is actually web portal which was reported last [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] with commission representatives and dbi. this would be to discuss the purpose of the advisory group, the [speaker not understood] and the agenda full board. we are continuing [speaker not understood] of the system and analysis has begun [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. it will start beginning of january. i think answer any questions. >> thank you. commissioners? do you have any questions? >> i do.

someone on the commission going to be part of that advisory group? is that what the goal is? >> yeah. >> okay. >> somebody from this commission will be asked to do that. that's in january, right? >> january, yeah. >> also in that committee, will we have strong representation on somebody from plan check and dbi that would be able to be on that committee as well? >> this is advisory group from the public. >> yeah, but somebody -- what i'm getting at obviously from this advisory the group will have recommendations you will take and implement them. >> correct. >> what i want to see is strong representation from the plan check side of things on this system.

i will, for example, there is going to be there from planning on this committee? >> oh, yes, absolutely, [speaker not understood]. >> i want to make sure. there are two different worlds sometimes. i want to make sure our plan check is represented in the system. okay. >> item 6d, update on other technology projects. >> [inaudible] department of building inspection. status of the technology projects. the delivery for cr applications has been [speaker not understood]. we're testing the configuration for dbi and getting ready to install the [speaker not understood] units to get ready for training. >> so, we can't hear you. >> do i have to repeat? >> why don't you go ahead and repeat. >> yes. >> i'm here to report on the technology projects.

the delivery support for the gr application of the minutes and [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. this is starting actually the week of 26. >> great. >> thank you. >> item 6e, update on q-matic. >> okay. i appreciate the time to respond to your comment the last few times. finally we have a form will be

[speaker not understood]. to look at this system. from the report, you can see all the committee members [speaker not understood], you know, for all the [speaker not understood] function. they are simple one-flow operation. they also look into all the functioning, you know, in our department it's harder to operate by this system. and also we have m-i-s camera to look at in the future.

a system suitable for our building department, for plan check and familiar processing. up to now we cannot find any system in the market can do it. and we mind when they come in, we lock to bay them [speaker not understood]. that is the recommendation. answer any questions you have. >> do we go to public comment or we don't on this one? no. commissioners, why don't we go. >> one of the reasons that i raised to put this back on the agenda was not just to revisit the whole q-matic, but one of the reasons the system was even implemented was that we wanted an open and a fair process so

everybody who was trying to come in to get a permit, especially going through plan check, it would be a seamless way for them to get it without any favoritism or even any possibility of favoritism. so, that was the real reason that we put it in this place. so, one of the questions i had is that i understand that maybe there were some technical glitches. but i wanted to find out what those were, just what happened. why didn't the system work? and, so, without going back to the q-matic thing, i would still like to think about -- because i feel like, you know, i've been to a lot of these meetings where a lot of the professionals have spoken in public comment about how they think everything is going great right now. i think that's fine. but i think one of the things

about the professionals whether they're contractors or expediters who come in the department, they know in a way -- they know the department. they know the system. they even know the staff. so, for them, of course, they can kind of work the system for the lack of a better word. i'm worried about that homeowner who comes in -- maybe they come in with an architect or somebody they hire, a contractor, trying to pull permit. and they don't get -- they don't know who's who. they don't know, you know, who to ask for. and that's what i'm kind of concerned about. is there a way in which people can come in and not have to -- yeah, know somebody. and the other thing i actually am concerned about, actually

one of the expediters that spoke at one of our public comment meetings said it. one of the things she liked about going back to the old way, she did like to pick her plan checkers that was part of the service she offered to her clients because she knew everybody. if she wanted to get plans back, i'll sign this clipboard and i'll sign this clipboard, but i know i want to be in this guy's line. i'll see if we can try to have some way, system -- we don't have to call it q-matic -- in which, especially for a plan check. if you go up to the fifth floor, everybody cues in. everybody is in line. and if they have to come to ed's desk, that's who they're going to get. i know you're not up there. i'm just using a name. [laughter]

>> so, they can't wait for the [speaker not understood] or whatever. they have to go to whoever is open. that's it. >> commission, we do have services to help for people that are coming down for the first time. and that's located on the first floor. our policy is if you know what you're doing, you don't have to stop there. but everybodies has to go to intake. the only people that don't go to intake are the no plan people, the people doing windows or roofs. it's just contractors, not expediters. we do other pretty good systems down there. when we hire staff, i'd like put a building inspector down there to qc plans. one of the problems we identify is everybody wants to go over the counter. not everybody can, so, a lot of people get creative about it and we would like somebody down there, for one, to train staff

that's down there. and for two, to establish the limits of when something can be over the counter and when something has to go into intake. we're always fine tuning. we're considering doing spreadsheets for those clip boards and copying them at every evening and putting them into the system so we do know if there is an appropriate contact between a plan checker and a certain expediter. and we're constantly fine tuning. we're constantly trying to keep a transparent system. >> that's great. i think that's a lot of good ideas. and it would be great if some of those things were [speaker not understood]. we do have kind of a check and balance type system. >> commissioner mar. >> first, i believe it's my job to make sure all the plan check

applies the code consistently. that's why we have all the code discussion come up with everything in writing in light of information sheet. and everybody apply the same. and then, you know, lots of time individuals have their opinions and some people like to hold a code so straight. that's why lots of people [speaker not understood]. that's what we make the correction. take time to educate them, train them, maybe you have a-d-a training coming the end of this month and early next month. that's what our job is, trying to apply the same thing. you see me, we both come up and down to check, make sure people, you know, plan check helping, customer uniform nitpicking on some of the customers.

we try to help, you know, all the small business, all the, you know, homeowner or small contractor. that's why we open extend hours from 7:30, hopefully they can come in earlier to get some of the small stuff done. only suggestion we are open to see how we can improve it. for the q-matic system, right now we are addressing -- i don't think it works, but unfortunately we have some money in it. but sometimes you have to bite the bullet and move forward. >> commissioner walker. >> i really like the suggestions just to get a sense of -- because that is the concern. i mean, that is the concern that sort of led us down that path as making sure we provide equal service to everybody, which is really our goal. the q-matic itself, i wonder if

we can resell it. can we do something with it? i mean, maybe that's -- would anybody like to make a bid? if it's not going to work, and i'm not saying that for sure. >> [speaker not understood] deputy director administrative services. we can certainly put out feelers to see if anybody would want to purchase it from us. you know, we also may have to go through -- inch since it's i think a city asset, we may have to go through the city process * of disposing of the equipment. we can explore that and let you know. >> commissioner. >> i want to make one last comment. i understand that we're trying

to be transparent and keep the favoritism ideas away from what we do. but, you know, there's a flip side to having transparency. for example, if we find all the clients are going to ed -- and i'm using ed because -- maybe ed is just very responsive. i mean, maybe he's very good with people. and in that case management should say why isn't the rest of the staff as responsive -- >> people person. >> yeah, like people person. that's the flip side of it. it's a management tool for us -- for you, director, to place the right people or to have the right people trained and educated on how to do their job. >> is there any more comments? you know, i concur with everybody.

obviously the main concern here is the transparency. i really believe, you know, i know a lot of our commissioners have gone down there the last period here and seen great improvements. we encourage -- people have complaints that they're not getting [speaker not understood]. bring it on here and we'll deal with it. i don't think anybody has any problem with that. and if that can help the situation, you know, the schematic system, it was a good step forward. it was an effort. it just doesn't work. the reality of it is, the committee that was put together came to that conclusion very comprehensively. so, i mean, we have to accept it and divorce the love affair from the schematic and try and figure out if there is another husband for it somewhere else. but that said, we have to be very consistent with making sure everybody gets treated fairly down there. and i believe this commission were here, if there is anybody in the public who feels they must come down here, let us know so we can address their

concerns and go to management. i believe we have some good deputy directors with good leadership in the departments right now and everybody wants to do the right thing. so, if you have a problem i think there's a really good open door policy down there and bring it there and let's see if we can deal with your concerns. i have no more comments. commissioners, any more comments? public comment? commissioners, my name is bob melki. i can only echo what president mccarthy has just said. i think you're 100% right. i use the system down there regularly, and it is smooth. it works really well. for the most part. and the staff is wonderful. deputy director sweeney is up there watching things, acting director healey is up there and it works well. i think the q-matic is much and it's an expense to maintain it over time. these clip boards work just fine.

i'm a small guy. if i'm assigned someone to go to see, i see that person. that's the way it works. to me it's very fair and uniform. thank you for comments. i think the q-matic is more than needed. thank you so much. >> okay. is there any public comment in any of the items under number 6? seeing none, we can move on to item number 7, commissioners questions and matters. item 7a, inquiries to staff. at this time commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. >> i would ask acting director huey, what is the process whereby we [speaker not understood] file reports and

de-commission q-matics and can we bring that to the next meeting so we are formally finished with it? we need to know if it's legal, we need to know if we can go through all that and get it done. >> okay. >> commissioners, any more? >> item 8b, future meetings and agendas. at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items that can be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. the next meeting we already said is december 19th. >> commissioner walker. >> i would love to get an update regarding our caps, recommendations to the mayor's office and where we stand on

soft story, all of that, and agenda item next meeting. >> and who would you like to come talk to us about that? >> maybe the new director -- yes. >> patrick, yeah. deputy director sweeney. >> pat or [speaker not understood] come over? >> perfect. >> is there any more? >> commissioner lee. >> actually, maybe -- can i give a report on our nomination committee at this time? just for information. the nomination committee met last week, that would be commissioner melgar, mar and myself. we reviewed the seats on the three commissions that we appoint members to. that would be the sf appeals commission, board of examiners, and the code advisory committee. we realize there's three vacancies to be filled

immediately. we're going to be looking to fill those seats in the early part of 2013. and announcements for resumes to fill those seats will come out soon. we expect resumes to be submitted to sonya, our commission secretary, by the end of january. the seats that are open that we're trying to fill are board of examiners, there's two seats. one is the register electrical engineer seat and the other one is the licensed architect seat. the code advisory committee, we are hoping to fill one vacancy and that's the commercial property owner manager seat. >> and those will be coming to the full commission for future agenda. >> that's correct. >> and just a point of clarification, commissioner lee. so, do you advertise it and recommend applications and then

-- how does the -- >> that is correct. that will -- the announcement will also be on our website. >> so, you will discuss it at your next meeting once the application is submitted? >> we're announcing -- we're hoping to get the -- to close the application or resume period at the end of january. so, the committee will review the application probably in february and make some recommendations to the full commission after that. >> and the outreach is done through the website, is that it? >> yes. we discuss that in detail in the committee. [speaker not understood]. >> okay, all right. >> one thing i would suggest, too, if any of the commissioners know of anybody, it is usually through word of mouth and people that you know that are qualified or whatever that it really is a good help if you can do a little bit of outreach to your constituents. >> yes. i asked when the announcement is posted on the website and all the information is there that she should notify us so

that we can actually refer to that website and actually pull out information from there to give to anybody that's interested. >> thank you, commissioner lee. commissioner walker. >> i also would like to have a closed session agenda item for updating the full commission from the litigation committee. so that we can advise the commission what we are involved in as a department * . >> the goal there would be to talk about some of the cases, how we came to the conclusion, and where to go from there? >> right. >> would we have somebody from the city attorney's office there? >> it probably would have a good idea to have our code enforcement representative so she can tell us where we are in all these cases. >> and so we could talk about the settlements and so on. >> yes. >> good, i think that would be helpful because that's something we should all be brought up to speed on. >> right. currently the litigation

committee meets every other month. there's three of us, and we advise with the director and staff and the rest of the commission doesn't really know the details. so... >> yes. >> do we have any public comment on item number 7a or b? seeing none, item number 8, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of august 15, 2012. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> the minutes are approved. do we have any public comment on that? seeing none, item number 9, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of september 19, 2012. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> okay, the minutes are approved. any public comment on that item? seeing none, we can move on to item number 10, adjournment. >> move to adjourn. >> five minutes to spare.

happy thanksgiving, everybody. >> thank you. [adjourned]