documentation. generally compliance will be verbal. >> at the issue of the notice you start from 30 days? >> if not written we give them the code allowing them the time to file the permit required. they have that window to come in and do that. we generally tried to work with people. they did not notice the scaffolding and they get someone to come in. >> do they invite the inspector to the job site? determining whether there is a violation or not? >> initially when the complaint is received, as staff -- as the staff gathers the data, we will search our system. someone just called me about

that yesterday, asking why we would send someone out on a complaint if there was a permit. saying it was a waste of time, but not necessarily. there are quite a range of descriptions. once we get out there, we make the determination of whether or not the violation exists and if a corrective action needs to be taken. even if there is an active permit, we will give the district inspector to verify that they are staying within their scope of work, if it is a more critical factor. doing alterations. this is where the noise is occurring. they are working on the deck and we tell them they need to get one of those permits. we tried to negotiate and regulate. >> everything you have seen over the years is not new. is there a way to make the system for the series of

evaluations, like a triage for emergency room, more efficient to the point where there is time activity that reduces the number of cases that keep on pilings up? >> in a general question, i would agree that that is the case. in a way, because of our efforts we will have a duplication and different agencies in the city will converge on one property. clearly, if we had them establish a central clearing house, we would tend to do that. often it is a rapid response, like a call from a homeowner who wanted someone out there now because they were working right now and she wanted us to catch them in the act. we did not have the available

staff to respond at 3:00 in the afternoon that day. clearly, that is the judgment and somewhat of a policy. >> is there a way to have that as part of the public responsibility to participate by saying that if the violators are there at 3:00, at the end of the day can be held with documentation? >> to some extent, they hand. when other neighbors in the community have an issue, and it becomes more of a community issue, more attention is paid. often what i see in appeals hearings advisor, property owners will pay the reason why they could not comply. other property owners will say

that they followed all of the rules, so in a way this is just a balance. as a commission or department, the public values in terms of what we want to enforce, strictly, it is a factor in how we do it. back to my original introduction of the phone call for why we are doing something, right now it has been a tough year because of the economic situation. fees have gone up. for a lot of people financially it is an overwhelming cycle we are looking at in terms of permit fees and costs. >> what is the timeframe between a complaint and when people go out? we got a packet of information that it was a few months.

i do none of that is true or not. >> from the building department, from our perspective, that is not the case. if it was the case, it would be one that was lost or we lost the case and i would hope that the person would call back, we are attempting to respond to every complaint within 48 hours. the nature of the complaint, which will determine somewhat the response for lack of response, often there will be multiple complaints on a property where we have not got the date. part of the process is the paper that we produce. sometimes we cannot get the data in the computer fast enough. we got them before they could

charge the fee penalty. we tried to administrate the best we can. we have to follow the code. >> we could get that data in terms of property data. my experience is that it is residential slower in compliance against commercial properties, one of the things that happens is if you walk into our office, anyone can get a permit. if you have a violation it will

come up on a flag. we do not want to issue a permit to a building that is potentially unsafe. contributing to that had their comedy did that work continue with violations addressed? maintaining the safe building. >> commissioner? >> i asked for this matter to be heard. for them to look at opportunities where we can save 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?