commissioners, as a tenant 43 years in the same unit, i managed to learn all about my unit. and one of the things that was important for me to learn was how to shut off the gas valve and also to have a tool available. i think landlords should take the responsibility to teach the tenants how to react in case of emergency. and, well, the community leaders can also help by volunteering in their block to teach other people how to react and work together in case of a big fire emergencies. thank you.

and please let me know when the discussion for the house members and inspections. thank you. president murphy: thank you. any further comments? seeing none. next item, please. >> 3e, update on other activities affecting administration of the department. director day: i have nothing to report on that, but i am willing to answer any questions that the commissioners might have. president murphy: commissioners? maybe we can do that in closed session. any comments? on item e? seeing none. >> item 4, public comment. the b.i.c. will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

president murphy: you have three minutes, ma'am. >> yes. i live on green street. my building is next and east to 1884 green street. and there's a driveway common easement 100 feet down the back of the property line. there are two violation notices against the owner for additional work permit required. i have several questions and requests. why does the violation read only additional permit required? two, it is my understanding proper unapproved board be torn down. our one case in richmond, they were made to tear the property down. number three, several years ago this owner extended without a permit an addition to the north about eight feet without a permit. neighbors and i complained, but no action was taken by the city. number four, this past year the same owner has moved the

foundation from the original site three feet east toward my building and toward the easement which is causing a great deal of access difficulty. number five, he has removed tons of dirt for height and for weeks on time left heaps of dirt and debris uncovered on the street, in the backyard, during extremely windy actions no. action was taken by the city. why were complaints in the first section of eight feet ignored? this year i telephoned the department several times and made a personal visit to the office to inquiry about the legality of the work and why neighbor notification wasn't done. i was assured everything was legal. no notification was required. why? if it is because i did not complain in writing this time, it is because of fear of this owner. he has been around wearing his uniform, threatening me, and carried out one threat in my opinion. i also complained to the citizens complaint. complaint was acknowledged. but when i followed through at a later date, i was told there is no complaint against this owner, he's a fine man, it has

been pulled. it had been pulled. i'm asking for compliance with the law that all of these additions be removed and laws be complied with. i'm requesting help for prompt action. thank you very much. president murphy: thank you. next speaker, please. seeing none. >> item number 5, update on community action plan for seismic safety, capss. president murphy: mr. tobin was supposed to be here? >> i'm not sure what happened. i'm not sure if he's coming or not. president murphy: can we table that until the next meeting? >> sure. we'll continue it. the next item, item 6, discussion and possible action regarding proposed legislation file 101075, an ordinance

amending the san francisco building code by amending section 107a .13 to modify the method of calculating the development fee deferral surcharge rate and to clarify when a project sponsor may elect to defer the payment of development impact and in-lieu fees, adopting environmental finding. director day: yes. this is to clarify smishyuse in the legislation that has already passed. and the method that they had originally determined to calculate the interest rate was not acceptable to the actual tax collector's office and was almost impossible to calculate. so they developed a simpler method to calculate the interest rate for both the department, the tax collectors' department, and the capital planning group. so it's to clarify that. and it's also to clarify when the decision to defer the payment has to be made by the

project sponsor so this was just some clarification language. and it really doesn't affect just some clarification language. and it really doesn't affect the implementation of the program except it makes it a little bit easier for both the project sponsor and the department. president murphy: so it's already been voted on by the board of supervisors? >> and just as i understand it, the deferral of the development from the time of the application to the certificate of occupancy. that's correct? director day: right. the original legislation has been passed by the board of supervisors. this is just an amendment to that original legislation to clarify some points that were in the original legislation that we weren't able to implement correctly. >> ok. i get it. president murphy: so it's mostly about fees? director day: yes. it's about development impact fee dematerials and when they're able to be actually

determined, when the project sponsor has to make the decision to either defer the fees or to pay the fees in advance so that we know as a department how to calculate the interest rates. commissioner walker: great. president murphy: any other comments, commissioners? commissioner hechanova: is there additional time that it then takes to follow up to administrative collect or is it just the point of when certificate of occupancy is applied for and pulled? director day: no. the department actually starts working on the fee deferral program the minute that a project is submitted for plan review because there's a different way we have to route plans now. we have to have a determination by the departments that have development impact fees. they have to get back to us within 30 days. we have so much time to develop a report to give to the project sponsors that he can either contest or work with the departments to make sure that they're the right fees, that he is going to be assessed. whether he pays them at the time of site permit issue, a

first construction document, is his decision, or whether he wants to defer these fees. that timeframe right there is what was not clarified in the original legislation. so some people thought they had at the time of the first construction document, ready to issue, they thought they could decide to pay it then or defer it then. but we fleeded to know at the time before the construction document -- needed to know before the construction document was even submitted. because the interest rate kicks in at the time of the fee deferral determination. commissioner hechanova: which is before it -- director day: the approval of the first construction document. commissioner hechanova: thank you. director day: so the time is calculated from the time it's chosen to defer or not to defer. president murphy: we had a discussion about this back in may. a presentation from the mayor's office.

they have ironed out all the kinks and voted on it. public comments on this? seeing none. >> item number 7. president murphy: we have to vote on this. commissioner walker: move to support. president murphy: all in favor? commissioner hechanova: second. commissioner walker: eh aye. were there any opposed? >> no? ok. then the motion passes. item number 7. update on issues and concerns discussed at the public advisory committee meetings. director day: yes. commissioners, again, we try to have a monthly public advisory committee meeting in some cases it conflict with other scheduled meetings, so sometimes i have to cancel them and defer them to another time. try to reschedule them during the same month if i can. if i can't, then it's deferred until the next month. but at these meetings we discuss various policy

procedures or procedures that 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.