department gave their signature, and then we went to the third department, city planning. city planning is hesitating approving because they were questioning whether the original stairs were built with a permit. the location of the stairs in a question is in the required briard. they asked me to provide proof that the stairs were made with a permit. the process stopped there. i was requested to provide proof. when i came back to talk to my client, he said he remembered that the stairs were built with permits. that fact was on the report. so we came back to order the report on july 10. according to my client's

recollection, 15 days until this. i have not received anything. they have up until the end of the month, the last day of the 15 working days. i assume if i have the report, proof that the stairs were originally built with a permit, i should be able to get the compliance permit within the same day because it is usually over the counter. i do not know what kind of procedure you want to take but i do need at least until mid- august in order to secure the building permit. >> question? >> how long to do the work? >> if we get the contractor, it should not take more than one month.

no situation would take longer than that. >> also for your information, according to what i understood, this is for one dwelling unit only. it is an apartment but this is the only access for one building. >> i am just saying we could uphold the order and give three months to execute. >> it is not done, i will give you reasonable reason. >> i would like to hear what rose mary thinks about this. >> staff has no problem with that if we find this is a unique circumstance because of the history and lease rate.

obviously, we would have liked to have this done in the last 18 months but they are making steps in the right direction. i do need to let the board know that we are right now processing cost under the ordinance, about $2,600. we would want that to be upheld and not shortened, because we have had to go back and forth on this property to try to get them to comply. we have no problem with you doing that in this unique circumstance. >> agreed. >> i would like to make a motion to uphold the order and hold it for three months to allow for the permitting and construction. >> i would consider this a life safety matter. the stairs are an exit and they were not built properly, and from what i'm looking at, they will have to tear out what they have built and rebuilt. it is about a two-day job be

done so what is your suggestion? >> 30 days to get a permit, to complete all work within 60 to 90 days. >> can i make a request on the department? i understand she still needs a 3r report? could we expedite that and give her the report? this week? >> yes, commissioner. i will look into it. the permit, if it is rebuild or repair, that will have to change. they are going to have to tear it down, so this will be a new set of stairs. >> i believe we can uphold the order of abatement and give 90 days in order to get a permit and execute it and get final approval >> that should take

care of the matter, as long as they get the permit within 30 days. >> permit within 30 days and then execute by 90 days, with final inspection, and etcetera >> public comment? >> is there any public comment on the motion? would either side like to rebuttal? there is a motion on the floor, second. roll call vote.

[roll call] the motion carries unanimously. item f, general public comment. this item is for general public comment for any items not listed on the abatement appeals board agenda. seeing none, item g, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? second? public comment? we are all in favor to adjourn. in the opposed? we are now adjourned at 9:52 a.m.

>> everyone take your seats please. but morning. today is wednesday, july 18, 2012. this is a meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll-ca call. [calling roll] we have a quorum. the next item is president's announcement. >> good morning, everybody. thank you for coming here. i have a few announcements, and i will make them quick. there was a joint news

conference on july 9, which supervisor cohen had to announce 8000 code enforcement's with properties in bayview. i attended that along with deputy director sweeney. it was quite successful, and i think it is something you will see a lot more of in the future. there was great customer, and from people affected by this, and it was great to hear the human side of issues that are out there on these issues on the code enforcement. there was a story in the examiner on july 6. san francisco talking about what we've been saying the past couple of months with the permits. we're very unique in many ways. the department keeps in forcing that they are stepping up and doing everything we can to step up and meet the requirements, particularly to the people

coming into the department. the next couple of months he will get the services needed, but obviously it takes time to get to that point, but we're working diligently towards that. there was recovery on -- there was coverage on july 3. it was of for alarm fire, were dbwhere dbi provided the department with multiple code enforcement. just another example of how important is to keep on top of the code violations. lastly, i wanted to know there were letters received to to employees. the records minute division, recognition for doing great work. joseph you a plan review services also got recognition from the public on a job well downe. we can go on to the next item if

there is public comment. >> is there any public comment on the president's announcements? item three is general public comment. >> i would like to remind everyone before we get into public, that we have three minutes allotted. we of a strip three minutes on all public comment. thank you. -- a strickt three minutes on all public comment. >> my name is spencer gosh. i have been a building inspector in the city and county of san francisco for 22 years. i've been a resident of 32 years. i am here primarily to request an inquiry into hiring and promotional on engineering civil service classifications,

specifically why are the civil service classifications for engineers being restricted exclusively to persons of chinese ethnicity, and two is responsible for this illegal activity? i previously brought this problem to your attention on march 13, 2012 when i copied all of the commissioners. as the new commissioners are not yet seated and have not been devised, i am never get one of the topics contained in the document for work. my request is due primarily to buy treatment of the workplace, which is being caused by political increases bullying. recently a new administrative change was happening. this would allow me to relocate at a different position. unfortunately my request for transfer will not be honored. in addition to denying my request, the new department head has made clear he continues to continue the unjust racist

policies by hiring four new engineers, all of them are engineers. this was made in spite of my informing him of the problems for months ago. this distinction strongly applies he is racist. the percentage of engineers with th virtually 100% journeys. all manager royaial positions ae held by those with chinese of the city. as mr. sweeney has no background in plan review, i can only assume his appointment is for a parent's only and will allow that racism to continue. it appears mr. sweeney is the lipstick on this case. i expect to see the twin topics of white and two is responsible for the racial preference in hiring and promotion of civil service classifications would then the apartment building inspections agenda is for the next building inspection meeting. be advised that if i reasonable

request is not honored, it will intensify efforts to correct this very serious problem, but outside and inside the jurisdiction of this commission. i believe racism is not allowable from a moral and legal standpoint. i will not allow it. i will not allow racism without inserting michael efforts to combat it. as to the process is now just beginning. i will see you next month. >> any additional general public comment on items not on the agenda? >> good morning, commissioners. my name is robert davis. i would like to ask a few questions and make sure they are discussed today.

the second one is the open director hearings on the books since 1996 and the more than 750 orders of the abatement that are on the books since the year 2000. i mentioned those at previous meetings last month, and i believe the notice of the violations were brought to your attention last year in november. i would also like to point out one address in the bayview 81810 failed the h and oakview that te oakview that had a fire back on march 13. you can see all the notices. unfortunately for months later there was a fire. the people who lived on both sides were forced out. approximately 30 people in

total. thisince then there have been me notice of violations. and the fire damage is still there and still squatters in the neighborhood. i would like to bring that again to your attention. >> any additional general public comment? seeing none, item number four, a discussion regarding q-matic. with regard to have staff with any discussion and then public comment. >> good morning, commissioners, president mccarthy. i am here to speak about the q- matic system to get your

progress report of the current status. as you can see, there are many people, more so than normal. i believe most of them are here to address it. i will try to keep my comments somewhat brief so we can hear public comment. i have taken all of the written comments provided by the customers and read all of them to see what the stakeholders bank. there was 56 commons pertaining to this that are retrieved, and the comments that were filled out by people who used the system. 53 comments were against and favor some sort of change, whether it is to go back to the clipboard method, or to somehow reengineer the system to be more user-friendly. just three people were in support of q-matic in the current form. four times sake i went through the 56 comments and a brief

notes, figured out the gist of the complaints, and almost all of the comet center around it as a system at present, which is a very rigid system here did you come in through the door at 1660 on the first floor, and you stand in line to get a number to go to whatever service that we provide that you are requesting. we have a very complex system. i know this system is and other cities, but what i am told from other stakeholders, it is more like for their express windows. we have a policy if your plan check item is one hour or less, we try to put it over the counter. having said that, we have opened up ourselves to a system that really does not address that.

this system is basically in a building department where you may only have to go to one or two different stations. i do not think any of these other jurisdictions from my conversations with stakeholders and customers -- i do not believe planning is involved in it. you could go up to seven or eight different stations systems that are in place and q-matic says you have a number where you either stay at the first four or go up to the fifth floor. if it is a complicated job, you have to go to planning, building, it is commercial you have to go to fire. usually there is a bsm permit,

plus plumbing and electrical, and then you have to go pay for it. each line is cumbersome. there is no flexibility from what i could tell up until we have q-matic then. when we have the club board system of person would come in off the elevator and you would survey the room itself. he would determine by the room how long the wait would be. perhaps go to building and keep monitoring the fire line. that is how they navigate it. the system we have in place now does not allow you to do that. the system we have now, no one knows where in the line they are. q-matic does not give us the

ability to where you can sit down and look at a tv monitor to say there i am moving down the list. from the three weeks that i have been a plan check, from what i could see, it just becomes background noise. you keep hearing it now serving this and that. after 10 or 15 minutes, people seem to check out and they're missing their call, or the system kicks out their number. they might sit there for an hour or hour and a half. finally they go up to some station and take excuse me i have been waiting for a hour and a half. the person looks into this. i'm sorry. your number is not here. that is ok, i will give you another number and you consider and which again for an hour. like i say, the lost systems are

problem. i am getting reports from plan checkers that the numbers for smaller jobs are a little but off and not coming in. a lot of people are leaving the department without getting their permit. i just hear these people are doing work. we just heard on their were someone went and build a stair without the building permit. they did not build it correctly. by all means, we are engineers and plan checkers are still looking at the system try to tweak it. but they are like the little dutch boy in the dike, as soon as you figure out one week -- if you put more resources into taking the cash, in take seems to suffer. it is very cumbersome. the system is -- the system has

no built-in rigidity, and i think that is a problem. we of a lot of people here for public comment. i am available for questions. >> would it be ok if we hear from the public? the do>> can i just ask the quen to stop? -- to staff? >> we have these issues that come up. do we have someone from q- matic working with us? >> i've never seen anyone there. i have only been running plan check for three weeks. >> we have contacted them, but the system itself is more symbol like dmv. in our case, no matter what we

do, we still have lots of issues on how to get a number. they have different functions. the person holding the ticket will not be sequencing. in our case it is different because when you pull the ticket, the frustration is from the customer and the staff and how to. to g>> i am still wondering whye have no one from q-matic is involved in the process. take out the obvious question is it is not here because they're paid in the job is done, correct? to go that is what i get out of

it. at this stage what i want to do is open up to public comment. we will take the first speaker. i do not have cards, but i would remind everyone that we have a lot of speakers and to keep your comments not as repetitious. try to give as much new information as we need for the commissioners. we will keep it to 3 minutes. please stay within that. >> please everyone state your name for the record. >> thank you for your time to listen to me. i apologize that i was involved in the q-matq-matic in criticizt after the fact. the trick is what is going on with the system. this system is a solution to and not a problem. i do not understand -- [applause] >> i have to ask you to keep your applause. take ou

>> i have been asking myself why we of been going from a system of putting your name is down and everyone could be transparent to a system where we have lost transparency. i feel like a sheep being herded from station to station in the cereal plant check. this has nothing to do with building department where we can do parallel plan check. this system is not fed up to do us sign check. you contract for your work. if you were in a long line of building, you could go to fire and sign up. right now the system has increased my time of the building department by at least 40 percent signed. for people that are expediting permits, and i do my own design because my wife is a structural

engineer. the time to get a permit went from an hour to one hour 35 minutes. the plan checkers working really hard erse sitting there because they cannot get the person to come over because the name is not called. they are wasting a lot of time sitting. if someone could explain to me with the idea of it was, maybe i would have a better understanding, but it really is a solution to a problem that did not exist. the other system worked great. the only thing i could think of is the idea that this might tough spot people checking plan checkers. if that was the only reason to do this, there has to be other ways. this is a draconian solution to a non-problem. >> spencer gosh. i seem to be the