>> just a quick question. did we receive any complaints about illegal inlaws or anything like that? illegal second unit in this past mobt? month? >> there's probably complaints for that. that'd be housing. i don't have a specific number for that. i can find out. >> i might be interested sometime next month to find out what the numbers are. if we have any or none. >> they usually -- always a number, we don't have [inaudible] report to you. >> commissioner melgar. >> yeah. i was just specifically interested too, to see if the legislation has done anything to curb the complaints. if people are taking that route instead or if it hasn't made a difference though. >> okay. there are lots of inquiry about, you know, the [inaudible] and people want to do it and then at least as far -- i didn't come to [inaudible]. we have at least 40 of them go to city planning and then i

think they only approve one to three of them only. we are still wapting for them to come back. >> i'd like to recognize commissioner clinch. >> yeah. >> based on my check in yesterday, besides the 25 to 30 that tom just mentioned, there are three that we think are very close to being ready for actually issuing a permit. so far no permit has yet be issued and i guess this is a matter of going through the process, providing the information to the owners and letting them decide whether they want to proceed or not, but i'm told that we will probably have three issued permits within the next couple of weeks. >> i think you're off the hook then. thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on the director's report, items 6a through d? seeing none, going back to number 4. >> what we'll do, madam secretary, if it's okay with my fellow commissioners, we'll take 4 and 5 together because i see them as the same and if there's no objection to that. >> okay. that's fine. item 4 is a possible action and discussion regarding a [inaudible] ab 109 seismic evaluation of private school facilities of san francisco building code section 3428 and item 5 is discussion and possible action on revisions to proposed ordinance, clerk of board of supervisors amending the building code to require that existing private

elementary schools [inaudible]. >> morning commissioners. director of earth quake city safety for the city. i want to echo the president's comments on the soft story program. i'd like to commend the staff. they've done an amazing job. this is a really duff cult and unique program and i though know i say these numbers every time i'm before you but there are 60,000 people in these buildings. i'd like to recognize the work by robert chung managing this team. these are some of the the clerks working really hard taking in all these forms. what i want to point out is that this is being done differently than any program in dbi's history. we are tracking data so differently so we'll have analytics we've never had

before for a seismic retro fit program. we're going to be able to see where they were in every single part of this process and dbi updates this live on a website on a weekly basis so there's a lot of effort going into this program to provide transparency. i think the communication the dbi has done with the public has been fantastic as well. all these property owners have received a piece of mail since the program started every single month. inviting them to events like the one we had in january where we had 3,000 members of the public attend and providing financing. i'd like to give you an update on the financing program. we have 330 applications into the public program. we're in the final stages of slektding a partner which will provide a key service for these folks. these are people out of the

gate looking to do this. no one is looking to have their building retro fitted at this point. if we get a nice flow going this is a great alternative financing mechanism for property owners. oakland has since appointed my counter part over there, victoria [inaudible] in january and i know victoria's working with mayor quan to institute a similar ordinance in oakland by the end of the year. just wanted to provide an update on that. to the agenda items this ordinance was before the commission before several months ago. at that time we had recommendation from the working group to evaluate all these buildings, evaluation only within three years. none of that has changed. there have been significant changes to the ordinance in working with the san francisco arch tiered system of

evaluation so bigger schools had to do a higher level of evaluation. in working with the schools we realize that that might treat some schools unfairly and may drive them to retro fit to a higher standard, which we're okay with, but didn't want to create an inequality between the bigger and smaller schools so this is a life safety evaluation for all buildings so that's con sis at the present time for all schools. there's a voluntary retro fit exemption so we give a 15 year exemption from any ordinance that might mandate this. that's been extended to 20 years. that will help minimize any code triggers outside of any seismic triggers. on behalf of the mayor and our inner agency working group had our first meeting monday with representatives from all so i'd

like to thank diane yin in participating in that on behalf of dbi. and we'll be issuing interdepartment memos. also, the key thing is identifying a point person so that way if a private school is seeking to do a retro fit they have a planning department contact they can call, a dbi, and they can go right down the list so they can get questions answered and this is the first stages of this. we plan to expand this working group to be a comprehensive outreach arm for the private schoolses just like soft other so we can connect these schools with the design professionals, contractors, folks doing evaluations and give them advice on how to finance if we can and work through this process over the next three years. the administrative bull tens before you is the same day as the ordinance. part of our promise to the

schools was to develop these in conjunction with one another so that way everyone's clear on the requirements so i'd like to thank the team for providing good comments and editing, so much so that i realized there is one typo. we'll edit that to make sure it reads correctly for publication. any questions. >> you're very, very good at this. the city's lucky to have you. >> thank yo. you. >> well done. >> i was just thinking when you were saying berkley and oakland. if i hear you've been head hunted over there -- your loyalty's here. >> i think you know i'm a san francisco citizen through and through. >> obviously congratulations on getting everybody to the table and particularly the school. that was very good work.

well done. would now be a good time to talk about the actual posters, the soft story posters or could we -- >> just for your final decision, but i just let you to look at the --. >> yeah, because i know there's a beauty contest going on with regard to what would be the most -- you know, and kind of -- which would be the best to put on the building for those in violation. i know this was originally the one that was directed by our department, which is one option. the next one, which i think was designed by your staff as well as an unput as well, which is this. obviously it's the director's decision so i'm just kind of

showing you these so maybe later on if you want to let the director's know your opinion. whatever you feel works the best, take a look and we can talk in more detail about them. thank you for your work on them. >> if i may clarify, just to make sure people watching are very clear this is not for the private schools, thr for the soft story -- >> yeah, soft story program. maybe this is the wrong time to bring it up. i do apologize about that. with that, public comment. >> if there's anymore speakers on this i tome. >> item. >> any public comment on item 4 and 5. seeing none, is there a motion to approve this item? >> commissioner walker. >> i move to approve agenda items 4 and 5. >> second. >> there's a motion and a

second. we'll do a roll call vote. president mccarthy. >> yes. >> mar. >> yes. >> clinch. >> yes. >> lee. >> yes. >> mcray. >> yes. >> melgar. >> yes. >> walker. >> yes. >> motion carries unanimously, item 4 and 5 are approved. >> thank you all. >> item number 7, discussion and update on permit tracking system.

>> good morning commissioners, president mccarthy. i'm ed sweeney, director of permit services. as most of you know, last thursday dmis manager -- she's off on medical leave. i don't really think i should get into that. so i've been helping out with the program and i just give you a few points where we are. this week we're finishing configuration with code enforcement and inspections. it's going relatively well. one bright note i'd like to say is that today is the last -- it's the fourth period of data migration and it's taking place as we speak. this will be the first -- this will allow for the first type dbi employees to see the new system from start to stop.

we can put a number on it and work it out and see how it works, how it performs. tech 21 are advisors and asela are going through a series of bugs that have been discovered that's pretty typical for a project this size. we have a number of reports. i believe the number 62 reports that are still being formulated. this data migration, i'm told, will be about 98% of the system. once again, this is important. next week we will continue with the configuration and hopefully finish it next week. we have to make a decision on september 4 whether or not we can make the go-live date. there'll be a system for september 22 because after september 22 it'll be nothing but training. it'll be training or staff for

the system that was froze on september 22. i'll get a better handle on whether or not we can make our dates by the middle of next week, late next week. staff is working very hard, very diligent. we have all day sessions planned for all of this week, all of next week. i'm working with tech 21 and the asela team, as well as mis to keep the schedule she's made with our internet provider, on track. and it's a lot of work in a short period of time and we are committed to making the time. we'll do our best effort to do the rollout and go live.

>> commissioner mar. >> are you the point point person now from the business end of the department? because one of the things that i've found out when hema went out on medical leave was that we didn't really have somebody from the business side of the office on top of the asela like they did in planning, which i think there's a big problem because, you know, even though we're trying to implement a new i.t. system, we can't just have an i.t. person in charge of it. >> we had an entire team. the difference between dbi and planning, planning is only, i believe 15, 20% of what we do. they do no intake, they do no cashiering and their code enforcement is probably 10, 15% the size of ours. they -- their day-to-day interaction with the public is far different from us.

like dan just came up and told you, they did 5000 inspections. all 5,000 inspections have to be scheduled. the biggest problems we're having with this system is the intake, the cashiering and the day-to-day operation of scheduling permits, scheduling complaints and, you know, it's much more vast than plan ing ning. >> that kind of just reenforces my point because we do so much in terms of permits that it's more important to have somebody who's not just an i.t. person, but somebody -- when i say on the management -- on the business side, i mean someone who's managing our permits and inspections, someone who can call the shots in terms of -- >> that's what we have been

doing. until today -- and we won't get it until tomorrow, we have never seen the system. we've seen parts of the m is. this is what you do when you do the intake, this is what you do this, this is what you do that. but never once have we been able to look at the system and go from start to out the door. so the business side has been there, that's how they built this. to say that this is being run by i.t. people isn't a true statement >> are you the person on dbi. >> i'm one of them. >> commissioner walker. >> so can you tell us who is standing in for hema as far as someone who's -- i mean, this is not -- this is not saying anything against your participation, but someone who does have a history and a sense

of the computer details. >> what we've done, we've formed a team. we have katherine cruise who was hema's second person. joel kusi and they would be the two main people. currently we're trying to get an exemployee who now works at the airport, to come back. he was part of the lay off in '06. we lost him then. we are talking to him. he knows this side of it and he is computer savvy and we're also working with dt, department of technology. >> can i jump in? >> please. >> first of all, after last thursday there was, you know -- i hear from hema and right away i do my, you know, plan what to

do with action plan. right away i talk with dt to help us out. they do send someone to our department to help, you know, eventually [inaudible] or project management type to assist us and [inaudible] our side we will want to have someone hema role. right now still -- we are going through the process to get the decision, but i'd tell you a little bit more, but i don't know if it should be exposed yet because maybe somebody other department may change our strategy. i need to secure the person to come here to help us. she is experienced. and then also [inaudible] is so much work too. and i ask [inaudible] to assist

him to do some of the training and also on the business side because you cannot have one person know everything. [inaudible] responsible for their work. . that's why we want them to sign off whatever [inaudible] the system. right now we don't have the system, only parable. par sh. tial. after the data conversion this week i want them to find what is the problems because [inaudible]. >> so let me -- this might be the issue that commissioner mar is also dealing with is that initially pam was involved in this so maybe now we have

taurus back and i'm assuming taurus is part of the process of doing this as well. i think -- i mean, as we've lost somebody, it really become key that we have a team working forward that addresses all these different issues that may be a compilation of all the different departments. i think it would be good and would be helpful in this time period to make sure that everybody's on board. we're so late in the game and to have somebody key stepping off, understandably, that's not the issue, but we need to make sure that all the bases are covered in this next part here. >> yes. next two or three weeks -- most important in our department is customer service for the [inaudible] and the chash sheer.

cashier. i don't want them to wait. i want to help the staff. [inaudible] how long's it take to intake, how long to issue the permit. then we want to find out how can they improve it. we know officially it take longer, no matter what's in system. [inaudible] a new book, it take time to digest it, same as the system. but we hook to see what is the issue. can we do a soft cut or whatever to find out? that's why [inaudible] and then see what happen. >> commissioner melgar. >> yeah. i don't know hema and i don't know what's going on and it's not appropriate to discuss that. i've been worried about her for a while because this is a really high visibility project. it was a huge part of the

citizen's report. and so, you know, i know it's a lot of pressure and visibility on a fast timeline. we've been pressuring. i acknowledge that. so, you know, now that her folks have taken over sort of leading this project, i'm worried about resources and i would encourage you to do a couple things. one is to push i.t. for the city to give you as much as you can in terms of the technical assistance and resources that this will require, but the other thing i would encourage you -- you know, in my own work i'm management and i've been management for a while and i think as manage sometimes we see being picture and don't often take the time to see the details so i would encourage you to involve the line staff, the end users sooner rather

than later. we sometimes want, like, the end result and don't take the time to see it from the perspective of the folks who are going to be doing the cashiering, rather than just presenting and training once it's done. i would encourage if you are forming a committee or group of folks that you include, you know, some of your high performers among the end users to help see through those problems that might arise because, you know, sometimes as managers we tend to be miss those things because we're not doing it day-to-day, we're not the person taking the money or doing those kind of things so i would just say, you know -- >> all this week we've had ten end users in the computer training room. >> great. >> and from now until it rolls out, that's who's going to be involved. >> that's awesome. >> besides -- commissioner

walker, for example, we realize the problem with the i.t. being [inaudible]. i ask hema before to hire more last year, year before, but instead of hiring we do [inaudible] and then only last month or so we got three more back. we still keep on hiring, but hard to compete with the outside [inaudible]. you know, trying to get -- hopefully the new person will come in, help me to identify more to come in. we realize the resource is the most important part and then [inaudible] end user too. >> i'm sure we'll discuss this again as the rollout gets

closer, but my main concern is that right through this whole process there should have been a leading manager from the business end of things involved with the tech side because -- and i'm glad commissioner melgar brought up the [inaudible] problem because without the management from the business side then the technical system in and of itself will not be what our staff can deal with. we cannot wait until the whole thing is put together and then say we're going to train the staff now to input because the staff has to know from the very beginning. and from what i understand, there has been some rollouts. you know, there has been -- because we've done report on certain benchmark, which means that the manager from our business side who are on top of permits, who are on top of

building, who are on top of housing, should have been, you know, been discussing those benchmarks with the staff already and says can you guys do this? will this work for you? you know, that kind of thing. and from my understanding that type of discussion has been happening and planning and has not happened as much in our department. so the problem is not just an i.t. problem because if we wait until the end until the i.t. builds the system however i.t. people will build the system and then we go to our staff and say now guys, input this, you know, i don't think then we're going to run into the same type of resistance or the same type of -- >> [inaudible] virtually impossible to build this system without any intake from staff.

the line staff has been involved from the beginning starting two-and-a-half years ago. not as much, but two-and-a-half years ago it was all conceptual. asela tells me they've rolled this out in 422 localities, some of them large cities. what i'm seeing right now is mostly -- it's a new system and people are afraid of it. when we get more training most of those problems should go away. we 're still going to have bugs. oakland rolled out eight, nine months ago. i talked to the chief over there and she says six months later we're still working on it. it's a custom -- it's a off the shelf system that's customized to every jurisdiction, but i ensure you we have staff in the training room all last week and

really from the last six to eight months we've had a line staff. prior to that we really couldn't have them in there looking at it because we had nothing to look at. prior to that there was sessions between management, mid management, line staff talking to asela about our business model. we used the business management that we did under's ton. that was brought out in detail and that's how we did our business. that's what they wanted to know. we handed them that full package and worked with them. i've had many discussions with the asela people and tech 21, as have many of my staff . >> [inaudible].

. i wanted to add that we didn't have the staff to train on it. when we build a system everybody have input into it and then we go through the training, but the training -- i think also when it's not a system you can test. you just, you know, [inaudible], you know, nothing there. now [inaudible] and you actually find what is the problem. we are involved all the staff, even the chief [inaudible] level from the beginning. it's not [inaudible] >> and if i may commissioners, i know a few commissioners called me and asked if they could be there to get a feel for it and unfortunately i was the only one available to go. i was kind of nervous going into that meeting because you get lost real quick. >> it's a different language. >> it's a different language, but i came away from this that