except final inspection. a final occupancy issue was issued december 21, 2011. final sign off has been given. dpw as i not want the inspection. a final building inspection will be performed when permit application 2011 at 09023798 has been approved and issued. that is a structural provision, which is currently under review at the planning department and to be reduced by eighviewed by . on the following pages, and i expect you all have it, there is a description of the process and

is up to date. i think at this point, that is it. >> we will probably have more questions at the end of the hearing for you. thank you. at the request of a contractor of a contractor -- construction company called ground zero, a meeting was arranged at 9:00. the contractor had to projects, remodel on 2513 avenue, as single-family dwelling. 1100 and 002 clarabell. there was a request that we stop doing subsequent inspections for enforcement. the contractor made it clear they were being used to harass and the way the building progress.

this discussion that lasted for about 35 minutes between myself of a contractor. near the end of the meeting, there was a request to do follow-up inspections, and we could not deny any complaints made to this department. with the reading -- meeting was finished, the contractor requested myself to assist and renew a project on jersey street. a horizontal position raised to 2 feet was a large railyard edition. the deputy director of tainted filled out a permit that became the 2011 to 25 a 0973. this was the only permit filled out on february 3.

in the course of assessing the customer and filling out a permit application, the wrong stamp was inadvertently used by staff and myself. the contractor made it clear no work had been done to the previous permit. if you look at the permit, it talks about the building that goes from one story to story, and the one story of the base and being eliminated and had become inhabitable. line 6. line 2b shows the project value of $106 million. the contractor was told verbally and in writing. the contractor was told verbally and in writing to proceeds of to city planning to obtain approval. when it was brought to the attention of dbi staff that they

did not get city approval, it was referred on august 3, 2011. on august 152011 planning requested that the list the revoked billing application 20110 to 2509734 jersey street. in other words, they review jersey and allowed it to continue. permit application 2011 is a permit to start work to the addition for permits renewed by dbi. in the case of 550 jersey street, new permits based on the building codes were obtained. we have to from electrical. #20110711761.

a 61, 20110330941. in addition the 2011 building permit was told. -- was pulled. a mechanical permit was pulled.k into it. the alberhe himself said as a ld said every analyze the structure and determine if it performs to the structural aspects in terms of the 2011 building code. all special inspections have been completed.

the under current section code can take the role of special inspections for his or her projects. they would be required to submit an overall compliance report. that is what you see before you. the engineer record clearly stated that his staff had formally required special inspections in the final affidavit. this report was written december 19, 2011. later on about the check process. the deputy director, tom huey. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. at this stage i think we would hear from the appellant.

can you restate the time frame again. >> the timeframe is seven minutes. if we have any questions, we can call on you may be on the rebuttal. you have seven minutes, please. can we hear from the appellate? please state your name for the record. >> good morning, commissioners. i am a member of the little house committee and advocate for good government and an appellate come along with mr. butler. this deal concerns a new contract for a final inspection on a project. when in fact no work had ever begun on the original permit expired for nine years. the new permit was issued without complying with the mandatory conditions imposed by the building code. we're here to oppose the failure to issue a determination on the back of code violations presented to her, and to

request of building inspection commission to reimburse the statement of the permit. the errors made by the executive and regular staff members in issuing the permit were brought to the attention through complaints made in july and august. there was no resolution of these complaints by the staffwith no r was again accosted on february 3 for her determination of the effects of the alleged code violations. she did not reply. to her credit, she did provoke a credit as having issued an error. this is very important, because inspection records show no work was performed on the prior record. no work begun means it was not tested. this would have allowed the project to be entitled coming in to be billed to the 1997 building cold, which were in effect when the permit was issued.

a new application to filing a full reviews by building and planning department to the current codes. presently director date reinstated a permit because christine e-mailed of the planning department had no objections to reinstating it. she erred when she wrote in her letter to the applicant that the planning department had requested dbi list replication. the planning department and not ask for that. more importantly, she ignored her own original reason for that the revocation, which that no work had been performed. this fact never change. the permit sheet issued was blamed on incorrect information supplied by the applicant who describe all work complete. this fact alone is sufficient

not to reinstate the permit. director day has failed to acknowledge many errors in the processing of the february application, including the failure to ensure the proposed work reforms the requirement of the 2010 building code issuance of two almost identical valid permits come a failure to identify who is currently the property owner, and failure to require the original permit be transferred to the new owner must agree to the conditions of the original permit. the risk of failures is detailed in exhibit 2 of the brief. ms. butler will continue the presentation. thank you for mentioning all of the code enforcement issues that you plan to be looking into. >> president mccarthy, the morning. my name is joseph butler, a member of the american institute of architects and insull prior to a record for partnership and

business here for 25 years. we are the appellant in this case on the screen, if i could is our exhibit 2. the san francisco building code is quoted here. when one wants to commence work on an expired permit where the work had not started, exhibit 2, page one of the brief, the third section down, it states the new application as required, and the new permit shall be obtained, not renewal. there is no word renewal with reference to a building permit. you can renew the boiler permits an electrical permits, but nowhere in this in francisco building permit is the word redo it used. and the authority of the building official in the state of california to review a nine-

year-old permit does not exist. everything that has happened since that renewal has been an attempt to show the process as being done. we have this and that, but you cannot get an invalid permit and make it better, give it authority by doing all of the things after the fact you were supposed to do in advance of the permit issuance. when mr. sweeney finished the meeting, he should have sent the application downstairs, not only to planning but to mechanical, electrical. the san francisco unified school district needed $1.75 times the square footage to renew. that is a lot of money. none of the other fees were collected by your department. you guys are talking here about $4 million of uncollected permit

or fees on vacant buildings, and now within your own department you are passing up fees. there is nothing in the code that gives you that authority. everything that has happened since might have been fine, we do not know that. but how it began, as nancy stated, the facts never change. they cannot ever change. the permit was null and void. the code said that. and permit issuance, application plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the building official. there were no plans. there were no specifications. it shall be reviewed by other departments. planchette, structural, you can submit after the fact calculations that demonstrate in a meet the 2010 building code, but that is supposed to happen in february and march.

and this is not an over-the- counter permit. it is a major operation to a historic building. when the planning department decided not to require a 311 notice, we ask for several other things as well. similarly, they glossed over the things they could not fall, solved a couple of the problems they could come and tell everyone would let this go. >> public comment. is there any public comment on item 6? >> my name is dr. derek kerr. after 20 years at laguna honda hospital, i became a whistle- blower. the repeals to help commission were ignored. the repeals to the ethics

commission very. two years later we have recovered $250,000 for the parent gift fund in 430,000 from attainted public health contract. this took immediate attention and community action and a loss to to get attention. none of this what had happened and what the response of help commission. this commission has the authority and duty to uphold building codes. the matter of the jersey street permit has been explained to you by mr. butler. please review the reinstatement of the building permit that was properly revoked august of 2011. others charged with this responsibility have not done it. could oversight in good governments -- good oversight and good governance is the solution.

older rules or codes are ignored in favor of some folks come out what happens to the rest of us? why have building codes? what is the point of having this commission? me >> than>> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is lynn, and i am speaking as an advocate for good government. i am asking this commission to northerly oversee the department of building inspection. unfortunately the building department must do the work that this bill twas not done. i cannot understand how the permit was appropriately revoked because the work was done on the project without even looking

into the original reason for revocation. something does not seem right about this whole process. the commission must reimburse the state of the building permit that was correctly revoked on 8/3/11. i asked that the rules be invoked all of the time. i have seen similar failures of law enforcement and other city departments. i am coming to this level to request that each of you support good government. i think you. -- thank you. >> please state your name for the record. >> good morning, commissioners. as a citizen of san francisco, i am here today with a concern of

great importance. the failure to enforce the law, as you and several other complaints indicate, there is undeniable failure on the part of the executive director and staff to enforce san francisco's building codes. since dbi is charged with responsibility of building code enforcement are not doing their job, you are there and must do the job before them. while i served on the 2010 civil grand jury, our investigation exposed similar failures of san francisco government. case in point, the ethics commission. as the grand jury reports to them, the sweeping watchdog. rancher rework allowed us to reduce city processes and the required action that directors

must take. these actions are clearly defined in the city codes and law, but building codes are not being enforced. the inaction and pattern of using a double standard to conduct business undermines what bill we could stipulate. we are fed up with city and county departments showing favoritism to a select group and it refusing to enforce laws as required. this select group issuing them towards family and friends. favoritism is select toward certain people. and must not come and it must stop now. it is now up to you to enforce city codes. it is time to bring things into compliance with the law. a perfect example was explain today about 550 jersey. you must reverse the reinstatement of the building

permit that was first issue in march of 2001. you must enforce the building code that was discussed. there was no record of an extension for this permit. the law is perfectly clear. the permit expired. and to permit must be issued. i have faith that this commission will exercise the authority, and that you're not just teaching -- sleeping watchdog. thank you. >> necks speaker. -- next speaker. >> any additional public comment? henry conilla. i would like to speak on issues of the violation of code enforcement i work for the building department. it is very tough to try to

enforce these issues many times do to owners, tenants and a lot of different things. i would not say they do not do enforcement. they do. i got a call from a building inspector about a complaint that one to dbi a month ago. is that i want to clear this up. we made the appointment and went out there and took care of it. i do not agree the building apart is not doing their job. it is not an easy one. there are a lot of buildings that have violations. to clear them up is not easy. i just wanted to clear that up. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i live in this neighborhood. my name is patrick [inaudible] . >> i do not think i am qualified

to speak until other people do. can i testify after the project sponsor gives their side? as a resident, i would like to hear both sides before i speak. >> normally these things are heard at the board of appeals. we are only looking at whether the director issued or did not issue a proper written response. it is not about the permit itself. >> the project sponsor can speak in public comment. >> they speak now. in public comment period to . >> bob milky. i have had many dealings with

the department of inspection. they're very honest. the overview has been cooperative and helpful. they are competent people who have a lot of integrity. thank you. >> any more public comment? >> there is no other opportunity? >> that is correct. >> good morning, commissioners. i would like to congratulate president mccarty. welcome to vice-president mar. today i wanted to talk about, start out by talking about the process on this. and i was asked to speak here

today because the project sponsor was so distraught he felt he could not present the facts appropriately. i would like to speak to jurisdiction briefly. the commission does not have jurisdiction on this. if you read the agenda of the sand francisco city charter, is as the commission jurisdiction under this section shall not extend to permits appealable to the planning commission or the board of permit appeals. there is no jurisdiction here. i am not an attorney. the attorney can give their advice, but the clear, plain language does not allow this matter to be propfore you. secondly, even if you were to ignore the clear, plain that language, it was not filed in a

timely fashion. it goes on. departmental decisions on permit subject to commission review shall be made within time mandates of the state permit streamlining act, appeals of decisions must be filed with the commission within 15 days of the challenged a decision. there is no jurisdiction that being said, i want to go to the merits of the underlying permits. we're talking about small builders in the process they go through. we will go through what happened here. went to the city, pull the permit, was issued a permit. started work according to the permit. notified the permit was report

-- revoked. the planning commission, the building department held that in their hands. the evaluated the issues that were raised by mr. butler and the other appellate. they look at those and found them to be wanting. the real issue the permit. all of these complaints have been heard and heard again. my fear is by this commission taking jurisdiction, it is going to allow an endless stream of complaints to continually harassed a builder, and it is a terrible precedent. i hope you do not take the jurisdiction, but if you do come i hope you affirm the actions of your staff and a director. thank you. >> the speaker. -- next speaker. >> i know about the case because i lived in the neighborhood. the only thing i wanted to hear today was work started under the

original permit. nobody here knows anything about the truth knows if that work was started with the original people. mr. butler was not there with the issue was. the important testimony that i have not heard is did anyone start work, and is there proof that work was started under the original permit? i have not heard anything. everything else is garbage. that is the question you should be asking. >> think you. next speaker. -- thank you. >> you are monitoring the time frames, right? >> yes, i am. i cannot emphasize how complicated the permitting process is in san francisco.

you have to go through different stations. one of the most complicated ones is planning. planning staff has no issues regarding this. they have no problems ballast tradinvalidating this. once they can decide they consented to dbi, they reduce the structural drawing for safety and compliance. more importantly, you have a license structural engineer that writes a letter saying the structural calculations meet with the current code. in addition to that, he writes an affidavit this is all of the special complications are in order. this home is going to be sold to

someone. this person will have all of the documents. that is what is important. that is what is critical. the department's job is to validate the permits. a licensed professional is writing the letter to say everything is in order. what else do we need to do? what is beyond that? we must stop this harassment. that is all it is. all the issues have been complied with. final inspections have been issued. the structural calculations have been reviewed and verified. what else? this has to stop. it is painful enough that people have to go through the pro