staff time, shortening the time line to resolve these issues before they become appeals issues, perhaps even to engage the property owner, even on an earlier stage. what i would like to ask, when someone receives a violation, if they disagree with what the inspectors said, what opportunity they have? can they request to go straight to the directors hearing? the way that i understand it, we place the item on the directors hearing if they do not respond after a few inspections, correct? >> yes, we scheduled the case for the directors hearing. there is a code that allows people to bypass that provision. >> i am not talking about

bypass. >> but there is a provision of code that would allow that. >> that is not what i am asking. if someone gets a notice of violation, can the requests a hearing? >> yes. >> really? is that on the notice? >> in terms of wanting to have it moved up as soon as possible? or are you saying that they are challenging the determination of the inspector? generally we would then go to the senior inspector. or the chief inspector. saying that they do not feel they are being fair, it does not happen often but i notice of bias would make the determination. >> i am thinking more about it being a public setting rather than a hearing setting. sort of like they are appealing the decision of the inspectors, right? >> i did state that that is the

forum for the public to enter their evidence. that is the opportunity for them. >> this is something that we talked about in line and what was decided was that we would achieve command if a building inspector or house inspector goes out to make this determination to write a violation on any item in the code, that person would have the right to go to a supervisor, who at that point would be a senior chief deputy director. ultimately to the commission. there is a whole layer of appeals. generally these things are resolved very quickly within the first 30 days to 60 days. often because of the complex nature of permitting in san francisco, it involves multiple

agencies and oftentimes you can see far down two, three, four years. the financial situation of the customer can change to where they cannot do the work. as we saw today, we have one from 2000 to. it is now 2010 and she had various problems with people coming from getting across. >> that was that of -- one of them not acting to finalize the permit. if we have a process of going to a superior and ultimately ending up with a director, that is sufficient. the challenge, i think, are the ones that linger on and on. some of which are because we do not have anything in our files

to say yo, this has been open for a while. the engineering system is one of making it work better for the public and the staff. >> the reason i ask, remember last week? we had to issue to the gentleman that kept saying i disagree with the department's's assertion that there is led i and my pain -- in the pain -- lead paint. i am just wondering if that person had an opportunity before it got to us. >> they could have gone to the senior housing inspector. >> adding what was recorded?

>> is there a flow chart that the police can find a more visually understandable? sometimes it is a more linear half as opposed to a graphic visual, which then shows you different avenues, streets, or different peril. >> we have them available on the web site. >> may be having something written on the notice of violation about the options. >> exactly. >> perhaps just that you have options. >> with the paint, a third tht who could possibly in day to the property owner -- inveigh to the

property owner and said, "what you're doing is wrong?" maybe by the time it gets to us our first question is, "did you explain this to somebody before ?" that would help maybe relieve some of those cases and may be educate the person. i am not saying that is the only case i am referring to, but maybe some people do need to help. maybe some people do need an understanding that what they are doing is wrong. on the flip side, maybe the department or the hearing officer can sympathize with the problem. maybe they can make some sort of compromise or agreement before it reaches us. i am just talking out loud, trying to shorten the duration of solving some of these violations. >> right now, we probably -- it has been a while since i have

counted. we probably do 100, 120 complaints a week. >> that is what the vast majority of people do. most people who come in to get a permit take care of it. they come in because they think the violation is too harsh or the wartime. they will deal with the person who gave them the violation or their immediate senior. it very rarely gets to my level. commissioner lee: take this morning's case. it started in 2002. perhaps if the appellate said, "i would like to go before a

hearing," if she explained to the hearing officer, "this is what i was going to do," maybe it could have stopped at that level instead of wasting time. commissioner walker: she did not come back. she did finalize it. >> this morning's case, the customer went out and got the permit. that stopped the process. once you have a permit you are compliant and we are waiting for you to finish the work. and it got lost. it was only years later when we were going to the files we said, "this was 2002. we have not heard from her in two years. let us put it on." today she was tried to get relief on the fees. commissioner lee: ok. bad example. president murphy: is there a time limit to when the permit is no longer valid? then it will not have the permit

any more. you cannot just sit on the permit. >> most permits are good for one year. she took six months to get it. now we are at 18 months. we change the district inspectors every two to three years. so a lot of times the new inspector comes in and looks at a lot of new cases. president murphy: in every case that i have seen, as much time as could be reasonably given within the requirements and administrative code, we have given it. we have always wanted to be in a position where we have not wanted to say we give you less time. and the opportunity for advice or continuance we have tried to request. >> when we get our new computer system, that is point to make things a lot more efficient. what inspector sweeney just mentioned about violations sitting for four or five years and not showing up -- we are

actually going to paperwork years later. >> we are in the process of changing the code enforcement department. we are going to have a single number. right now, eid and pid -- plumbing and electrical -- the building inspectors go out for work. they go out for a lot of the complaints. after the second notion of violation, it is sent to code enforcement. what i have found is that is kind of a weakness in the system. you are bringing in somebody else who is not familiar with it. the direction we are going is we will have code enforcement officers who will take the case at the complaint level and go through all the various layers up into order of abatement and before this body, so they can argue their own pace. they are the ones that know the case better than anybody else.

if somebody walks into my office like it happened last night, i have never been there. a lot of these cases are very similar. the one last night, you almost had to go out there and see it. i advised him to go back to the district inspector, and if that did not work to get the senior involved. one of the things you want people to use all their appeal rights. you know what people coming directly to me. because once i say no, people underneath me are much less apt to go against what my wishes are. the old chain of command. you start low and work your way up. president murphy: with the tracking system, there should be a feature their that basically would log how long the respective years of the

outstanding violations. >> one of the things in a new ptf is one we have an export permit the code enforcement officer or building inspector will be notified. as a matter of fact, the permit holder will be notified it has expired as well. in the letter it would explain to them what they want to do to reactivate the permit or get a new one. president murphy: commissioner walker and i sit on the litigation committee. we would like to see more of fees adding some -- of getting some fees into the department. commissioner walker: the clock does not start at the directors hearing. it starts at the violation. >> one of the new ordinances voted at this body was the $53 a month monitoring fee, so there is a financial incentive for the

violators or the homeowners, the person that owns the building, to come forward, get the permit, and get it abated as quickly as possible. commissioner lee: what is the fee? >> $53 a month. commissioner walker: $52 a month in the notification a week after week issued a notice of violation, a letter notifying them of the monitoring fee plus the fact they do have the right to go, if they disagree with the notice of violation, what chain of command that can go through before they get to a director's hearing. and there is a major expense for these hearings. it is like a two-hour minimum for staff time. commissioner lee: it is good the public are receiving that letter. commissioner clinch: i am a visual person. if there is a graphic and show this. text is so linear.

if there is a way one can see what their options are and the different streets are avenues they can take, that would help to solve regulate their efforts as opposed to going on a path that basically keeps bumping them back further onto the list for time lost. director day: we consider that also, what their options are. commissioner lee: i would like to conclude by asking the department if you have any suggestions how to streamline how to resolve some of these issues, maybe there are opportunities to engage the property owner earlier on, maybe proactively so they can try to do something -- even to request a hearing, try to get some understanding of what the problem is before it reaches the abatement process.

director day: just so you know, they do attempt to engage the property owner in the beginning. they take the complaint to the property owner. i deal daily with property owners that have gone up the chain of command that do not agree with the decisions that have been made by the code enforcement officer, their supervisor, the deputy director. and i do have meetings weekly with property owners. and then we do go down and i explain the code for them. at the end, it is a matter that sometimes it just takes going all the way up to the director to hear it from five people that you cannot put a plastic tarp on top of your roof and leave it there forever. i mean, that is against the code. commissioner lee: i am thinking maybe is there a way to streamline it and instead of going to the chain, can the jump

decisions from somebody that is more neutral to the problem? maybe that would shorten the period and because down the staff time of inspections. director day: quite frankly, a lot of complaints are handled at the lower levels. i deal with five to 10 a week. they are dealing with 120. i am dealing with ones that are seven or eight years old and just coming up before you now. so the staff is handling part of the complaints now with this idea that they can go and have a second opinion and a third opinion. it is very rare they come to the directors hearing. it is usually on all complaints they can get an answer from. it is working out well the way it is. it is the effect of setting up formal hearings and formal meetings. that is going to take up more staff time and what is involved right now. we have a pretty good relationship with code enforcement officers, and they

have a pretty good relationship with their deputy director. it seems to be working out a little bit better now. there are stubborn cases. they do not want to hear the have to comply with safety issues. and that is all we are really calling out in most cases, is a safety issue. >> one of the best things i see on a daily basis is when a case is abated. that is good. that is a good one. that is a little bit better. i know we have gotten those. it is just getting a record. president murphy: thank you, tony. >> you are welcome. >> if there is any public comment? president murphy: i see none. >> item 9, review and approval of minutes of the regular meeting of march 17, 2010. commissioner walker: move to

approve. commissioner lee: second. >> the mets are approved. any public comment? president murphy: i see none. >> item in 10, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of april 21, 2010. commissioner clinch: motion to approve. >> is there any public comment? all those in favor? those are approved. review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of may 19, 2010. commissioner walker: move to approve. president murphy: public comments? see non-. >> all those in favor? the next item is item 12, discussion and possible action on the annual performance

evaluation of the director. item eight is public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. no public comment. b, item -- item b, move to go into closed session. all those in favor?

there are so many ways that the internet provides real access to real people and resources and that's what we're try to go accomplish. >> i was interested in technology like video production.

it's interesting, you get to create your own work and it reflects what you feel about saying things so it gives perspective on issues. >> we work really hard to develop very in depth content, but if they don't have a venue, they do not have a way to show us, then this work is only staying here inside and nobody knows the brilliance and the amazing work that the students are doing. >> the term has changed over time from a very basic who has a computer and who doesn't have a computer to now who has access to the internet, especially high speed internet, as well as the skills and the knowledge to use those tools effectively. . >> the city is charged with coming up with digital inclusion. the department of telecommunications put together a 15 member san francisco tech connect task force. we want the digital inclusion program to make sure we address

the needs of underserved vulnerable communities, not communities that are already very tech savvy. we are here to provide a, b and c to the seniors. a stands for access. b stands for basic skills and c stands for content. and unless we have all three, the monolingual chinese seniors are never going to be able to use the computer or the internet. >> a lot of the barrier is knowledge. people don't know that these computers are available to them, plus they don't know what is useful. >> there are so many businesses in the bay area that are constantly retiring their computer equipment that's perfectly good for home use. computers and internet access are helping everybody in the community and people who don't have it can come to us to help with that. one of the biggest problems we see isn't whether people can get computers through programs like ours, but whether they can understand why they need a

computer. really the biggest issue we are facing today is helping people understand the value of having a computer. >> immediately they would say can i afford a computer? i don't speak any english. how do i use it. then they will start to learn how to do email or how to go back to chinese newspaper to read all the chinese newspaper. >> a lot of the barrier still is around lack of knowledge or confusion or intimidation and not having people in their peer network who use computers in their lives. >> the important thing i learned from caminos was to improve myself personally. when i first came to caminos, i didn't know anything about computers. the second thing is i have become -- i have made some great achievements as an individual in my family and in things of the world. >> it's a real issue of self-empowerment where new immigrant families are able to communicate with their families at home, able to receive news

and information in their own home language, really become more and more connected with the world as well as connected even inside their local communities. >> if we value the diversity of our city and we value our diverse neighborhoods in the city, we need to ensure that they remain economically viable. equiping them and equiping residents in those areas with jobs that will enable them to stay in san francisco is critical to that. >> the important thing that i see here at caminos is it helps the low income community, it helps the women who wouldn't have this opportunity otherwise. >> the workers with more education in san francisco are more likely to be able to working that knowledge sector. where they are going to need that familiarity with the internet, they are going to find value with it and use it and be productive with it every day. and half of the city's population that's in the other boat is disconnected from all that potential prosperity. >> we really need to promote

content and provide applications that are really relevant to people's lives here. so a lot of the inspiration, especially among the immigrant community, we see is communications with people from their home country but we as much want to use the internet as a tool for people to connect within the local san francisco community. >> i think it's our job as public educators to give them this access and give them this opportunity to see that their efforts are being appreciated beyond their immediate reach. >> you have to blend this idea of community network with computer equipment with training and with support. we can pull all that together, then we've got it. >> it's as much about social and economic justice -- in fact it's more about social and economic justice than justst

supervisor dufty: captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor chu: good morning. welcome to city operations and neighborhood services committee. victor, are there any announcements today? [no audio] supervisor chu: thank you, please call item no. 1. >> i did not have it on. ordinance authorizing