they had a copy on file. you can go on these on-line requests for the property. the front of the building is more than 60 feet tall. on the side of the property it needs to be removed. encroaching on the back of the houses, this patio, which is never discussed, must be restored. they know what needs to be done. nothing has been done. according to information from your computer, it is on hold from january 7 of this year.

they submitted some kind of claim, not through the building department. no one knows what is going on. ultimately it needs to be resolved before we move further. nothing to say they will move the cost of the house. they needed some kind of agreement to move forward. the story is not going nowhere. that is what it is all about. this is from your system. if i am not making up stories, ok?

mr. sweeney clearly stated that he would take the investigation. what needs to be done? you have to get the report from the developer. so, you have to do something about it. or you can move forward immediately. >> you have a pretend surveyor? >> correct. >> they have one. >> it is a partial. >> have you ever gotten together to compare? >> yes. they know exactly what it is.

addressing the front, the back, the sides. the rest of it came from nowhere. they know that. >> you say that there is no communication there? [inaudible] ] ... [inaudible] jemaah >> -- a [inaudible] >> -- >> [inaudible] last year the order dated, september 25, you would allow appellants additional time for association of property line dispute and city planning

departments. they have never tried to resolve the property with us. we would like to get them all resolved. so that we can move forward and they can move forward. i would also like to state that the front edition, painted plywood, has been like that for only two years. now it is deteriorating and should be inspected for electrical or funding issues for the safety of the neighborhood. that is another area that should be investigated. >> you have had your three minutes already. thank you. >> other public comment?

>> rodney gravy, el camino del mar. some of them have been here for 10 years. the recent illegal editions started to a half years ago. -- two and a half years ago. your order of the big man was issued over 14 months ago. they have known about all of this for a long time and nothing has been done. it has not been done quickly. there is a massive structure here on this property that is still into the required setbacks, over the property line in some cases. the structure is dangerous, as you just heard. something needs to be done about this quickly. attempts to talk to the neighbors auctiohave been an att

to convince the neighbor is that what the plans are is what we should agree to. any compromise suggestions mentioned by the neighbors have been thoroughly subject -- rejected. very contentious on their end. we are trying to get to something that the neighborhood is comfortable with. as we heard from the planning department, there is a variance in continuing to build into the open setback requirement. something that neighborhood does not want to see because of the open space. i guess what i would like to ask, does the board consider taking legal action to compel the property to put the house back in historical approved plans? -- historic fleely approved pla.

if you like, i can read this into the record. >> this is not an action item. >> but you do have one that i read to you. >> thank you. any questions? >> not at this time. >> my question is that your order was stayed for 12 months. it is now 14 months and there have not been quarterly updates. what happens from here? >> that is what we will find out next. ok. any other public comment? ok. >> i would like to know, from our position, i think that we ask for this -- and it has

happened. who do we ask? >> i did ask. mr. sweeney? deputy director? >> we are planning to issue a permit or deny a permit. giving the property owners a chance for the process to have their issues resolved prior to the issuance, and if they are not happy they can go before the planning commission to voice their displeasure. >> our action? this action that we made a decision on? >> i asked whether or not it was recorded. >> i believe that he said it was. >> we have done all the weekend as members of the appeals board. >> it seems like the planning

department has issued orders back in our department and the new permits are being reviewed. new applications for permits. >> it will not be out of planning for a while. >> until at such time that it comes back into our department, we do not have authority over it. you are free to pursue the action of viewing the permit, essentially. and whenever you can do through the planning department. >> does everyone understand that? if there is no other discussion, we will close this item. >> a item -- item g is general public comment.

>> seeing no one. >> ok. item h, adjournment. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor? >> those opposed? >> unanimous. >> 15 minute recess? >> we will return with the building inspection commission meeting.

>> could morning. today is wednesday, november 17. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. first item on the agenda is a roll call. commissioner romero is excused. item two, president's

announcements. >> i do not have any announcements. >> item 3 is directors' report. item three a, update on dbi's finances. >> i'm pleased to let you know that after four months of revenues and expenditures, we are looking at possible surpluses of about $2.4 million. this is on the revenue side. we are currently tracking over 15% increase year over year from last year. we are starting to see an improvement. it is a lot of a large projects that we are seeing. we still want to be cautious. we are projecting that the refunds that we continually get -- we get somewhere in the

neighborhood of 20 to 25 refunds' every month that we have to process. they're still very small amounts, but we are keeping the $700,000, which is similar to what we had last year, as the projection. in terms of expenditures, we are 2% over what we were last year, but that makes sense because we started to bring back staff. we have filled in the neighborhood of 10 positions throughout the planned review and inspection services. we are running into some situations which all departments are running into, which is the testing of positions prior to being hired. there are a lot of tests that have not been prepared or that have not occurred. we are working very closely with

dhr. this is a citywide problem. we're working with that to not have our positions held up because of that. we are still training our staff on code changes. we have not seen a lot of those expenditures in october. we also have not seen the expenditures for -- this is around $100,000 for the changes that are effective on january 1. that is where we are right now. >> the money that we have, that would have come from two or three big jobs? >> you know, i do not have it identified exactly. when did jobs come in, remember, is a mix between what we

collect for other departments, and what we collect for us. i would say it would be more than two or three big jobs. it would be quite a few. >> the fifth floor is very busy. we are getting a lot of 10 improvemetenant improvement wor. especially mission bay, the commercial-residential portion tends to be small work and a lot of it. a lot of kitchen remodel. labor prices are very soft. we are getting a lot of commercial work. the forecast looks pretty good. >> also, the 10 people we brought back, where were they brought back? what positions? >> three of them were on my side.

they were building inspectors. the three that were brought back on monday were building inspectors. we are expecting one electrical inspector and one plumbing inspector in the next couple weeks. plumbing may take a little longer because they go off the list. we can recall one of our laid- off inspectors for electrical. that's one. >> it's one of the sources from the transkesbay works that is happening? >> no, we received revenue last fiscal year for the work that's going on now. i think that another couple months, we will see another infusion of revenue. all of this is permits for non-

projects, which are puc, tansbay terminal, and the exploratorium. >> great to hear. >> are we finish with work on the fourth floor? are we finished with that? >> what? >> is that finished? >> yes, it was finished three or four months ago. it has moved in. that's where the puc is. we still have a few open spaces. >> is planning up there? >> planning has a presence on the fifth floor. they have a few people. they still maintain their presence on the first floor, like they always have, the information counter. >> so that has improved the

planning situation? >> planning has their own designated cubicles. you can go to five or six disciplines on the fifth floor now. >> i remember six months ago, that was one of the problems. we only have somebody there on a temporary basis. that has been rectified? >> yes, they have a full-time staff up there. >> public comments? seeing none -- >> i will call you up. >> item 3b. >> there's no active legislation going on right now, except for the first reading that is

primarily a puc item that we will have a role in in terms of the submission of the building plan and the permit. other than that, we continue to monitor everything to make certain they are not amending the building code without our knowledge. >> thank you. thank you, bill. >> does this include the gray water standards? >> it has already been acted upon. it is an ordinance now. we also have the fog coming up, fats, oils, and grease. puc has brought their proposal. that is close to being passed as well. >> do you want to say something, commissioner walker? during the public comments?

>> no public comment. item three c. >> pamela 1levin. >> this is a more in depth report. we issued -- we prepared a draft rfp. we completed that in mid october. we sent that draft, because we're still trying to review with the internal agencies of the city. we sent it to the office of contract administration, we sent it to the city attorney, the human rights commission, and we sent it to some of the members of the joint coordinating committee. the joint coordinating committee is the governing committee to make sure that we take into account the city regulations and what is on the approval path for

the city. that anincludes the department of technology, the department of planning, and the mayor's office. in this case, we send it to the head of the department of technology. we also send it to the comptroller's office for their comments on the initial draft. we finally received the last set of the renotes. i've been working very closely with the representative from planning. we looked at the comments. we have incorporated them more. -- understandable, process related comments. we have a number of items we need to go back to the human rights commission to get clarification on.

we still have some issues that we want to discuss with the joint coordinating committee. these types of things are technology issues. the big point of this rfp is to make sure we not only ask for what we want so we get what we want, but that we also make sure that we are up-to-date with emerging technologies. these things are a little complex. those types of issues -- we will be meeting with the joint coordinating committee rice after the holidays. once we get those incorporated into the draft, it needs to be circled again through this city's attorney's office to make sure we have not miss anything, and the human rights commission to make sure we have not missed anything. we are hoping, depending on

people' we are counting on to do the final review, we're hoping to issue this by the end of december. last time, we give the companies about six weeks to respond. after about two to three weeks after it was issued, we had a pre-bid conference. essentially, we meet with them and they ask us questions about something that was not clear, or what we're asking them for in terms of deliverables, and then they submit the rfp. and then we have a process to make sure they meet the minimum qualifications, make sure that we evaluate the written proposals, and when it is short listed, we bring them in for demonstration. we are trying to work through

this as fast as possible. we want to make sure we are not shortsighted, especially on technology and those issues. vickyou have to be careful on what you ask because you cannot go back and ask for something else if it was not in the rfp without having to do very large types of revision. it is really methodical. i really am trying to get something issued that is clear, concise, and gets us where we want to go. >> who is representing dbi in these ongoing negotiations? >> i am taking the lead for dbi. i am working with a woman named isabel from the planning

department who is acting in the role as their deputy director. i have taken a very key role in making sure we do not miss anything this time. >> don't we need a technical person to end up with the right hardware or the right software? >> yes, i have technical people that are also involved. it is a weird situation because you have to make sure that none of the people who are evaluating the rfp are the same people who have worked on the rfp. i have gotten approval to have technical experts. yes, i am bringing them in. the hardware is more the issue of getting the specs from the

vendors. on the software issues, you are correct. we are technical people involved. i just want to make sure i do not violate any of the city's rules. on. >> thank you. >> on the rfp, is it being updated to reflect the most currency policy with regards to other potential states that are counter to our city policies of fairness? >> all the regulations that are required by both the human rights commission and the city attorney and purchasing in terms of their profits -- all of those are inc.. they are part of the requirements in the rfp.

that is another reason why -- at the very end, i want to get back with them to make sure we are all comfortable and all on solid grounds with everyone. >> thank you. thank you. >> any of our questions? >> i always like to be reassured on the account. how much money do we have for this? >> between us and planning for the total, we are around $7 million. >> $7 million. >> yeah. we have given information to the mayor's office and the mayor's office's people so they are

aware of what the request planning needs to make next year and what we need to make so that we are making sure we have enough money set aside for this project. >> there $7 million set aside. >> yes, between the two departments. >> we are paying our part and they are paying their parcht. are we paying for planning as well? >> we are not paying for planning. we are going to pay for the enterprise license -- at this point. any planning specific types of applications, they will pay for those. >> ok. >> we always pay for planning. >> i know that. >> you know that. >> we are not paying for any of the staff time -- we are not

delving into our portion. >> thank you for that report. public comment? seeing none, next item please. >> update on the other activities affecting administration of the department. >> i have no updates at this time. >> ok. item four, public comments on matters with that are not part f this agenda. >> three minutes, sir. >> public comment. i am here because they permit was issued and i believe it may have been issued in error. my name is harlan