violation on february 2008 and the second notice on june of 2008. i filed for the permit that same month on the 12th. so the notice of abatement costs came after i had filed for the permit. that is why i think it is unfair that that notice was given to me while i already had a permit file. commissioner murphy: when you file for the permit, do you have to have a plan drawn up and submitted to planning? >> certainly. i went through the whole process. since it is an old house, i had to go through the planning department and get a historical review.

i had to answer two letters of requirement from planning. then, i was passed to planning. then my neighbors applied for a design review to oppose the planning commission's permission. that was settled finally in september of 2010. it went back to the billing department and was finally issued in january of this year -- it went back to the building department and was finally issued in january of this year, january 27. as soon as the rain stops, i will correct the problems that i have. i have already paid -- this is related to a neighborhood disagreement -- i have already paid $1,000 in costs for a related issue. we share an alley, and i cannot

get in that alley without their permission to take care of another violation, so i paid that just because there was no way i could correct it, but again, my contention is that i tried to get my permit to correct the violations, and it was primarily the slow process of the city which kept me from accomplishing that. commissioner lee: commissioners, anymore? just to be clear?er: - >> it was 25 years ago, but, certainly, you are right. it did flow from that point. commissioner lee: ok, thank you. no other questions. we will take public comment. no public comment?

ok, we will go back to the department for a quick rebuttal. >> there is no rebuttal. commissioner lee: ok, commissioners? commissioner walker: very happy that this is coming to a resolution. i'm sure all parties involved are. my sense is that the initial violation, as i pointed out, stems from work without a permit. i think is fair that may be penalties should not accrue on this, but it seems that the initial proceedings or the additional -- the initial violation was because the work done without a permit, i would make a motion to uphold the abatement and maybe again allow time to effectuate the permit

and support the staff's recommendation. move it forward. commissioner lee: what is the length of the permit? how long? how long is it? commissioner murphy: general permits are a year at least, but normally when there is a code enforcement case, the timeline is set by the code enforcement process. even though it permit might have a normal three-year life span, our process, because there are violations involved, could dictate that it be done in a shorter time. what are the fines up to the date that he applied for the permits to planning?

>> the initial fee at this point is $1,050. commissioner murphy: some of that have come after that date? >> there are no penalties that we would assess. we would simply assess whatever time we invested in the case, though there will be more time since then for the preparation of the order of abatement and the posting, but as for now, $1,050 is the initial fee. commissioner murphy: why would time be spent on it if you guys knew that he had already filed for the permit? >> if you look at the time line, the first notice of violation was issued on february of 2008. no action was taken whatsoever. a second notice was issued in june four of 2008, and it was only after that second noticed

that the permit was filed june 12. because they file that permit, we stopped the code enforcement process, to give them a chance to get the permit issued. no further progress took place. then, it was a result of that lack of action that we scheduled a hearing >> it was since then, as we go through this process that finally the permit was issued on january 27. if we did not schedule this case for a hearing, maybe the permit may not have been issued. it may have originally been filed just to stop our process. that is just my speculation. clearly, this shows that through our code enforcement process, no action was taken. you go to the next step. another action is taken. now we are at the point where the permit is issued.

hopefully, now that it is issued, the work will get done and we will have a final sign off. sometimes a permit can be issued. it may lie dormant. it can expired. i would hope that will not happen here. >> i understand. i do have a question for the appellant. did planning approve it as it is? we have seen pictures. >> there are two windows we have to change. we have to remove 1 and change another and bring it back 6 feet from the front of the house. there are changes that have to be done. >> my second question is, how long is it going to take for you to get this finished and get it cleared up and get it signed

off? >> is not a very big job, frankly. it may be three weeks of work. it just depends. i'm going to do it and i'm hopefully going to do it in june. >> i am asking you how much time you need to do it. i do not want to be back here three months from now talking about the same thing. >> if i can have three months. i do not know what is available. if i could have a bottle, i do not understand. i'm willing to pay the assessment of costs and then go back into the pool where i have the regular permit process where i have one year to complete it. i'm not going to take one year. i want this off my plate, too. i do not see why we keep putting

limits on my worked beyond the normal process. i could see it up to this point, because i was appealing the assessment of cost. if you find that i should pay those costs, i'm expecting or hoping that i will pay those costs and i will have a typical permit with one year to get the work done. i do not agree with mr. hinton. it is not -- if the permit expires, the permit expires. it is not that he is looking over my back to prod me on. i do not understand the way he represented his role. also, in the order of

abatement, it said the director here buy orders the owner of said building to comply with the following. 30 days to file a permit. i already had it filed. this is done in december. i filed in june. princess 30 days to complete our work it says 30 days to complete our work. i can see his role all the way up to the point where i have my permit. then i am within the code. i will certainly submit to what ever you want to do. >> i'm trying to help you here.

you want to drag it on for a year. >> that's not what i'm doing. i'm saying the permit gives me one year to complete the work. i'm not a licensed contractor. i do not think it is fair to be limited to three months. commissioner walker: because you are here before us and it's our job to make a decision about what to do with this case, i move that we uphold the staff decision and give him 90 days to implement or execute the permits and then hold it -- get the legal language. i should write this down. commissioner murphy: get it signed off. commissioner walker: yes. the order of abatement you are reviewing originally give 30 days.

you would be providing 90 days from today's date. commissioner murphy: ok. i will second that motion. >> upholding the cost until the time when the permit was applied for. vice president mar: 90 days from today. commissioner walker: yes. >> i mean, there has to be some process that is consistent. i do not see that this is -- i will not go into it. thank you very much and i will complete the work in 90 days. commissioner walker: do we have a second on that? commissioners, just a clarification.

i believe the department stated they were $1050 as of the day the permit was applied for, but there are additional costs since that time. and commissioner walker: can i get clear on the additional costs? commissioner murphy: my understanding is that before you today is to uphold the order of abatement and to approve the assessment of cost to this point -- i'm sorry -- to the date of the hearing. any other costs since then i would assume would be dealt with when we did our final fee. it would not be under this. that is my understanding. commissioner walker: the cost assessed to the state is $100

0.50. commissioner lee: i will allow one minute. >> it is just that this assessment of cost issue -- in any fine or any assessment of costs is some accounting as to what the costs are for, hours spent, people, and there's nothing. if i'm going to pay $1,000 or more, i would like to know for what i am. in -- for what i am paying. i think it is only fair. thank you. commissioner murphy: we would be happy to give him a breakdown of those things. commissioner walker: thank you. commissioner lee: we're back to the original motion, 90 days.

>> president lee? >> yes. commissioner walker:? >> yes. commissioner murphy:? >> yes. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. >> the motion carries. next item is item e, which is public comment. this is public comment for the abatement appeals hearing. seeing none, we have item f, which is adjournment. commissioner lee: ok, we will adjourn for 10 minutes and we will reconvene as the bic. >> thank you. >> thank you. we are ready to begin.

good morning. today is wednesday, may 18, 2011. this is a regular meeting of building inspection commission. at this time, i would like to remind everybody to please turn off electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president hechanov commissioner murphy? >> here. commissioner walker? >> here. the next item on the agenda. president's announcements. commissioner lee: there is no president's announcements today. >> an update on dbi. >> good morning, commissioners. good morning, vice president mar and commissioners.

today we have a brief item. as requested last month by president hechanova, we're here to provide you a tentative timetable for the plan. we will adjust it as needed. our primary focus right now is on our human resources. that is our dbi staff preparation, education, and training. the goal is to ensure the health and safety of our staff at work and ensure our ability to perform are a disaster response duties effectively integrated with other departments. i have the initial work plan that we have drafted. i put some time lines on that. i could go through that for you, or if you want to pick out anything that you notice, we can discuss that as well. we have tried to be realistic and reasonable in the timeframe given the amount of projects and

objectives that we have ahead of us. through the prioritization process, we have made some good improvements in the last 60 days. any questions? commissioner murphy: the disaster service -- what does that consist of -- what does the training consist of? >> all city workers are disaster service workers and would be required to respond eye anin an emergency or disast. it involves going over the charter that requires that as well as some personal prepared this information. through the department of emergency management and human resources, there's a video. it is essentially a protocol of what your responsibilities would

be in the event of an emergency or disaster. commissioner murphy: a refresher course? >> yes, very much so. that is part of the charter. depending on when the event happens, in terms of what actions you would take, the protocol, to call, and where to go. commissioner murphy: does it mean all employees of dbi would have to report somewhere? >> yes, with all departments, it staff would be designated as more essential personnel for pre-designated assignments. everybody will have a barrel and an assignment. commissioner lee: has there been a discussion about public information about these trainings or anything like that? when will we roll out public information? >> you mean in terms of public outrage? commissioner lee: right.

>> we plan on doing more of that throughout the year as we would get our program further along. i think the department of emergency management is coordinating a lot of when we do any kind of public outrage. we will provide handouts and some information. at this point, we are more focused on our own staff and our own response requirements under the strategic plan with public works. commissioner lee: for our information, where does this is centraessential staff need? >> 1616 mission street. we have our timetable. training is one of the primary focus is. we are, again, planning on regular meetings with the work groups and other city departments on a regular basis.

i know different departments share in some tabletop exercises dealing with planning for all types of events, whether it is a planned event, such as someone coming or arriving, or an unplanned event, whether it is simple or complex. in general, we try to be pretty aggressive on the sidelines. i do want to show some productivity and some accomplishments over the period of time. a lot of the information is in the process of being renewed and written in terms of the plans and protocols. that is really motivated by total coordination from all the city departments. commissioner lee: thank you. commissioners, any other questions? commissioner walker: great. commissioner lee: thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment?

item three. the next item on the agenda, item four, public comment. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm a 30-year resident of san francisco. i would like to read a prepared statement. with the one interruption. i would like to begin by thanking president hechanova for stopping by the department, meeting some of the staff, and i've had the distinct pleasure of seeing commissioner walker and commissioner murphy. i first came before you two months ago and made two increase. one regarding an additional deputy director and how a additional deputy director was created. the other inquiry was a request to know have no homhow many

directives have been issued. i appeared one month ago to hear the result of those inquiries. nothing had been done. i used to the director of malfeasance for failure to provide written directive to staff. the director is not pulling the functions required by her position. i'm here today to first ask about my initial inquiries two months ago. do you have any results? vice president mar? vice president mar: do you want to finish reading. >> i have a question. maybe you have addressed some of these items. ok, i will proceed. of course, i would be curious to know why there is no response. topic eight is rega -- topic a is regarding miss levin

's appointment. she illegally obtained her office in violation. additionally, i reviewed the minutes of the commission meeting on december 16, 2009. the minutes state that the commissioners all agreed to make appointment for a deputy director of administration. the language states that subject to the approval of the commission in the budgetary and fiscal conditions of the charter, the director shall have the power to appoint or removed at his or her pleasure of 21 deputy superintendent and no more than two assistants. you have a legally appointed mr. levis. levin. quite frankly, the department does not need a deputy director for administration. the director is in charge of administration and should not need another deputy director on

top of the other three that are provided. additional requests as to why the specific language of proposition g was not codified in the charter. i believe that does not change the legality of the language. i'm curious to know. commissioner lee: i wanted to give you as much time as needed, but i'd like you to finish up comments. >> thank you, sir. i will talk fast. commissioner lee: you had a total of two minutes. >> i thought it was three minutes. commissioner lee: yes, but you have used three. >> again, it is only a page and a half. let me see where i am. ok, we will move on to the director's malfeasance, which is of course the more important topic.

i think the problem goes further. i think she -- commissioner lee: can you get to the chase? can i make a suggestion? maybe we have that printed out and we will read it on our time. commissioner walker: the time for public comment is exceeded. maybe in the future, i would like to agendize a city and the attorney response. >> i feel you are trying to muscle my complaints about the department. i feel that is inappropriate. i would like to state that right here. i will put the statement in writing and forward it for your review. i hope you take it all too hard. there is a really good language in here. i would like to let everyone

else know about this. thank you for that. vice president mar: thank you. >> good morning. my name is nancy. i understand that the building inspection commission will change its name to the department of building safety. i support this change in name. if the name change means anything substantive, there must be a serious commitment to the enforcement of the building code. i requested you also create procedures to respond quickly to urgent complaints from the public, which will keep people safe. case in point is the a permitted excavation and demolition job begun friday morning by my next- door neighbor, a licensed contractor, who repeatedly performs work without permits. i immediately reported this by

phone to the dbi complaint line, to the district inspector, and finally an e-mail to inspector lowry and a director. no one got back to me or ask about the jack hammering i referred to. on monday, there were still no response from dbi, so i called cal-osha and they came right out and examined the exhibitio . he told me he allowed concrete to be poured yesterday. they have not yet ruled on a violation. after my third call to dbi, i did see a building inspector at the site, but i do not know what transpired other than the work continued yesterday. now, 17 hours after the cement was poured, this project has moved at warp speed. there's no job card completed

for this work because there's no permit, no plans, no inspection. dbi has no system of checks and balances to identify and then to stop rogue contractors who routinely work without permits. how can a concerned citizen get the attention of the building inspection senior staff to put safety first? what word must i say in a completcomplete to staff to geto respond immediately? a change of the name is worthless. it includes treating the concerned citizens with the respect we deserve by requiring staff to acknowledge and to respond to our serious complaints. what will you do as commissioners to change this issue in the department beyond just changing the department's name? i was just speaking to