-- can we bring back some people that have been -- even the retirees that are pretty familiar with our assistance of they could just get some of the backlog done? >> we have brought everybody back that had been laid off. in terms of going forward and reaching out to people to see if they want to come back, that is really -- if the managers and deputy directors have people in mind, they will quickly, you know, get them plugged in, but many of the people that were working here -- my understanding is they do not live in this area anymore. they go out and they live in the hinterland, the non-san francisco bay area. but we are trying to do that.

prop. f's are good, but you have to identify someone. what that person brings to the table that is specific to the needs of the department. you cannot just do this, kind of global. you have to do it person by person. commissioner mar: i understand that. i just want to make sure we are getting cooperation from the mayor's office. we have identified somebody. there is no problem -- >> we are getting incredible cooperation. we put in five requisitions, six requisitions last week on a wednesday, and they were approved on thursday. they are constantly, -- in fact, before this meeting, i was talking to our analyst about what is still outstanding and what needs to be done. commissioner mar: ok. commissioner mccarthy: is there any more questions?

thank you for the update. just one issue with -- obviously, we spent all day yesterday with the commission. you updated as to what is going on with the budget, which a lot of it relates to what we're talking about, and you have a game plan as to how to address it. >> i am working on a game plan. we had our first hearing with the budget and finance committee, and what happened is that kind of in order, last thursday, we got a draft of the recommendation, and they were eliminating inspector positions, and i mentioned to them that that was not a good thing, acceptable, so the next day, on friday, they came out with a recommendation to increase our attrition levels so we could have the positions, but that they would take away money.

we, of course, reacted against that. they also are trying to reduce some training, over time, materials and supplies, code books, and it totaled $1.7 million. what in essence was happening is that they were making cuts that would have dropped our budget to -- rather than the 4% increase in revenue that we have budgeted for next year, it would drop it down to 1%. so what we did was -- on monday, we got up and explained -- monday was really about explaining our budget and having them understand what has been happening with trying to fill positions and while we have such a high salary savings. we then have this week to work with the budget analysts office

and try to come to some sort of agreement. in doing so, the first thing we did was -- i spent friday afternoon and all day saturday coming up with a detailed hiring plan. we fixed it monday night and sent it over to them. the issue is back -- back -- that they are accurate in saying we have a high salary savings. it would be impossible for us to fill all our positions next year. we believe that the following year we're going to have -- you know, by the end of next year --

if we have an attrition rate, the takeaway 2013, 2014, we will not be in a good position. the issue we are running into is that we are working with the mayor's office and the controller's office on trying to get them to put in a reserve budget for the salary value and fringe value that they do not think we will be able to use. and then we have the flexibility if it comes to pass that we are able to fulfill positions. we will have the money. we will already be there. it will be appropriated. i think we have a pretty strong case, and the mayor's office will be working with the supervisors on trying to explain things.

we have easily proved that they cannot cut back. it is two years ago that we split the amount -- a little less than the amount that we are going to budget. training was a little difficult. but i honestly believe that we will be able to take that cut and still have more than enough to be able to get through our training needs. some of the materials and supplies, that kind of thing, we as a department have been extremely careful about overspending. i have a plan on that, so we will be fine based on what they are asking for.

i think we will be able to work with them to be able to give them what they need to look good. our next hearing will be monday, and we could know by friday if our efforts are successful or whether there needs to be, you know, some sort of, you know -- that the mayor's office will have to work harder on trying to keep it. i think everybody realizes the administration, the non- executive branch -- i do not really know what they think. i think everybody on our side realizes that this is a bad situation. we need to work together to get our positions filled. damages to hitchhike what you're saying, you are aunts -- you have answered every question.

one of the fears we had, which we talked about, was because we are going through the process of hiring people, that would not be used against us, and you want to address those. i think it is very creative how we are trying to do this. at the end of the day, it is costing us, and that is costing a department that is rising right now where we are operating anywhere from 40 people were were at the height of the market a few years ago. we have to get these people in here to service the customers. it has cost about 52 major projects. forget about the small budget. they alone justifies to be fully staffed to to keep up with that. . oney, i am available. i feel very strongly about this, but the delay in this

department, because we need our resources to get back on track. i know you know that. we have got the customer base coming back. the mayor is all about jobs. the mayor is all about getting people back to work. we are a big part of that equation. for us to be even considered to be 1.7 million compared to other departments, who are adding close to hitting the side of reductions, fundamentally, i think it is wrong. this is what you do so you are in negotiation mode right now, so good luck with that. have we any more comments? >> item 8b, update on proposed legislation.

>> good morning, commissioners. legislative and public affairs manager. i just want to point out that the redefinition of efficiency units that supervisor wiener brought to you and you approved last month had a board meeting just recently, and the decision was made to have some more public and what, so that decision in terms of actually introducing it to the board has been postponed to probably sometime in the middle of july. so that legislation is still very much handy. as you probably know, the planning department is holding a hearing tomorrow trying to create a new definition of student housing. we have been monitoring this because initially, supervisor kim had some potential amendments she was considering in terms of using well- established, vacant buildings to see whether or not those might

be converted for possible use as student housing or other low- income housing. as i understand it, the supervisor has withdrawn those amendments for the time being, pending more investigation. there is a certain concern that such a conversion might trigger a a need for a new certificate of occupancy, and if that occurred, it might affect read control as an issue. so the matter is still very much alive and with us. supervisor cohen has introduced legislation on these additional penalties for foreclosed properties. that is not going to come before the board again before the middle of july, again, because of other issues on the board prosy agenda. the same for supervisor chiu's disability access. he is in the process of trying to help commercial buildings make sure that tenants are renting spaces that meet the ada requirements for federal and state.

there is a lot of discussion, especially at the state level, as i'm sure you know, about this, so that matter is still very much alive. i thought you might like to know that on that small business waiver of awning replacement fees, supervisor cu has but four -- supervisor chu has put forward, we ended up with 11 waivers on that, which is the same we had last year without any incentive program. i would say as far as the pilot was concerned, we did not get any strong indication one way or another that that -- by waiving fees that we actually get people to improve their facades. for all i know, the supervisor might be back next year to try to do this again. >> did we do any outreach on the program? >> yes, we put information out on our counters and also at the

website. the supervisor's office was very aggressive in their neighborhoods. actually several, support -- several supervisors were posting it in newsletters. i do not exactly know what the analysis is. maybe people did not see it. in these types of situations, it takes a very long time of impressions in order to get through to people back you could save some money and do yourself a favor by taking advantage of this program. so there could be more done, obviously, in that regard. as i said, i do not know if the supervisor wants to pursue that again next year or not, but i would not be surprised if she came back. commissioner mar: i was wondering in the discussions on supervisor wiener's legislation on the efficiency units, with the the board thought we should discuss it. it seemed as though there were some moving target pieces of legislation.

i know there were some code advisory's about the size. then also, i think the board raised some questions about -- because it was kind of connected to the question of student housing, but it was not really targeted towards students, so there were some questions about that. >> there was not a formal recommendation, at least during the board discussion, that it be sent back, though supervisor wiener recognized and acknowledged that there had been quite a discussion in both venues. you cannot actually have a separate definition of student housing right now. that is why i guess the planning department is doing what it is doing with its hearing tomorrow, but right now, that is not legal. they could very well, after the july 16 and visitation of this -- i think supervisor w

iener -- and that he became clear that the one of more public input on the issue. it will be with us, i think, probably well into the fall. the only other item: on the state legislation -- i think you have a copy of all of this -- is the number one priority is this senate bill 1186, which addresses this issue of frivolous lawsuits and how to assist small businesses, in particular, in dealing with some of these ada issues. i think part of this is being driven by senator feinstein being in contact with senator steinberg at the state level. there is definitely a whole lot of activity going on, according to the folks i have talked to. there is nothing really new for

us to report at this level right now, other than that it may affect how we do to implement some of our enforcement going forward. >> i know in our hearing, and i do not think we closed it out, but have we ever sent a letter of support for what she is doing up there? >> we have not. there's nothing to prevent us from doing so. we could sit in the draft a letter and -- we could certainly draft a letter. >> that is something i would not mind looking into if we could. i believe we are all on the same page. i could say we have had hearings on it, and we support the measures they are trying to do at the state level. thank you. >> item 8c, update on primary tracking systems.

>> the project still is going well and on schedule. we have been working with them on meetings where we have our documentation to be configured and see what they have done in terms of configuration. that is a really important part for our staff to be involved in. we also had an interesting meeting yesterday and got to see how what is called the citizen access -- it is the area that the citizens can go in and request permits or find out information or see where their permit is in the process, and got an example of what some other agencies -- or it happened to be a couple of states -- had done, and give us some ideas. we are working for work on trying to place -- you know, identify exactly where

citizens, interested parties can be involved in the project. we have also been working on identifying source data, doing some data conversion, and we really believe that we will still need the november 2013. it is not in a state that you guys could really look at it now. it is still in a situation where we are doing a lot of work. thank you. >> item 8d, update on major projects. >> good morning, commissioner. but have an update on a major project from the past month. three projects over $10 million.

also, there is one job that came across late last friday, came from planning, the cpmc, $130 million project also. >> what were the fees on that? >> they did not show it. but i think it is close to $1 million or something. >> so we have $1 million, and we need engineers to check this, right? >> yes. now is the time to give you the update. we had help from the director. we have the director come back because he is very familiar with the code. we did get some old-timers to come back, but they are out of the code cycle and do not know how to use it. we had three engineers come in.

two of them will come in next monday. one is the beginning of july. and then two more because they are under what they call temporary positions. and also, deputy director sweeney agreed to work to try to speed up work on the inspector'' test. next monday, they will meet again. also the 5214. the dhr will get the announcement. >> on the copy -- prop. f, which is a great policy, but not too many people come back of it because as you say, they have a lot of studying to do to keep up with the new changes. just one question -- on these major projects --

>> ron tom is very experienced as inspector. he is helping me out to try to change to lead the process, run away efficient for the -- officially, and then he can do the oversight, make sure it complies with the code requirements. >> shadowing the seasoned veteran with the younger engineers coming aboard now. i think that is very important because they will get a good start in understanding that. as we lose senior inspectors, that these inspectors have the kind of training from the old seasoned veterans. >> myself, i think we need to have the order to learn. coming in, we will coach them how to do all the plan checks. >> ok, deputy director.

thank you. are there any questions? >> 8e, update on q-matic and status of the book -- activation. >> i know lots of people do not like it, but starting june 11, we start the project. it is chaotic because our staff is working hard, and chilly. everybody is working hard. i asked our chief building inspector -- i told them that they had better go for lunch. even myself, i have no lunch hour. the customers are so smart. some of these people jam up the system. so many numbers, the system cannot catch up with it.

the director was there looking at it. but right away the next day, we do not let them have the kiosk. as was mentioned in the open, they are limited in operation because they have everything operating in one floor. we have multiple floors. the customer may be confused. then our staff. you know, we need to go by the order. also, the number 100, like 110, due to your different station -- by clean up my station first, and then maybe i'd jump before you. that is what it may not be in order to serve. then we file lots of issues with

the program, too. over 1 hours 4 minute 4 seconds, then you go to the next station. we tried to put more stuff on the fifth floor, but how many are you going to put? and then, you go through the number, and it is delayed. that but two suggestion boxes. one on the fifth floor. one of the first floor. we also have the white form on cpb. the whole team tries to work hard. u.s. at estimate, doing everything we can, there would

be some delay of about half an hour, 45 minutes minimum. we will not be laid before we can look at the customer, and then we can ask them and move along. you need to go by the order they serve. >> thank you. commissioner walker, you have comments. >> hearing the public comment earlier, it seems like once you are in order, you are in order no matter what station you have to go to. is there a way to circulate the people to the next open station, even if it is not in order of how they are supposed to go, so that it is a parallel kind of -- >> it is parallel, but you need to understand. the stock cannot pick and choose. the supervisor needs to go around to look at the screen,

and then to at the station remove the station. >> so it is not automatic? >> it is not automatic. >> it is too bad that cannot just be put into the computer that wherever the open station is put into the computer. >> one of them is on the first floor and one is on the second floor. a lot of people -- >> i was actually there. and i can see, at this time, this is the growing pains and we have to work to the system to put this in there. but at some time, we have to do a gentle analysis on this, during a time that you think is good enough. and we can see if the system is really working for us. at this stage, i get this. the second day was a little bit

better, and so on. there is a lot of complaining, when i walk on the floor. right now, i am all years. i am asking how this works for you. this is something that you think is suitable, and give a comprehensive report. >> i think another question but i would like as part of the report, is the new system and we want to work those out. as long as i have been here on the commission. they will pay their fees. this is one thing that maybe does not come up.

their life is to hang out at 16th street. what has been there in the past, they're getting to know some of the staff. we have people standing inside -- these are people who don't get to jump in line. i think that -- this makes the public less confident in the way the departments run. everyone who walks in, if this is a private building, if this is a model of our own, or a

professional 100 projects at that time. >> answer the question, before the system, we look at the least, and then we try to put all of the staff there -- and then we have quality-control -- and then, cashiers are a major problem. people want to get the permit ready. there is concern with the staffing. a lot of people combine it. after them, too.