we are not going to let the public suffers by the implementation of something that is not right and is not working. it has been working in other building departments throughout california, and some of our customers already use it in other cities, and it is successful. it was something that was demanded, if you remember, by the civil grand jury in a report from 2005 or 2006 and was actually purchased in the early 2008 to satisfy a civil grand jury action. it has taken this long to implement it due to different things that had to happen in the building. we have to have electrical come in. we had to have the department of building repair come in and put in electrical plugs.

this takes time. when you are working through the dpw for contracts. everything after the system was actually bought, the actual equipment did not come in for two or three years, so we are going to try. it is the newest version of the system. maybe it will work, maybe it will not, but the demands of san francisco plan checking is different than most cities, it might not work here. if it does not work, we will pull it. we are not going to let the public wait longer to get permits, and we are going to be monitoring this, and we have ways to monitor how long we can take from the start to the finish of a permit, rather than someone going to a clipboard, having our plan checkers go up, grab a clipboard, calling their

name, and going back to the seat. that takes time, too. it is less time to push a button and call them up from a number. and the system will automatically circle people through the plan checking units. we have had to change the software in the system, but we have -- that project was funded many years ago by the commission, and it is an ongoing project. still, as i say, we will pull it, and i would like the support of the commission. i will come back to the commission and tell them, "it is not working. we are pulling it." i would like the support of the commission to do that. commissioner hechanova: giving your criteria whether to pull at your not, what is the criteria for a time line? what is a reasonable time line to make that evaluation? >> we would like at least three

months to report back to the commission. we plan on starting it on march 5, and it would be before the end of this fiscal year. commissioner mar: the crop -- commissioner murphy: they probably would have let you know in 90 days whether it is working or not. >> we will work closely with the public, monitor the public, and we have people actually not working on the counter that will be doing that, helping the customers. that is the reason. additional clerks might not be issuing permits. they might be helping the customer get through the system or guide them around in the very beginning. or throughout the time, depending on what we need for the system. >> will there be a criteria of maybe five reference questions that can be substantial that at least can be consistent with the responses from those stakeholders? >> yes, and actually, we can

develop them at the public advisory committee meetings, which stakeholders to go to those meetings, and they can develop the criteria for the evaluation of the system. >> so there is no criteria in place right now, but it needs to be developed? >> the questionnaire can be developed, but we have some internal criteria that we are looking at, and we developed as we were training to see on some test cases, but we have to see an actual production. >> i would like to see that added to the agenda for the next meeting, by virtue of how they could participate because they are the stakeholders, and they are the ones who want to at least the criteria being efficiency and the productivity of efficiency and their time when they come to process or

have their permit process. >> we could certainly look into that. commissioner lee: i still think we should revise this document. if this is going to be sent to the mayor's office or the board of supervisors for review, they are going to want to take note that what this justification really is. if it just said for field inspection and they may ask the same question i did and why there are more field inspectors then plan reviewers. second, i do not want the new higher rate think that there are just for field inspection. those are my comments on why i would like to see this change. commissioner walker: can we make that change here? in order to have documents for

our budget? i guess the 16 or 17 chart where you are defining -- commissioner murphy: the due date is not until after our next meeting, so what is the hurry? commissioner walker: it seems like minor changes to the description, the justification. >> we could easily make that change and send it out through sonya. you could agree to this with that caveat, or we could consider it at the next meeting. i just want to make sure that -- or just reiterate that having any changes happen on the 15th will make it very difficult to get it into all the information forms, so it is not just passing it on to them, but we have done it before and would be glad to again. >> i actually think that this is

the second reading. we have gotten some clarifications, and it seems like we could make these amendments to help define the justification. i think that we should just vote on it. i think that all of it has been explained, and this is why we have a special meeting. commissioner mar: i am also kind of concern -- i want to make the budget document as clear as possible, but i am also concerned that we do not get into employee classifications, description of their work or work assignments because, to me, that is not part of the budget process, either. it is a fine line we should not get into because i'm sure all that stuff is clearly laid out, not only in the department work rules, but also in the union contract.

because i think their assignments, whether they are in the field, the office, fifth floor, first floor, i think that should be clearly and administrative task, and i think some of that is even crossing over. in our minds, it may be easy -- share, an engineer can do the job of a clerk. well, talk to seiu about that. i do not want to get into that. i do not think it is our purview to get into that, and i do not think the board of supervisors -- it is their purview to get into that either. i think that the most important thing is that we have job openings under very clear classifications, and that is what we want to hire at. those are the things that get approved by human-resources, and those are the things that are regulated by full-service under which job can do what, and those

are the things that i think the mayor's office will approve or not approve. the work assignments and stock -- that is day-to-day. commissioner murphy: commissioner mar is completely right. we should not get into that. which is another reason why we should have the director and staff take another look at this and see where we can -- i used the word before -- tweak it. and bring it to the next meeting and we will approve it then. there's not much point in voting on it today. that is it for me. commissioner walker: i move to approve the budget. >> is there any public comment on item two, the budget? there is a motion by commissioner walker. is there a second?

>> i will second. >> roll call vote on a motion to approve the budget. commissioner hechanova: no. commissioner mar: aye. no. commissioner lee: no. commissioner murphy: no. commissioner walker: yes. >> the motion fails 4-2. commissioner lee: i would like to move that we continue the budget hearing. >> public comment on the motion to continue the budget? ok, seeing none, i will do an additional roll call vote on the motion to continue the budget to our next meeting. commissioner hechanova: yes. commissioner mar: yes.

commissioner clinch: yes. commissioner lee: yes. commissioner walker: yes. >> the motion carried unanimously. item three, a discussion to and then permit extension procedures. >> we had a public advisory committee meeting, and i have attached a draft of the proposed changes to the building codes regarding the extension and cancellations of permit applications and issued permits. as you can see in the blue column, which is the last meeting that we had, they asked to have the application expiration for over $1 million extended for 720 days instead of 360 days, which is two years

instead of one year. that would allow them pay once s for projects over $1 million, per our fee table. the other changes in blue, we still have a meeting on february 8. we need to discuss and actual permit expiration for permits with violations. what happens is, sometimes they will get a permit issued, permit application, and they cannot get the permit within the time limit, and to to some hold up by another department. we would like to be able to extend that. i actually had comments that were due in from the pac and they have not been received yet.

that is why i put that in. we need to discuss this. table b is the maximum time allowed to complete the work allowed by the building permit. on the permit extension four projects, even on the small projects, they would like to be able to extend and 720 days. that does not include a code enforcement cases. this would be for regular permits to extend the 720 days, which is essentially two years, and the same thing on the permits over $2.5 million. so far, that is as far as we have gotten in table 1a in discussions at the puc meeting. the next meeting is february 8. we will try to a agendas -- agendize the president abbas comments so that we can move on.

i like the opinion of the commission on whether or not they would agree with these changes as they are coming before i go ahead and advise the pac committee that we would support them in this endeavor. i need to do this and also get with the city attorney. this is a code change. this is not an administrative bulletin. commissioner murphy: thank you, director, for bringing it this far forward. i think this should run through the pac committee again, get their views on it, let them see this document. i think that is the most fair way to do it. >> that is what will happen on february 8. we are not through with this document.

i am just bringing it to the attention of the commission now with the changes that are fairly substantial regarding the expiration date. commissioner murphy: then we can come back and put it on the agenda for the next meeting? >> it will be for the meeting in march. i will not be at the next meeting. commissioner hechanova: what would constitute this being a code change rather than added mr. the bulletin? >> this is a change to the california building code also. this is the change to the state laws. this has to go before the cac also. commissioner hechanova: commissioners, additional questions, comments? public comment? >> is there any public comment on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. our next regular meeting is scheduled for february 15, 2012,

at 9:00 as usual. >> i will not be here. just letting you know. >> ok. it is essential that we try to have a full quorum. it will need five people to pass the budget. i can talk to you guys about this in the next week. basically, i will have to contact everybody to make sure that all of you can attend, otherwise, we may have to change the meeting date again to another special meeting. commissioner hechanova: could i add some clarification that might be needed on item 3? where director day had asked for

support, not having a motion -- >> not an action item. commissioner hechanova: yes, just for discussion. commissioner murphy: do we need to have a full commission to vote on a next time around? >> you need five people to pass the budget. commissioner murphy: you are going to make sure there are five people here? >> yes. item #4 is adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? second? all in favor? >> aye. >> we are now adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

>> you can see that it is amazing. you can hear that it is refreshing. you reach for it because it is irresistible. and the taste. simply delicious. san francisco tap water. it engages the senses. 311 is an important resource for all san franciscans. should