are happening within the department. we try do have -- to have representatives of other departments, plan checking departments there if they wish to come. it's not mandatory to come. this is a voluntary advisory committee, so i can't actually force any other department to come. we have had several departments that have continuous attendance. the fire department always comes. we have representatives now with the m.t.a. that mostly comes to every meeting and we also have some health department official that are coming to the meeting. so we are getting better attendance from other departments. we would like to increase the departments to include all the plan checking departments. but sometimes it's just not within their schedules to attend. but we do have representatives of industry. and any public member is able to come to these meetings. we have an agenda. and we also request that if someone wants to talk about an item on the agenda, that they let us know and we try to put that item on the agenda.

president murphy: i think that last sentence that you said there, the customers, the people that are writing the checks, they need to be heard. this is a very important committee. it's not something that started last week or last month. it's been around since director chu, director esam and director amy lee. so i think i certainly have been getting a lot of complaints that people are not being heard so that's the only comment that i can make on this. director day: we do have minutes of every meeting of when we do have their meetings. so the minutes of every meeting are available to the commissioners. we can post them on our website, too, if that would be of interest to anybody.

but anyone's welcome to come to these meetings and discuss issues. we have an open round table forum at the end of each meeting. commissioner walker: could we maybe post that in a public area of when these meetings are . and, you know, sort of if the public has issues, especially around process, that maybe they can be invited to attend. especially, you know, at the front desk. director day: sure. we have them on the bulletin board area of each floor. we will make sure that they are up there each time. commissioner walker: it is an asset. it's way more involved with the processes that we don't deal with necessarily here, the day-to-day operations. maybe we can just publicize it mover, too. -- more, too. commissioner lee: let me ask this. are these committee meetings report -- recorded or are there minutes? director day: yes. commissioner lee: can they be

posted? director day: that's what i -- commissioner walker: just do a little more p.r. on it so people know where to go if they have more process-related issues and questions. president murphy: the last director was very, very big on the p.a.c. meetings. he wanted the customers, as he called them, in, to participate. other comments, commissioners? seeing none. public comments? you have three minutes. >> thank you, president murphy. my name is henry. good morning, commissioners. the p.a.c. has been a long time, -- time.

the purpose is an advisory to the department for accommodations and procedures that effect customers. the customers that come to these meetings include engineers, contractors, architects, designers, general public. pretty well anybody who is a customer at d.b.i. comes to these meetings. what we have found most recently with these p.a.c. meetings that we have had, recommendations that we feel have not been considered even, and there are policies that are considered to be implemented. for example, the retention of the plans by d.b.i. so can you no longer take them out of the building once you take them into the first station. once they're in the first station, the plans stay at d.b.i. and do not get released. one of the reasons the previous director imments the process is

to make it quicker, easier, also preventing plans to be misplaced or lost. this way the customer is 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