page one of the brief, the third section down, it states the new application as required, and the new permit shall be obtained, not renewal. there is no word renewal with reference to a building permit. you can renew the boiler permits an electrical permits, but nowhere in this in francisco building permit is the word redo it used. and the authority of the building official in the state of california to review a nine- year-old permit does not exist. everything that has happened since that renewal has been an attempt to show the process as being done. we have this and that, but you cannot get an invalid permit and make it better, give it authority by doing all of the things after the fact you were supposed to do in advance of the

permit issuance. when mr. sweeney finished the meeting, he should have sent the application downstairs, not only to planning but to mechanical, electrical. the san francisco unified school district needed $1.75 times the square footage to renew. that is a lot of money. none of the other fees were collected by your department. you guys are talking here about $4 million of uncollected permit or fees on vacant buildings, and now within your own department you are passing up fees. there is nothing in the code that gives you that authority. everything that has happened since might have been fine, we do not know that. but how it began, as nancy stated, the facts never change. they cannot ever change. the permit was null and void.

the code said that. and permit issuance, application plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the building official. there were no plans. there were no specifications. it shall be reviewed by other departments. planchette, structural, you can submit after the fact calculations that demonstrate in a meet the 2010 building code, but that is supposed to happen in february and march. and this is not an over-the- counter permit. it is a major operation to a historic building. when the planning department decided not to require a 311 notice, we ask for several other things as well. similarly, they glossed over the things they could not fall, solved a couple of the problems they could come and tell everyone would let this go.

>> public comment. is there any public comment on item 6? >> my name is dr. derek kerr. after 20 years at laguna honda hospital, i became a whistle- blower. the repeals to help commission were ignored. the repeals to the ethics commission very. two years later we have recovered $250,000 for the parent gift fund in 430,000 from attainted public health contract. this took immediate attention and community action and a loss to to get attention. none of this what had happened and what the response of help commission. this commission has the

authority and duty to uphold building codes. the matter of the jersey street permit has been explained to you by mr. butler. please review the reinstatement of the building permit that was properly revoked august of 2011. others charged with this responsibility have not done it. could oversight in good governments -- good oversight and good governance is the solution. older rules or codes are ignored in favor of some folks come out what happens to the rest of us? why have building codes? what is the point of having this commission? me >> than>> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, commissioners.

my name is lynn, and i am speaking as an advocate for good government. i am asking this commission to northerly oversee the department of building inspection. unfortunately the building department must do the work that this bill twas not done. i cannot understand how the permit was appropriately revoked because the work was done on the project without even looking into the original reason for revocation. something does not seem right about this whole process. the commission must reimburse the state of the building permit that was correctly revoked on 8/3/11. i asked that the rules be invoked all of the time. i have seen similar failures of law enforcement and other city departments.

i am coming to this level to request that each of you support good government. i think you. -- thank you. >> please state your name for the record. >> good morning, commissioners. as a citizen of san francisco, i am here today with a concern of great importance. the failure to enforce the law, as you and several other complaints indicate, there is undeniable failure on the part of the executive director and staff to enforce san francisco's building codes. since dbi is charged with responsibility of building code enforcement are not doing their job, you are there and must do

the job before them. while i served on the 2010 civil grand jury, our investigation exposed similar failures of san francisco government. case in point, the ethics commission. as the grand jury reports to them, the sweeping watchdog. rancher rework allowed us to reduce city processes and the required action that directors must take. these actions are clearly defined in the city codes and law, but building codes are not being enforced. the inaction and pattern of using a double standard to conduct business undermines what bill we could stipulate. we are fed up with city and county departments showing favoritism to a select group and it refusing to enforce laws as

required. this select group issuing them towards family and friends. favoritism is select toward certain people. and must not come and it must stop now. it is now up to you to enforce city codes. it is time to bring things into compliance with the law. a perfect example was explain today about 550 jersey. you must reverse the reinstatement of the building permit that was first issue in march of 2001. you must enforce the building code that was discussed. there was no record of an extension for this permit. the law is perfectly clear. the permit expired. and to permit must be issued. i have faith that this commission will exercise the authority, and that you're not just teaching -- sleeping

watchdog. thank you. >> necks speaker. -- next speaker. >> any additional public comment? henry conilla. i would like to speak on issues of the violation of code enforcement i work for the building department. it is very tough to try to enforce these issues many times do to owners, tenants and a lot of different things. i would not say they do not do enforcement. they do. i got a call from a building inspector about a complaint that one to dbi a month ago. is that i want to clear this up. we made the appointment and went

out there and took care of it. i do not agree the building apart is not doing their job. it is not an easy one. there are a lot of buildings that have violations. to clear them up is not easy. i just wanted to clear that up. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i live in this neighborhood. my name is patrick [inaudible] . >> i do not think i am qualified to speak until other people do. can i testify after the project sponsor gives their side? as a resident, i would like to hear both sides before i speak. >> normally these things are heard at the board of appeals. we are only looking at whether the director issued or did not issue a proper written response.

it is not about the permit itself. >> the project sponsor can speak in public comment. >> they speak now. in public comment period to . >> bob milky. i have had many dealings with the department of inspection. they're very honest. the overview has been cooperative and helpful. they are competent people who have a lot of integrity. thank you. >> any more public comment? >> there is no other

opportunity? >> that is correct. >> good morning, commissioners. i would like to congratulate president mccarty. welcome to vice-president mar. today i wanted to talk about, start out by talking about the process on this. and i was asked to speak here today because the project sponsor was so distraught he felt he could not present the facts appropriately. i would like to speak to jurisdiction briefly. the commission does not have jurisdiction on this. if you read the agenda of the sand francisco city charter, is

as the commission jurisdiction under this section shall not extend to permits appealable to the planning commission or the board of permit appeals. there is no jurisdiction here. i am not an attorney. the attorney can give their advice, but the clear, plain language does not allow this matter to be propfore you. secondly, even if you were to ignore the clear, plain that language, it was not filed in a timely fashion. it goes on. departmental decisions on permit subject to commission review shall be made within time mandates of the state permit streamlining act, appeals of decisions must be filed with the commission within 15 days of the challenged a decision. there is no jurisdiction that

being said, i want to go to the merits of the underlying permits. we're talking about small builders in the process they go through. we will go through what happened here. went to the city, pull the permit, was issued a permit. started work according to the permit. notified the permit was report -- revoked. the planning commission, the building department held that in their hands. the evaluated the issues that were raised by mr. butler and the other appellate. they look at those and found them to be wanting. the real issue the permit. all of these complaints have been heard and heard again. my fear is by this commission taking jurisdiction, it is going to allow an endless stream of complaints to continually

harassed a builder, and it is a terrible precedent. i hope you do not take the jurisdiction, but if you do come i hope you affirm the actions of your staff and a director. thank you. >> the speaker. -- next speaker. >> i know about the case because i lived in the neighborhood. the only thing i wanted to hear today was work started under the original permit. nobody here knows anything about the truth knows if that work was started with the original people. mr. butler was not there with the issue was. the important testimony that i have not heard is did anyone start work, and is there proof that work was started under the

original permit? i have not heard anything. everything else is garbage. that is the question you should be asking. >> think you. next speaker. -- thank you. >> you are monitoring the time frames, right? >> yes, i am. i cannot emphasize how complicated the permitting process is in san francisco. you have to go through different stations. one of the most complicated ones is planning. planning staff has no issues regarding this. they have no problems ballast tradinvalidating this. once they can decide they consented to dbi, they reduce

the structural drawing for safety and compliance. more importantly, you have a license structural engineer that writes a letter saying the structural calculations meet with the current code. in addition to that, he writes an affidavit this is all of the special complications are in order. this home is going to be sold to someone. this person will have all of the documents. that is what is important. that is what is critical. the department's job is to validate the permits. a licensed professional is writing the letter to say everything is in order. what else do we need to do? what is beyond that?

we must stop this harassment. that is all it is. all the issues have been complied with. final inspections have been issued. the structural calculations have been reviewed and verified. what else? this has to stop. it is painful enough that people have to go through the process. we have to send a signal to the people that are watching this. if you want to apply for a permit, you are welcome. we will validate the work of the staff. we are doing our work. please validate this permits or take the jurisdiction, as some people have suggested. thank you. >> may i have three minutes?

>> yes, i will reset it now. >> good morning. my home is at 2514 23rd ave. it has been the subject of this commission and of the board. mr. butler, who has brought to this motion, is the architect of record of my next-door neighbor. these individuals have combined in a relentless campaign of harassment. the ferocity with which -- of which they have used multiple san francisco city agencies to defame and harass my family, both professionally and personally is truly appalling. under the guise of concerned citizens, they have manipulated city boards, commissions, and san francisco public agencies to satisfy their own agenda, which appears to be nothing short of the complete financial and emotional ruin of my family. lest you think i am is

exaggerating, please listen to this -- my children have been intimidated and harassed to the point that we have requested the police to intervene. they have formulated 23 complaints on our home. seven complaints against the restaurant we are trying to open on 21st avenue with the potential loss of 22 jobs. they have appealed each and every permit we have obtained including a roofing permit, a window replacement permit, and a foundation permit for our home. it was suggested to us at the start of the campaign the we could use -- should we use her architect, our permanent problems would be resolved. they have brought us to the planning commission, cal osha, the spca. three times, even our children's pets have not been abused. they have reported our home vacant and abandon while we were living there, both to the city agencies and to our mortgage

holder. whose interests are they serving, and what is their goal? on may 18, 2011, mr. butler appeared before this very commission with blatant arrogance, he showed photographs çlr home, and this is in the archives -- you can all watch it. he said, "when we go down into the garage" -- let me assure you, over my dead body did i give permission to this man to enter my home. there appears to be no limits to which mr. butler will not go to achieve his goals. a fairly even breaking into my home is acceptable practice. once aware of our interests, in 550 states, they have transferred their campaign for harassment to that property. last week, during their request for a discretionary review hearing, the sole supporter of

that motion -- [bell rings] >> thank you. the speaker. >> good morning, commissioners. i am was involved in the building and remodeling. i have been building in san francisco for 35 years. during that time, i have been involved with the development and construction of hundreds of buildings and thousands of units. i have followed the process, rules, codes, and laws of san francisco. this house was built as per approved plans. all inspections were performed as work progressed, as per standard building procedure. the city inspector entered record instructions while the work was being done. the job card has dates and signatures to verify this theory the job card was finalized on december 5, 2011, pending revision for shaving the ridge beam so it could not be seen from above the parapet.

the work has been completed and inspected. all special inspections were performed and recorded with the department of building inspection. these inspections were performed by the engineer of record. the structure meets all building codes of 2011, which was -- which the structure was required to meet. 550 jersey has a certificate of occupancy. during construction on july 27, we were notified there was a complaint. the permit was issued in error appeared on august 10, 2011, the zoning administrator reinstated a permit from planning department perspective. on august 15, 2011, the chief building inspector informed us work it can proceed. this was from the perspective of the department of building inspection. this approval is the last time this permission had been allowed to be challenged. for us to be here today is a clear indication of how the process is being manipulated for

unscrupulous reasons to circumvent building in san francisco. on the 17th, another complaint was filed, that the bill was two feet too high. the building inspector measured the building. he witnessed it was as per approved plan allows. on december 13, 2011, another site visits by senior inspectors. the planning department also witnessed the building being measured again. again, the house was exactly as per plan. restoration of the front of the building was done with great care and into the corners and the passat were able to be left untouched except for prep work and a new paint job. the removal of the aluminum windows and plywood siding on the front of the house was consistent with the approved plan. the complaint about the built-in base is completely false. it is exactly as planned. zoning administrator stated at the planning commission it would never have been reviewed by historical resources committee and meets all current and

future criteria. this project has been attacked from every conceivable angle. permits have been approved. complaints have been filed and challenge, and permits have been proved again and reinstated. please pass this permit and let us move on with our lives and create more beautiful homes in the city of san francisco. >> we can close public, at this point. >> that is the end of public comment. the department has three minutes rebuttal time. >> good morning, commissioners. i am chief building inspector.

the permit renewal on the third floor was looked at at the bpr system back in 2007. at the time, there was too much repetitiveness from going from florida floor, station to station, waiting a long time to review permits. our third floor does a renewal of the permits. they are looked at on a case by case basis. there are two stickers and bald -- one to complete work and obtain final inspection, and the other permit was the second stamp, which was to obtain final inspection. there are three words of discussion between the two. one is to complete work and obtain final inspection. the other is to obtain final inspection. when we look at these to complete work and obtain final inspection, the renewals, we look at every permit. if the permit requires planning

approval, we never it to planning. we have to use discretion on these permits. a lot of these large projects are beyond the limit and have to be reviewed is why we renewed these permits. some of these permits run out of money. some of these permits to small contractors need additional financing and need more time. that is why we do the renewal process. it is all done on a case by case basis. that is what we do. we look at the evaluation of the work to be performed. i have been a chief building inspector since 2008. i was senior inspector for five years prior to that. this is the practice we did on the third floor. we have done this for the last seven or eight years. we look at these permits required to be renewed. we look at the scope of the work. if it needs to be diverted, we

go to planning. if it does not, we renew the permit. we determined the valuation by looking at it, and a lot of times, we will reduce the valuation just because the prior permit, they pay full valuation theory the inspection services were not performed, and they will revalue the permit. this was a practice for approximately eight to 10 years. this was a practice we used in this permit. it was an error. it was checked to go to planning. it did not go to planning. we replicated the permit. we waited for planning approval. week reinstated. all inspections were performed. special inspections, and we are waiting on the revised permit at this time. we feel the process has been complete. thank you.

>> side, we just need the appellant, and then the commissioners can ask questions -- sorry, we just need the appellant. >> commissioners, patrick is correct. the issue is whether or not work had started. i will show you the job card that was issued with the permit. the permit was 934215. our exhibit 1 page one. on page two, you see the department of building inspection inspection record, and that is the card that the district inspector would sign in the field that they had executed