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 as a result of things aren't being responded to quickly, fast enough, making it sleeker, faster, better. ultimately our service is more important to the category of making it better and more friendly and receptive to the users. president murphy: thank you for your comments. i don't want to sit here and air out dirty laundry or any of that. i want to make a couple of comments. the private sector where i come from i would certainly welcome comments from people, hear what i need to hear rather than hear what i want to hear.

and if people are telling me and bringing me ideas and i constantly am too quick to say no, they are going to stop bringing the ideas to me. sometimes it is black and white, and from running a business or department or whatever you are running, there is a whole lot of gray in between. i think that you have done a very good job, director. but i would love to see a little more openness as far as this committee is concerned and follow the suggestions of the commissioners. any further comments? seeing none, next item. >> number eight discussion and possible action regarding draft policies concerning d.b.i.'s

notification and addressing of properties. >> commissioners, you have before you a draft number one. what i have taken is the original administrative bulletin which is a.b. 035 and tried to update it with current policies and procedures. we already have some comments from the city attorney that need to be incorporated into the document. so there will be a draft number two. you have before you the e-mail from the attorney to myself on that. for the public, there are three typos in there. due to the fact that some of these -- that they are at is an old fashioned term copied from years from 1909 so we will revise that to there on.

there from should be together instead of separated and i did have a typo on begin. i had an eight in there and i will correct those. under renumbering, which the second paragraph, the city attorney suggests to add the sentence that failure to do so, this is -- the whole paragraph reads if a property is tenant occupied the property owner must also submit documentation acceptable to the building official that all tenants have been notified of the proposed street number change request. then the city attorney is asked to add failure to do so shall result in revocation or denial of any such request for renumbering. president murphy: is there a time limit on the notification? 30 days? 60 days? >> no. in other words, before the change request can be submitted to the department, that letter

of notification has to be attached with the submittal document before the change, the request for change will even be considered. in other words, the property owner will have to notify the tenants i would like to khaeuch your address from apartment 123 to apartment abc, and they have to notify the tenants. and we are going to have a form that the tenants would be able to sign saying they have been notified. president murphy: so the burden of responsibility is on the landlord or property owner to notify the tenant? >> yes. president murphy: ok. >> we won't accept the application for the request for the change unless that documentation is submitted with the request. president murphy: ok. any comments? commissioner walker: i want to thank the director for putting this in writing and khaeufrg our

situation. -- clarifying our situation. i think all of us have responded and heard members of the public who are at the effect of these changes without knowing about it until it is too late and that creates a lot of problems for our process. i appreciate this notice and process being delineated. i think it will go a long way toward resolving some of -- we heard from jose morales who has experienced too late a number change in his apartment and i think this is a really good resolution. i want to thank you for that very much. and the department. president murphy: further comments? public comments? mr. morales.

>> do you want the overhead? president murphy: it looks like we have quite a few speakers so i will be real rigid on the lee-minulee tka- lee--- three-minute rul--- thre- three-minute rule.--- three-minute rule. -- three-minute rule.-- three-minute rule. three-minute rule. three-minute rule. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm jose morales.

first i would like to request that three minutes would be enough for me, but if i could request three minutes later on i will be very happy. but if i use six minutes now it is also ok? but since i was the one that initiated this discussion, as the main presenter i would like -- president murphy: i would like to say before you go any further you have three minutes. there will be no further three minutes granted. >> thank you. thank you for that. for this to be applied it requires withdrawal of all the units from the building.

in this case, the owners did not withdraw number 572-a. and when they realized that there was a mistake, instead of rectifying it, they substituted that number for that illegal number, 574, which was obtained for the brand-new unit to be constructed on the third floor. and they did this to surprise the authorities in the city. the process of the eviction, when it was taken, was done and

became number and -- null and void. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlord null and void. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlord null and void. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlonull and void. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlo null and voi. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlo null and voi. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlord null and v. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlonull and void. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlord null and v. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlo null and voi. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlord null and v. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlo null and voi. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlo null and voi. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlo null and voi. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlordnull and vo. for that reason i'm appealing because the landlord committed fraud with a purpose of evicting me from my home of 43 years. also, i ask you to please correct the number from 574, which is still in the building, and that should be corrected according to ab 035 which is one of our codes.

what could be more simple than using that code to do justice? because that number was not supposed to be there because that was not a real number. it is an insult, it's not right. so, this was the first permit. and i have all the documents in the computer in the d.b.i. building. and before i lose this great opportunity, this is a simple case where i get to show you in a minute where i obtained this. [bell] >> may i have one minute? president murphy: next speaker, please.

>> i would like to limit my comments to two minutes and give him one of mine. >> thank you. president murphy: counsel, can we do that? no, we cannot do that. three minutes per speaker. next speaker, please. >> any way the number 574. >> i will start the time. >> thank you. jose, stay here if i need you. i work with the community living campaign. i want to thank you for addressing this issue commissioners and director day. i think it is important the way you clarify the language in the administrative code here. i think it is good it includes clarification about notification and steps up that process. it is also important you are now giving notice to the residents because they are partners in this when you change the address because they have to change

their checks, mailing address, all their legal documents. they also can be your partner in terms of enforcement. i want to make two comments. one has to do with the grief and aggravation jose suffered. we would hope something for the fewer comes out of -- future comes out of this. there is one more thing to clarify. in his situation you had a permit request for new construction, you had a permit request to change the address. they came in together. at some point the permit for the construction died. it was not approved. it went away. you have the other permit. the question is, you know, that is what created the confusion. it is not clear what that number relates to, if it came in with the construction. somehow when you clarify this, if the issue is a permit coming in with construction and there is not a certificate of completion on the construction, that number really shouldn't go into effect or there needs to be

some way to clarify. even your documents have different addresses for this location now. the point is to make it clear for everybody, property owner and public. if you could make that change. the last thing really is we hope this gets put into practice. it still doesn't address what happened going back in jose's case. he asked for a hearing and had not received one or formal notification about why he was not given a hearing. if any questions for jose or i, i have a minute left. or jose, anything you would like me to say on your behalf? >> [inaudible] i was supposed to

have these penalties. why can't that be complied with? why? it was the law. >> do you have any questions or comments for us or actually i would be interested in hearing if you see a way to add the clarification about when it is tied to a permit. thank you. president murphy: next speaker, please. >> [speaking spanish]

>> in the case of jose morales, the control of the number and legalization of the control of the numbers are in effect -- in effect, they should be a specification to the permit. in this case there was new construction that was canceled.

in this case, because the new construction wasn't followed through the entire permit should have been canceled, should have been expired. the renumbering should not have happened. it wasn't justified and the owners ended up using the renumbering as a justification for arguing for an eviction.

and there was a mistake made. it requires all the units be taken off the market. 574 never existed. it never came to fruition. because there wasn't any new construction. and that is what is being asked, that the number goes back to what it was before so that jose

morales can go back to his house. thank you for listening. president murphy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. luka brian. coalition for responsible growth. i would like to make sure everybody understands that i have no comment on what happened here with the speakers in the previous matter. it is my point that i would like to share that a colleague of mine's recent experience with an address change. it had to go all the way up to your level, director, to be taken care of. and it sounds like there may be justification for that in the current climate with what is going on maybe related to what

happened with mr. morales and the fact that you tried to clear up legal issues with it and make sure that you abide by the state l law, which by the way, here and in the previous agenda item we would all support you in having to abide by state law. nobody would advocate that you would circumvent that. what i would say is that as you are analyzing your situation and checking that you are abiding by state law, that you also with the same attention to detail and enthusiasm approach the matter with let's make sure that this is also practical. so we can abide by state law but make sure we don't kill everything because we are so busy abiding by state law that nothing gets done. and i know you understand that point and sometimes it is no harm to reiterate and hear some things again and be reminded of them. and you are in the process of

fixing this. i would submit a suggestion that when it is resolved that in the 99% of the cases where there isn't anything going on that is going to lead to something like what mr. morales went through, i personally have been involved in address changes to existing structures as well as involved in the addressing of new constructi construction, and it was always quite a straightforward process and sounds like it has been discovered that it was not being done according to state law. so we respect that. but afterwards, when it is, i hope it is still a relatively straightforward process, because at the end of the day the vast majority of cases involving address changes are aboveboard and not for ulterior motives and we want to make sure those people are able to get on with their business easily. thank you. president murphy: thank you.

any further public comments? i see none. commissioner walker? commissioner walker: again, i think that the clarification of this process is going to make sure that something like this doesn't happen. and i think once we have established this criterion and the process, it will help everyone through this process. i think that, had we been clear about this years ago when this happened, it may not have ended up with us where we're at. i think the unfortunate part is at this juncture, at this point in time, especially because this matter has been litigated, it is out of our jurisdiction as far as i understand to do anything specific about this particular

address. so, i would have hoped that this issue could have been brought up at the court proceedings because it may well have affected what the court has decided. but once something is in court it is taken out of the jurisdiction of our department. i believe that is the case, and maybe the city attorney can verify that so we can resolve that issue. but i think what is true is this process will make sure that this doesn't happen again. and that is really an important step forward. i think that the issue of these address changes coming forward at the same time as additions and construction permits might be something that we actually ask you to look at and see if there is further clarification need needed. in this particular case, as i

understand it, there wasn't a second numbering of the second unit on file for us. so, we needed to establish a numb number. but it is a confusing -- it was a confusing set of situations that resulted in this. and, unfortunately, i do believe it was used to further someone's agenda and the represent you are cushions are that -- repercussions are that folks in the building were not notified. again i think that this will really help going forward. maybe the city attorney can talk about the the jurisdictional issues in the case. >> well, i had some general discussions with the director about this. i don't know the specific facts of the case, so i don't want to

issue an opinion or discuss something that i'm not familiar enough with that i could actually be helpful to the commission. i could report back to you at a subsequent commission meeting if you would like that. >> just the particulars of the specifics of mr. morales's situation. i think the resolution of the policy issues has been addressed by what is being proposed in this process statement from the director. but just the specifics that were address addressed. i believe we were asked to weigh in on whether or not we could do anything about the address change. and i think that would be helpful. president murphy: maybe it has taken a little long to get to it point but i believe the director has done the necessary groundwork and i believe we are