>> good morning. today is monday, december 12, 2011. this is a special meeting of the building inspection commission. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is president's announcements. commissioner hechanova: good morning. i am sure everyone is getting ready for the holidays, carrying over from thanksgiving. one of the special announcements i would like to make is, san

francisco was awarded the best marine building policy -- green building policy award last week in durban, south africa, for its building ordinance. we had 22 other cities that competed against us. all told, we graded out to be the top in the category at the ordinance projected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in san francisco and produce a 10-year present value of almost a billion dollars from those savings. that is great. the award is from the green in building council leadership award for excellence. it was a panel comprised of the un habitat and green building council. it is terrific, and most

recently, mayor ed lee did a press release and also saluted staff efforts of the building inspection department, and also the department of environment, public utilities commission, for their commitment to a sustainable and green city. along with that, i would also like to say thank you very much for some of the commendation that came about four ben mann of the staff, along with evelyn cart and their service for helping to produce the high level of quality and service to the public. they had been commended by that panel. last, and most importantly, i

wish staff, commissioners a wonderful holiday -- let's close out the year in a wonderful way and be blessed by all that has been brought to us, on the rising tide of economics, all the things that the commission has done and takes responsibility for. >> is there any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none. item four -- i'm sorry, item three. public comment. this is the general public comment. if anyone would like to discuss items not listed on today's agenda.

there is no general public comment. item 4. discussion and possible action to approve and swear in members of the board of examiners. reappointments/appointments recommended by the nominations sub-committee are: michael cashion, high-rise sprinkler- building owner. seat to expire september 15, 2013. mr. cash john is present. commissioner lee: as you recall from the last meeting, the commission met about six weeks ago. week revealed -- we revealed three possible applicants to the seat. we recommended michael cashen to the committee because his

presence was impressive, fit what the board needed. he has been managing high-rise buildings. he is right now managing 255 california street, a high rise building. he lives in san francisco, has experience with dealing with advisory committees and the government as well because he was on the advisory board. that is why the nomination committee recommended to the full commission to appoint michael cashion to that seat. >commissioner walker: i would like to second that recommendation. commissioner lee: michael cashion, would you like to make a statement? >> hello, my name is michael cashion.

i am very honored to sit on the board of examiners. i was on the graffiti advisory committee for two years. i look forward to this next that in my service to the city. commissioner hechanova: commissioners? commissioner walker: thank you for being willing to serve on this body. you have been very helpful to this commission and looking at the safety issues of tall buildings, having good discussions. thank you for being willing to sit on this. an important position. >> thank you. >> there is a motion by commissioner lee, seconded by commissioner walker. is there any public comment on item 4? seeing none. we can take a roll call vote.

[roll call] the motion carried unanimously. now we need to go to the next item -- president hechanova, please read the oath. commissioner hechanova: please repeat after me. i will swear you in. the oath of office begins with -- i, michael cashion, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that i will bear true

faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of the state of california, that i will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of the division -- evasion, and i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter, and during this time as i hold the office of a member of the board of examiners, high- rise sprinkler building owner seat of the city and county of san francisco. thank you very much.

>> thank you. commissioner hechanova: we all look forward to working with you. >> item 5. update on process for cancelling permits and notification of customers. >> good morning, commissioners. we have put in your package item 5, which is the process for the cancellation of current applications. this is the main concern of the commission. right now, we send out a 21-day notice prior to the cancellation of any application for permits. as you see in the table, there are two values that are set for the cancellation.

any project up to $1 million has 360 days from the date it is deemed acceptable for building plan review, not when we take it in. and that is a big item, because it can sit in planning for any length of time, but when it comes to the building department for building plan review, that is when the clock starts ticking for the process in the department and cancellation of application. commissioner murphy: that is where the problem lies. it can stay in dbi for up to a year before it is kicked out. shouldn't that be the time of the clock starts ticking? >> no, the clock starts ticking

at the beginning of the plan check, not the last. commissioner murphy: that is what i would like to see changed, suggestion to a change in the code. >> we can take that to -- that is a whole different way of looking at it than the state looks at it. we can certainly look at it. commissioner murphy: it would be a good place to discuss that, the pac meeting, and then bring him back here. >> definitely, we can do that. we are also looking at increasing the time limit of the vacation -- notification, from 21 days to something longer, to give people more time to

actually try to get the fund together to get the permits, plans renewed. commissioner hechanova: is there a declaration sometimes why there is the delay, the basis by which the extension or approval of extension can be given, or is it automatically given? >> right now, we automatically give the extension. we have been giving more than one extension automatically. we have not been canceling permits just to cancel permits, unless the project sponsor wants the project cancelled. commissioner murphy: that was something we changed two or three years ago, a combination of 36 months. that is another problem now. that was 2008. a lot of these projects are

homeowners, small developers, are still not able to get the funding, kick them forward. i would also like to discuss that in the pac meeting, maybe 24 months, to get these extensions going. >> we can certainly discuss that in the pac meeting. commissioner hechanova: that would be another 24 months, 12 versus 24, 36? commissioner murphy: if the projects are within the envelope, planning should not have a problem with that. perhaps if you go beyond the envelope, they could take a look at it. there needs to be some kind of process put in place that these homeowners, stakeholders do not have to go back through the whole process again, two years

in planning, another year in dbi. we need to discuss that. commissioner hechanova: so it is a form of chewing up -- queing up continuity from where they were before? commissioner murphy: the 36 months is up. that is where we are now. a lot of these permits will be expiring, will not be able to extend thaem. we need to build something in there so that that does not happen. i am mostly referring to the smaller projects, and vertical, horizontal conditions --

whatever. would be unfair for them to go through the process again. commissioner hechanova: commissioner walker. commissioner walker: if you do the initial renewal after the current timetable expires, does it really have to go through a planning and dbi review, or is that just a perfunctory evaluation of they need more time? >> if the project had been approved by planning for more than three years, we do send it as a cursory approval back to planning. quite frankly, we have won the night in the time that we had been doing this. commissioner walker: that is for the one that are more than 36? >> the one approved by planning 36 months before. commissioner walker: that seems to apply only to the larger

projects? >> it can be any level of project. it can be a small home owner who cannot get the financing also. the years have been bad for the last three years. now, the financing is just breaking loose to where the home owners can get them, but planning approval might have been three years before. commissioner walker: is that a state law that planning applies? >> an entitlement with planning in the planning code, a three- year entitlement. commissioner walker: may be the calendar for us requiring reissuing is ok, but maybe we drop some of the additional planning review within that timeframe. commissioner murphy: a great

idea. commissioner walker: i think we have to figure out what we can do. we can be less restrictive locally -- more restrictive, no? >> you cannot be less restrictive. in these time frames, the state is responsible. we are less restrictive than the state. the state is 180 days with 1- 180-day extension, period, no matter what size the project. as commissioner murphy said, three years ago, we did change the code so that we extend it automatically for 360 days, where it was 180 days, 180 days, and then you had to go to the director. right now, we are extending it

for 360 days. the second extension is almost automatic. you do not have to go to the director. we talked about that here in this commission, that we would be lenient on the cancellation dates of any project and not just cancel permits. commissioner murphy: these extensions are not cheap. 4%, 5%. commissioner walker: i understand that. the goal, we want policies that encourage the project to happen as well. using the leniency as an incentive to build is always better, rather than another extension at the end. maybe there is a graduating -- you want to encourage people to build as much as you can. and that is the goal. commissioner hechanova: when is

the provision under the category of ownership that could change? if there was one toxic project for building, and the transfer of ownership, does that automatically transfer also? is there a requirement for reapplication? >> the project runs with the property. with the owners. in other words, if you want to sell your project to another commissioner, you can do that. the entitlements are the same, no extra requirements to change ownership on a project, except to let us know. commissioner hechanova: on a transfer of title or deed, would need to be updated to who has applied as the owner of the building for the permit? >> yes. commissioner murphy: the new owner would have to apply to

keep the extension. >> the timetable does not change. commissioner hechanova: thank you. any comments from the commissioners? >> is there any public comment on item 5? >> good morning, commissioners. nancy . i wonder if the director could clarify, if the permit is granted by the actual permit holder. you described a process when something has expired by time, within the department, but not explained exactly how it is canceled by a permit holder who, for whatever reason, which is not to continue with the

project, and may even wish to have a refund. the reason i bring this up, we have seen in the past, cancellations sent in by e-mail. some are accepted on that basis, some are not. some require a letter with a signature. if we could have your advice on exactly what is the procedure, so that all people are aware of what dbi would like in order to cancel a permit. thank you. commissioner hechanova: thank you. additional questions, comments? commissioner walker: i would love to have answered. >> i can answer that now. it has been the policy to have a physical, written a letter from the project owner to cancel a project and request a refund.

we have a refund process and a sheet to do that in the department'. commissioner walker: the statement that we do this by e- mail, is that just an unofficial notification usually followed up -- >> it should be followed up by written confirmation that we can keep on file and have attached to their quest for a refund. that is also part of the controllers request to process a refund for a permit, that we have an actual written signature, and not just e-mail. commissioner hechanova: what would constitute, at times, when there is an attachment, or if the e-mail itself serves as the written request? >> it has to be a written signature. sign the signature from the property owner. commissioner hechanova: thank

you. >> item 6. update on digitizing records of existing data that can facilitate services such as 3-r reports. >> pamela levin, department of building inspection. i want to go over the digitization project and then turn it over to the records management staff, if you have questions, and they will talk about how the project will aid the process for 3-r reports.

currently, we have two positions in our budget for this project. we have looked at the volume of what needs to be done and we think we need an additional five more. we will be bringing justification to you for that during the budget process. the funding through 2011-12, we have set aside $1.7 million. we estimate that we will need a total of $5 million for this project. this is based on experience of other jurisdictions. we've also have estimated the project duration, once we get a contract and start the project, between three years and five years. as i said, and the volume of records to be digitized is quite large. we have 16 millimeter microfilm.

i have examples of what they are. 1200 rolls of 16 millimeter microfilm, which is this. they have job cards, certificates of final completion permits, and miscellaneous documents, many of which go back to the 1930's. it is estimated there are 2500 frames per roll, for a total of 3 million frames. in addition, each row is estimated to have 800 records to index for a total of 960,000 records. we also have the 35 millimeter microfilm. these plans go back to 1940. each role has approximately 500 frames parole, for a total of

1,000,750 frames. each role has approximately 50 records to index, for a total of 175,000 records. we also have approximately 250 boxes of paper documents which date back to 1906. as you can imagine, because these documents are old, as paper was used prior to 1940, those are in questionable shape, and will be needed to be treated with extra caution. commissioner murphy: do you coordinate with the water department at all? commissioner walker: i have a question about the budget estimate. when $0.7 million has been included in our budgeting -- >> for the last two years. 3.3 is what we need.

that was not included in our budget projections for this whole system we are doing? >> correct, unrelated to the permit tracking system. we have been setting aside a portion every year. that is what we did with the permit tracking system. it has been foeffective. commissioner walker: are we cover the cost entirely by ourselves? is there another department that can participate? >> we can look into that. at this point, it is our project. when people come in from all the department to request records, we do charge them for that. in essence, they are for dissipating -- participating. the only ones we do not charge is the swat team, because they are in and out quickly -- sorry about that. [laughter]