budgeting to increase because we know that other departments salaries and fringes are going up, and therefore, the services for the department of technology and real estate and some of the other departments that are large, the work orders are going up. we are also putting money into the digitization project. the reason we are doing this is, we are going to take the existing balance that we have in that project, charge seven positions toyo"4ñz that. that is two existing positions and then five new positions to the project, and then, because -- kind of replace that or partiare