>> everyone take your seats please. but morning. today is wednesday, july 18, 2012. this is a meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll-ca call. [calling roll] we have a quorum. the next item is president's announcement. >> good morning, everybody. thank you for coming here. i have a few announcements, and i will make them quick.

there was a joint news conference on july 9, which supervisor cohen had to announce 8000 code enforcement's with properties in bayview. i attended that along with deputy director sweeney. it was quite successful, and i think it is something you will see a lot more of in the future. there was great customer, and from people affected by this, and it was great to hear the human side of issues that are out there on these issues on the code enforcement. there was a story in the examiner on july 6. san francisco talking about what we've been saying the past couple of months with the permits. we're very unique in many ways. the department keeps in forcing that they are stepping up and doing everything we can to step up and meet the requirements,

particularly to the people coming into the department. the next couple of months he will get the services needed, but obviously it takes time to get to that point, but we're working diligently towards that. there was recovery on -- there was coverage on july 3. it was of for alarm fire, were dbwhere dbi provided the department with multiple code enforcement. just another example of how important is to keep on top of the code violations. lastly, i wanted to know there were letters received to to employees. the records minute division, recognition for doing great work. joseph you a plan review services also got recognition from the public on a job well downe.

we can go on to the next item if there is public comment. >> is there any public comment on the president's announcements? item three is general public comment. >> i would like to remind everyone before we get into public, that we have three minutes allotted. we of a strip three minutes on all public comment. thank you. -- a strickt three minutes on all public comment. >> my name is spencer gosh. i have been a building inspector in the city and county of san francisco for 22 years. i've been a resident of 32 years. i am here primarily to request an inquiry into hiring and promotional on engineering civil service classifications,

specifically why are the civil service classifications for engineers being restricted exclusively to persons of chinese ethnicity, and two is responsible for this illegal activity? i previously brought this problem to your attention on march 13, 2012 when i copied all of the commissioners. as the new commissioners are not yet seated and have not been devised, i am never get one of the topics contained in the document for work. my request is due primarily to buy treatment of the workplace, which is being caused by political increases bullying. recently a new administrative change was happening. this would allow me to relocate at a different position. unfortunately my request for transfer will not be honored. in addition to denying my request, the new department head has made clear he continues

to continue the unjust racist policies by hiring four new engineers, all of them are engineers. this was made in spite of my informing him of the problems for months ago. this distinction strongly applies he is racist. the percentage of engineers with th virtually 100% journeys. all manager royaial positions ae held by those with chinese of the city. as mr. sweeney has no background in plan review, i can only assume his appointment is for a parent's only and will allow that racism to continue. it appears mr. sweeney is the lipstick on this case. i expect to see the twin topics of white and two is responsible for the racial preference in hiring and promotion of civil service classifications would then the apartment building inspections agenda is for the next building inspection

meeting. be advised that if i reasonable request is not honored, it will intensify efforts to correct this very serious problem, but outside and inside the jurisdiction of this commission. i believe racism is not allowable from a moral and legal standpoint. i will not allow it. i will not allow racism without inserting michael efforts to combat it. as to the process is now just beginning. i will see you next month. >> any additional general public comment on items not on the agenda? >> good morning, commissioners. my name is robert davis. i would like to ask a few questions and make sure they are

discussed today. the second one is the open director hearings on the books since 1996 and the more than 750 orders of the abatement that are on the books since the year 2000. i mentioned those at previous meetings last month, and i believe the notice of the violations were brought to your attention last year in november. i would also like to point out one address in the bayview 81810 failed the h and oakview that te oakview that had a fire back on march 13. you can see all the notices. unfortunately for months later there was a fire. the people who lived on both sides were forced out.

approximately 30 people in total. thisince then there have been me notice of violations. and the fire damage is still there and still squatters in the neighborhood. i would like to bring that again to your attention. >> any additional general public comment? seeing none, item number four, a discussion regarding q-matic. with regard to have staff with any discussion and then public comment. >> good morning, commissioners, president mccarthy. i am here to speak about the q- matic system to get your

progress report of the current status. as you can see, there are many people, more so than normal. i believe most of them are here to address it. i will try to keep my comments somewhat brief so we can hear public comment. i have taken all of the written comments provided by the customers and read all of them to see what the stakeholders bank. there was 56 commons pertaining to this that are retrieved, and the comments that were filled out by people who used the system. 53 comments were against and favor some sort of change, whether it is to go back to the clipboard method, or to somehow reengineer the system to be more user-friendly. just three people were in support of q-matic in the current form. four times sake i went through the 56 comments and a brief

notes, figured out the gist of the complaints, and almost all of the comet center around it as a system at present, which is a very rigid system here did you come in through the door at 1660 on the first floor, and you stand in line to get a number to go to whatever service that we provide that you are requesting. we have a very complex system. i know this system is and other cities, but what i am told from other stakeholders, it is more like for their express windows. we have a policy if your plan check item is one hour or less, we try to put it over the counter. having said that, we have opened

up ourselves to a system that really does not address that. this system is basically in a building department where you may only have to go to one or two different stations. i do not think any of these other jurisdictions from my conversations with stakeholders and customers -- i do not believe planning is involved in it. you could go up to seven or eight different stations systems that are in place and q-matic says you have a number where you either stay at the first four or go up to the fifth floor. if it is a complicated job, you have to go to planning, building, it is commercial you have to go to fire. usually there is a bsm permit,

plus plumbing and electrical, and then you have to go pay for it. each line is cumbersome. there is no flexibility from what i could tell up until we have q-matic then. when we have the club board system of person would come in off the elevator and you would survey the room itself. he would determine by the room how long the wait would be. perhaps go to building and keep monitoring the fire line. that is how they navigate it. the system we have in place now does not allow you to do that. the system we have now, no one

knows where in the line they are. q-matic does not give us the ability to where you can sit down and look at a tv monitor to say there i am moving down the list. from the three weeks that i have been a plan check, from what i could see, it just becomes background noise. you keep hearing it now serving this and that. after 10 or 15 minutes, people seem to check out and they're missing their call, or the system kicks out their number. they might sit there for an hour or hour and a half. finally they go up to some station and take excuse me i have been waiting for a hour and a half. the person looks into this. i'm sorry. your number is not here. that is ok, i will give you another number and you consider and which again for an hour. like i say, the lost systems are

problem. i am getting reports from plan checkers that the numbers for smaller jobs are a little but off and not coming in. a lot of people are leaving the department without getting their permit. i just hear these people are doing work. we just heard on their were someone went and build a stair without the building permit. they did not build it correctly. by all means, we are engineers and plan checkers are still looking at the system try to tweak it. but they are like the little dutch boy in the dike, as soon as you figure out one week -- if you put more resources into taking the cash, in take seems to suffer. it is very cumbersome. the system is -- the system has

no built-in rigidity, and i think that is a problem. we of a lot of people here for public comment. i am available for questions. >> would it be ok if we hear from the public? the do>> can i just ask the quen to stop? -- to staff? >> we have these issues that come up. do we have someone from q- matic working with us? >> i've never seen anyone there. i have only been running plan check for three weeks. >> we have contacted them, but the system itself is more symbol like dmv.

in our case, no matter what we do, we still have lots of issues on how to get a number. they have different functions. the person holding the ticket will not be sequencing. in our case it is different because when you pull the ticket, the frustration is from the customer and the staff and how to. to g>> i am still wondering whye have no one from q-matic is involved in the process. take out the obvious question is it is not here because they're paid in the job is done,

correct? to go that is what i get out of it. at this stage what i want to do is open up to public comment. we will take the first speaker. i do not have cards, but i would remind everyone that we have a lot of speakers and to keep your comments not as repetitious. try to give as much new information as we need for the commissioners. we will keep it to 3 minutes. please stay within that. >> please everyone state your name for the record. >> thank you for your time to listen to me. i apologize that i was involved in the q-matq-matic in criticizt after the fact. the trick is what is going on with the system. this system is a solution to and not a problem. i do not understand -- [applause] >> i have to ask you to keep

your applause. take ou >> i have been asking myself why we of been going from a system of putting your name is down and everyone could be transparent to a system where we have lost transparency. i feel like a sheep being herded from station to station in the cereal plant check. this has nothing to do with building department where we can do parallel plan check. this system is not fed up to do us sign check. you contract for your work. if you were in a long line of building, you could go to fire and sign up. right now the system has increased my time of the building department by at least 40 percent signed. for people that are expediting permits, and i do my own design

because my wife is a structural engineer. the time to get a permit went from an hour to one hour 35 minutes. the plan checkers working really hard erse sitting there because they cannot get the person to come over because the name is not called. they are wasting a lot of time sitting. if someone could explain to me with the idea of it was, maybe i would have a better understanding, but it really is a solution to a problem that did not exist. the other system worked great. the only thing i could think of is the idea that this might tough spot people checking plan checkers. if that was the only reason to do this, there has to be other ways. this is a draconian solution to a non-problem. >> spencer gosh. i seem to be the only employee

using this on a daily basis. while i may frequently disagree with many of the people here, i think we are in agreement that this system is not working for any people. i am spending more time that i should be sitting there looking for a customer to take care of, even though the room may be full of people, there is no one in my queue. it seems like there is not enough there to tweak to make it work from my point of view. i go home and frustration every day for that extra effort i have to go to to deal with the committee by -- a dramatic and regular issuing of permits. i wonder -- i believe this implementation is symptomatic of some of the other problems at dbi. i do not know how it ever came about. it seems like we've given away a lot of money for not much in return. thank you. >> high. the and berringer -- dna

an berringer. i think we have spent an additional eight hours of time that probably would not have been happening. generally i completely agree that there was no problem there before. what i would like to do is meet with the other guys that i know here in come up with some issues that could get resolved, because the board and the sign in sheets were not the problem. if we came up with even 100 or 1000 items that we have problems with or issues with, the sign in sheets would not be on that list. thank you. >> maybe we could line them up

here yet to go my name is mark. i used the combaq-matic system e july. it is very frustrating. it has added to my time there. the underlying issue is what is the story for the property owners in san francisco? you are adding to their expense to make improvements to the property. my time has gone through the roof in terms of the time i spend there. i know that by the amount of time i pay to park in the garage and the number of hours i have to eat or bill my clients. you have made the building permit process much more expensive to the property owners of san francisco. secondly, if this system was something to gauge efficiency of the process there, i think you have made the process much more difficult and much more time- consuming, and much less efficient.