responsible. it's their problem. also, it saves time and money for d.b.i. we don't think it should be changed. obviously we will speak on other matters. but we feel that all of these items should be discussed at the p.a.c. the p.a.c. will make the recommendation to the director. the director considers it and then comes back to the p.a.c. and we will decide what the policy and procedure should be. it should not be done by -- [inaudible] that's what we feel seems to be happening. in all accounts, i think the fifth floor is working really well. but this part of it, i think, is not working well. and i think we need to draw the attention to the director. we need to have issues before the p.a.c., the recommendations that will be considered and not just the decision to be made and implemented without taking it into more consideration. thank you. president murphy: thank you. any further public comments?

>> welcome, commissioner. >> thank you. my name is bobby. i'm an architect. i very often take projects through myself because i like to really be familiar with how things are working and how we can get permits more readily for our clients. i'm very cognizant of how important it is at this time to have construction start because they create good jobs for people. and they make citizens happy. so something i was very pleased with, the sort of efficiency of the new fifth floor, the way it's been set up, i think that's just terrific. and i was very disappointed when i just had a project come out of being reviewed and a discussionry review in addition to a single family house. and the project had already been delayed two months by what the planning department said was effectively a frivolous

d.r. by declaring it eligible for an abbreviated d.r. and what we wrote our response, the d.r. requester withdrew it. i assumed that meant i could then go and pick it up from the d.b.i. planning returned it the next day to d.b.r. or just a few days later. and what i was told is it to start all over again. and what that meant was -- the planning approval was approved in may. it took us until august 2 for the d.r. requester to withdraw his frivolous d.r. request. and then it took six weeks to go to three people sitting within 30 feet of each other on the first floor of 1600 mission street. those were p.p.c., d.p.w.,

b.s.n., and finally to the central perm -- central processing bureau. and the last one performed admirably. what i have liked to have done was to be able to pick that permit up after d.b.i. reviewed it when it came back from planning, it was reviewed fairly quickly the first time by p.b.c. but every time it went someplace else, it had to go back to p.b.c. they said, oh, you have to start all over. and so each time it went to another person, there would be like another three life week late. [tone] a permit that they had to just put a few notes on. that was the third entity. it literally didn't take half an hour for any of those people to look at it. and yet it delayed my client, so he missed a whole year. he can't take the roof off of his house to fix it now and upgrade the soft story because

he'll have the roof off in the rainy season. i explained this. i met with all the principals of these -- [tone] and i got finger pointing this way. p.u.c. says oh, d.b.i. does it. d.b.i. says p.u.c. does it. so it was very dysfunctional it wasted staff time. and it really cost my client thousands of dollars of losses. for somebody who was doing everything right. thank you. president murphy: next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm a structural engineer, president of san francisco for responsible growth. i sympathize with the comments of the former commissioner. one hopes that once you're planning, you're going to have smooth sailing during the building process. i think that is the case on the

fifth floor. the over-it-counter permitting system is working fine. think we need to put a little more emphasis in making sure there's a smooth transition between the planning department once they sign it off, particularly after a d.r. process, and the department building inspection. we have to do everything we can to expedite the permitting process. not only is it essential for creating construction jobs, but it's essential that we make people aware that they do not need to fear the permitting process. there's a substantial number of people that bypass the permitting process because they here all of these horror stories. most of them are planning related. but at the same time, we need make sure that we expedite the permitting process. we appreciate and commend all of the efforts that the director has done in regards to the permitting process issue. in regards to p.a.c., it is

important that all of the suggestion that are made by the engineers, architects, planners, and people that are integrally ininvolved in the process -- involved in the process are heard by the director. obviously we cannot please everyone. but what's important is to keep the final goal in mind, expediting this process and making sure all the permits are approved and have gone through the proper steps. i heard that one of the suggestions has been made in regards to copying or keeping records of the structural calculations. right now the process is you copy and create a micro fish -- microfish of the documents but no structural calculations are kept. calculations are not scanned into the system.

scanning calculations, now, that is a significant effort. a small addition could entaken over 60 pages as the commissioner as a structural engineer can verify. any sort of modeling sponsor reset models or structuring model techniques there would be hundreds of pages. not only do you have an initial structural calculation submital, but there will be response to -- [tone] i think that we need to look very carefully as to a request for keeping those records. it would be a interestly complicated and expensive effort. thank you. president murphy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is drake gardener --

gardner. i'm a member of the san francisco coalition for responsible growth. we're concerned about development in the city. i personally have been working in of is of is for 30 years, both as a building designer, builder and developer. i've seen this process go through many transformations. as the process relates to the p.a.c., -- i'm involved in that. and we feel that it's important that the issues that are raised at the p.a.c. be implemented. especially if they are issue that are agreed on by the whole group. our concern is that they're not. you know, this isn't a d.b.i. bashing session. we feel there's abeen -- there's been a lot of process. the fifth sfloor tantamount to

a miracle -- floor is tantamount to a miracle in our opinion. we want to keep the process moving forward. we feel there's a lot of instances where things are still happening, you know, the way they've happened before. my biggest concern is that there's really no continuity in, you know, the decision-making process. there just -- it just seems to be random. you bring a plan in and you have it checked by one plan checker. he wants to you do it one way. you bring it back and say that plan check ser not there -- checker is not there, the new checker says i want it done this way. we have a project where we recently sent the girl in our office down, and it took her eight visits to get a simple lot line reconstruction

approved. at this point it's still not approved because there's no coordination between d.p.w. and the building department. in other words, you know, we're trying to get a lot line adjustment. d.p.w. says you can't get it until you get the permit. then we go to the building department, the building department says you can't get it until you get the permit to get the lot line adjustment. you know, you go in and you work with the staff -- [tone] and you just feel like -- you know, they're just -- they're just passing time. you know? i mean, they do a certain amount of work. but it's almost like there's a limit to which they're willing to work and, you know, they're willing to do their job. they're not goinw, they're willing to do their job. they're not going to take any responsibility for anything. you know? and that goes all way -- the way up to the top. i've got a situation where they

told me that -- [tone] can i have a couple more minutes? president murphy: no. no. sorry. three minutes. >> all right. >> shane o'reilly. first of all, i'd like to, again, applaud the fifth floor. i've been there on several occasions. president murphy: speak into the microphone. >> sorry. i'd like to a-president murphy: the microphone. >> sorry. i'd like to applaud the fifth floor. it's been a very good experience up there. i'd also like to ask, what is the status of the online permit for minor repairs, termite repair? i often pull electric permits online. it's very efficient. it doesn't take up my time it doesn't take up the resources of the department. so what is the process or where is that? president murphy: thank you.

any further speakers? >> president murphy, commissioners, director day what i'm here about is the records management procedures. there's a new procedure where we have to now -- and this is a requirement. if we want to get a copy of a plan, we need to have the architecture, the preparer of that plan, sign off. and this is done through certified mail. well, this is a really cumbersome process. it can take up to 30 days. we may not be able to make a copy of those plans. sometimes we need those plans. and sometimes we're not the owner -- you know, we're dealing with not the owner of the property. it seems to me like it's working against the sunshine ordinance. but beyond that, this is a policy that i think we could discuss it at this public

advisory committee. and work out the kinks. because there are concerns of people for this information. it's very, very important information. i just request that the public advisory committee just work a little bit more closely on these things, with the director and the staff who have been great. thank you very much. president murphy: thank you. next speaker, please. three minutes. >> commissioners, my name is john. i'm a small property owner in san francisco. and i'm a member of that group as well. director day, my question has to do with address assignments. in the past i used to be able to get a clerk who would be able to do this. now all address assignments

have to be routed to the director for approval. and my question is, is in a policy you're going to continue within the department or is it going to be able to be something that can go back to a clerk in order to accomplish this? that's a question i raise because when i came in earlier with this on my mind because of the amount of time that it took to get through that, i saw this draft on agenda item 8. and as a small property owner, for the amount of time that it took to do this the last time, i look at this nightmare and i say to myself, is this the kind of process that it's going to take to accomplish things in this city as we go forward? that's my question. thank you, commissioners. president murphy: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> could you reset the clock, please? president murphy: three minutes. >> thank you. good monch, -- morning, commissioners. coalition for responsible growth. i just want to make a few points and try not to regurgitate some of the points that have already been made but lend my support to say there is an overwhelming opinion on them. the first thing, director, getting back to one of the points you made about some department heads not being at the meeting because of other commitments. i would like to suggest that directors at your level in the various different departments would actually consider this meeting that takes place once a month as one of the ones that doesn't get off the calendar and is placed there above all other things because i think that this particular immediate

ian and venue is a very, -- medium and venue is a very valuable opportunity to produce a lot and give great exposure to the public about what the department is doing for the people that again, getting back to the earlier comment, the customers who pay the bills. p.p.c. having to act as a central quarterback role and clear everything. it felt like there was a lot of redundancy and having done so much work to improve things i felt it was unfortunate that we

were maybe not going as far as we could to make things run more efficiently. for instance, and i missed the online agenda item earlier but i look forward to the day when people at the stations are looking at plans that are on an electronic screen. we are, after all, in the 22nd century. we are talking about preserving forests. everything ought to be online and you type a code on and the plans are there. you do what you have to do and it goes back to the next department. that is the way we should be going. i look forward to when we have that. finally, there is an opportunity to generate revenue within the d.b.i. you could put it on service and say tell your architect to send the raw data files, we will convert them into an application that is readable and user friendly and guess what, we will type it out at the end of the assembly line ready for you to

print or give it to you in a c.d. thank you very much. president murphy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> john kilgan from the san francisco coalition for responsible growth. president, commissioners, director, when i was planning to come here and consider a few thoughts i might share with you, certainly one of them was that i would be delighted to talk about a customer delight. but from the speakers you have already listened to there is

some merchant disappointment. -- there is some customers disappointment. i won't repeat all you heard. some thoughts on how to go forward. one of them that is emerging is perhaps to describe this in my words is to reenergize the public advisory committee. and what better way than those who are already having an active part of a director. from the people that spoke you may have sensed a hrelittle sur having taken place this morning. i would suggest that you would consider a broader survey of our customer base and perhaps an independent group to carry that out and get a real sense of the pulse that is really happening for the customer as the word payer was used.

quite rightly. and, director, i would welcome putting the minutes that you have considered up upon the web. so, let's get back to giving the payer really value for their money. thank you, president, commissioners, director. president murphy: thank you. any further public comments? seeing none, one more. three minutes. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm gary bell. i i'm, by profession, a permit expediter. permit runner. i have been working maybe 20 years. i'm at the building department most every day helping others get their permits so i'm talking from that standpoint.

my specific issue is about the site permit process. site permits are terrific. it is a wonderful vehicle to allow our customers, my clients, to get their entitlement approved before they go through the building department approval process. however, from a processing standpoint and moving the permit forward on a day-by-day basis it is very confusing and you need somebody like me to work through the process. i understand recently that there's some idea to change the site permit process. i understand also that the decisihow to change it lies with the director. i would like to encourage that the public advisory committee be involved in the process, if my understanding is correct about the retooling of the site permit process. i would like to request that the public advisory committee set up

its own committee of participants in the process on a daily basis, the stakeholders in other words. i would like them to be in the process of defining what occurs on a day-by-day basis for the movement of the site permit. thank you. that is my request. president murphy: thank you. any further public comments? seeing none, commissioner lee. commissioner lee: after listening to the comments and discussion on this topic, it seems to me one of the stumbling blocks is the department's participation on this committee. i think a lot of the issues would be resolved or be discussed and answered. i will pose this to the commissioners. is there anything we can do as a commission to help you get these

other departments to participate? >> in the future i think what i will do at the public advisory committee is ask the city attorney to attend. because some of these policy changes that people or the commission or public advisory committee think are policy changes are not policy changes. they are state laws that have been ignored by the city of san francisco that we need to impleme implement, such as the request to have an architect sign for the release of his plans for copying. anybody can view plans. that is under the sunshine ordinance. anybody can view anything is a public record. i cannot legally copy plans unless i have a release from the owner of the property and architect. that is state law. i don't have anything to do with that. that is not a san francisco policy. that is state law. it was not implemented in the san francisco -- or in san francisco. and on the advice -- not on the advice of city attorney but on the process or on the threat of

a lawsuit we had to go back and examine state law and examine san francisco's policies. and, yes, we had to change procedures to meet state law. i tphknow that upsets a lot of people but i can't override state law as a director. and it is not a policy decision, that is law. there is a difference between policy and law that i have to implement. it is also like the retention of plans. and we will go with that and i can have the city attorney report on that at the next meeting. so, there are certain things i can't change. i'm willing to change anything that is to the benefit of the customer. it is other issues, other things that drive things that i tried to explain to the public advisory committee and sometimes people hear what they want to hear. i invite the commissioners to come and sit in the meetings. president murphy: have other jurisdictions such as san jose, l.a., alameda, have they enacted

this or been part of it? >> regarding not the retention of plans but regarding the request for an architect signature, yes, that is in the business and professional code. it is on the form. we have worked with the city attorney office on the forms that we need to do. other cities have implemented this. many years ago. in the 1990's. this is something new for san francisco but not new to the building official capacity or state laws. president murphy: what i'm asking, are they doing it in san jose? are they doing it in l.a. and other places? >> they are doing it in other jurisdictions, yes. president murphy: ok. further comments? commissioner walker? commissioner walker: i think it is important that we listen to the folks using the system as we

try to implement. i know that the business reengineering process that we used to help advise around the fifth floor changes are still going on with our first floor, and the inner face with other departments has been the challen challenge. so the comment about six weeks for approving something that seemed relatively easy, many of us on the commission have experienced what happened when there have been some changes with these departments and then our department doesn't catch it and then really late in the game it has to go back to the beginning. so, i think that we are trying to put all of those interfaces with other departments together at the beginning. so, i think at this point it is really important that we listen to the users around these changes.

if the public could be more patient some of this could be resolved with the integration of the i.t. system that is so slow coming out and combining our computer systems and having better access to data. but it has been the problem with our permitting system of things getting lost between departments and us having to continually turn back to the beginning when one department changes something and it affects the whole project. it is a complicated situation and i appreciate the public's input and hope we can resolve that with the further engineering. it is an important meeting rand i think that -- and i think whatever we can do as commissioners to emphasize that with other department heads i think we will do. that is where we need to resolve the issues. if we could prioritize it, publicize the meetings, who was there, who wasn't.

that is one of the points of public information is to make the public aware. i think that will help raise it up to a level of importance. president murphy: thank you. commissioner hechanova. commissioner hechnova: in support of what commissioner walker just mentioned, and in addition, this is one of the really very important interfaces between the public department and other departments associated with the we will process. and this combination of communicati communication, it would be imperative that at least a representative from each public department is there if the category of lack of representation by the departments is a disservice to the users. they, in turn, the representative for each department, can at least bring to notice quickly to be more

responsive to the needs of those that are there because they have a concern about what this advisory committee is supposed to really bring about. if anything, i could probably ask whether how many, if there is a list of public recommendations, is there a list of those recommendations that maybe sometimes become redundant but, more importantly, are we as an advisory committee responding quickly over a very shorter time period as opposed to letting it be reported over and over again during the course of a period of time, whether quarterly or every six months, to say check off, check off, check off, we have done this. because it seems as if there is the frustration level that is coming about