respect dbi and dbi and the people that do the plan checking. i got a copy of the calculations and a copy of the shoring plans. you could not connect them. and i been in this profession for a very long time, almost 40 years. so that was number one. we couldn't make a connection with a bunch of computer -- but you couldn't tie the computer output to the plans. also, we did not have any drawings that illustrated the -- grouting. we met with the geogrout, and he showed us the plan this he had in mind. in the package that the attorneys put together, exhibit e, that shows the grouting for the gmi as proposed, mr. carp said that it's four foot six away, well it's four foot six away from his property line near the back near the elevator lobby but adjacent, very close to his house, for i think 30 feet, near the house. so there's some misrepresentation. so i did subsequent to the filing of the appeal, i did have a conversation with the engineer that did the calculations. there were -- it's not perfect, but i understood it but i had to walk it through wit

that is what dbi is all about, customer service.ow therew3 is one clerk in charge of the division's. frankly, trying to call one of the division's i am on hold for minutes. is not a small department. we have so many inspectors with building. i think we could really work much better. i hope he would consider that. 're all quite happy with what is going on right now. thank you very much. commissioner mccarthy:ñr next speaker. seeing none -- >>ñr÷m item four, discussion of attrition valuesñrqgñ for dbi compared to other departments. <>> pamela levin, deputy directr of services. we are passing out a presentation so you can seev?t t in a more face-to-face type of format. we last talked about the budget, and you had requestedp$t we loot the attrition of values we were budgeted at four some ofñr the department's. 's 2jñ% office of policy and financeséie a presentation. once we finish with the presentation, we will both be available for questions. >> is it connected to -- having an overhead? w6ç i3Ñm>> good morning, commiss. i hope you a

we're also beginning the requirements for the dbi reports and scripps. these are actually every piece of paper that comes out of the software system is called a report. so, there's a lot of paper coming out. a lot of reports are created throughout the existing system that we need to recreate in the new system plus all the new reports that people have identified that they want. in fact, next week there will be a training for all of the it people from planning and building that will be learning how to write these reports so we can do all of these reports in-house when needed and do them on an ad hoc basis. we're going to begin the detailed requirements for the data conversion. so, we're actually going to start mapping where the data goes into the system. and then we're going to continue the development of the system in a basis that are over and above the actual core system from ocela such as our solectron ibm system we already have. we already have a document management system that will be integrated. all of those interfaces are going to be begun the devel

the action is strictly a body that can hear appeals of dbi decisions.ppeals, say, have a joint meeting with the planning commission. it is not -- wbic kazis a littlt different in terms of thecrt but dbi, the department to work with, it is sortñr of the decisn maker in terms of appeals. appeals from aggrieved parties to think the way the department ñris applying the rules is inappropriate. so,bkxthñ7]d i not know if it me to work with them collectively as a body in terms of some of these issuesc(u -- x6w>> let me be clear commissioner walker:ñr let me be clear about how we created this access appeals commission. i do feel they have very particular knowledge about the issue. they would be very helpful. so, if we may be need to expand its -- if we set forward that criteria, i needçó job, --ñr thr knjjob, per se,çqg can we expan? >> i cannu÷ look into that. d8wi believe at a minimum it has been set out legislatively with various requirements to the administrative code. that may need to be amended and there is a charter requirement as well. commissionerñr wa

dbi staffers will also be there at this year's castro street county fair, the old street festival in the city. -- oldest * this event is october 7 from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. finally department of public works has just announced one of the chronicles most experienced and most respected reporters rachel gored enhas accepted dpw's offer and will join public affairs. great catch. great to get somebody from the other side of the press. with that, i have no more announcements, madam secretary. so, next item, please. >> okay. is there any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none, item 3, general public comment. the bic will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. [inaudible]. >> before we start comment, i just want to read into the -- members of the public may address the commission on items not appearing on the agenda for a period of time not to exceed three minutes. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department personnel. thank you. >>>

would notify dbi and have an inspector on the side. we believe during the process we have not reached that point. since that time, work has been going forward on the other scopes of work not under this permit. we have been doing inspection routinely as required. in conclusion i did know what -- i did want to bring up that i've taken objection to ms. gallagher's depiction of the professional staff that are responsible for delivering this project. we have qualified, experienced, and licensed engineers, architects and art -- landscape architects involved in the project. i fully support their professional judgment, and they have stamped and signed all corporate documents. -- to show that they have designed this per code. we also employ or we hired mr. kevin jensen, one of the city's 88 coordinator is to review and approve all our projects including lafayette park to make sure that it complies with all required ada accessibility laws and codes. this project was reviewed at every stage of devilment by mr. jensen -- development by mr. jensen

it should be dbi, and on the second page, 2012 should be 2000, the building department 2010. this is about 1995, and mr. carey is right. i had only been an attorney for three years. the sink hole got a permit. they got a permit that was inspected by the city. we are not talking that the sinkhole was a minor thing. it was a major thing. the first half you hit on the el camino del mar you come out of the presidio, -- the first house you hit, it was this house. the planning commission was brought into this in 2010. in 2008, there were a flurry of additions built on this, and at that time, there were complaints made by the adjoining property owners to dbi about the plan's not being correct, that no one knew about them, and no one had any opportunity to hear the variance, which is definitely needed for the additions on the house, and dbi went into whether or not it was a particular inspector or not, they went into the side, and they looked at the plants on the site, and the plans on this side seemed to be, they appeared to be, the plans that were being built, except for when mr. s

patrick o'riordan, dbi. this is a pretty complicated case, as you have been hearing. from our kids, we came on board -- from our side, we came on board in july 2008. three notices of violation were issued. the first one being in 2008, 65117, issued on july 10, 2008. this was in response to an anonymous complaint, and this was to do with a new third level added above the garage without obtaining a building permit. now, this was evidenced by our inspector, who went out there, and it was clearly evident that there was, indeed, a third story added over the garage. the next day, based on another, this was july 11, 2008, 2008, 64297 was issued for horizontal building enlargement that had been constructed on the southeast or left side of the building, and the requirement was to file a building permit to comply with the construction. and the final notice of violation was issued actually by myself on february 6, 2009. that is 2009-89665. and that had to do with the rear of the property. the southernmost faÇade wall of the property, which had been added to, and it did not match

for projects issued building or site permits before july 2010, either mta or dbi would do -- excuse me both cases but either mta or dbi would do the enforcement in collection depending whether certificate of occupancy has been issued. if one has not, g goh would dbie collection. the difference is because prior to july 2010, the mta had full administrative authority over the tidf. in july 2010 ti tidf was consolidated with other planning fees. however, there is a transition period that's required. so this would allow for an appropriate approach to different projects, depending where they are in the process. finally, the proposed tidf update would tie the future tidf -- of planning code 410 which establish requirements for reportin analyzing, and updating fees. and both i and ms. -- from mta are available for questions. thank you. >> chair mar: also have regina dick intri, director from the office of small business with us as well. supervisor wiener? so why don't we ask if -- actually, ms. bose or ms. -- did you have any remarks at all? >> good afternoon, chair mar, supervisors. the smal

patrick o'reardon, dbi. i believe there are multiple layers of review, inspection -- and inspection involved with this work. and i really think that it's everyone's intent to deliver a code-compliant project here. since the last meeting regarding this matter, six special inspections have been applied to this permit, as would be required for the structural elements involved with the work. so that is another level of a review, and verification for the structural work having to do with what was proposed under this permit. the accessibility features, they were reviewed by kevin jenson, who is city staff with dpw. he is a specialist -- he is going to do the inspections regarding the accessibility along with dbi. again, we intend to ensure that we have compliance with the requirements of ada, and accessibility for this park. senior inspector duffy who spoke to you at the last meeting regarding this matter was at the site last thursday to investigate a complaint regarding possible work at the tennis court area. he

supervisor chiu: i want to thank dph as well as dbi. the three systems really move this forward for the community. obviously we all care about this. thank you. supervisor mar: grace? >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much. we appreciate the intent and the motivation behind this ordinance. yes, we would appreciate more out reach. we appreciate how important and significant it is. the cost of construction and th. will support the legislation. -- we support the legislation. thank you for your time. i am looking forward to talking to staff. thank you. supervisor mar: so, seeing no other public speakers, public comment is closed. supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: a couple quick comments. i want to thank the members of the public who commented on this. we have been reaching out to different departments. the more we do that, it can only be helpful. i had a conversation with the head of the rba dimension there were concerns about whether we were impacting the rain water retention mandate, and i want to make clear impacts all progra

because the dbi can speak to that.ice of violation is someone complained and dbi went out and wrote a notice. on the second complaint process. you can see there are 14 steps before the city attorney takes action and there are first notices, second notices, the list is extensive. after the notice of violations, the department of building inspection comes up with the director's hearing and send the notice of violation to the director. there is a director's hearing that takes place. since 2000, there are 2000 open director's hearings. hearings scheduled, but never taken place and in addition to that there are 750 director assists 's hearing that have never been sent to the litigation committee or to the full building inspection commission for anything. now i hope you don't mind if i take another minute? i'm sorry? >> let me just ask the question, all of this data that you have given us, can you give us some sense of the patterns? i see you have highlighted for me these areas, but are there any patterns you could reveal fr

the rec and park department seems to view db by -- of dbi as superfluous. for project like this with public funding, this sponsor defines the project and represents what needs to be done to dbi. let's consider. drainage work was done with a out a permit. the work was moved to a plumbing permit which they did not receive until two or three weeks later. the work went and checked for an additional two or three works and it was major drainage work. according to this inspection from the -- june 27, worked on the trench was complete. by june 24. and this was supposed to be non- significant work, in an area of the park that is prone to flooding, where we tend to have dogs and a lot of people. the geotechnical engineers spoke about the soil and raised concerns. dpw says they found 47% of the time, this will fail. we have a feeling soil -- failing soil test. all this work is done without nispect. -- inspect. public works may be looking at this. this is done in serial permitting fashion. it has done -- been done without inspection. president hwang: thank you. we can

directors' report. 6a,ñr update on dbi budgetñr.for the record, commr crmccray has been excused. ç >> sorry for the delay. ñrdepartment of building inspection. it wanted to give you ab] quÑu updatexcf on the budget for this fiscal year. there is a spreadsheet that is on the computer, if they could bring it up. it is a little hard to read. you have it in your commission let me first to remind you about the budget process this year. it -íh#irst year two-! year budget. the first year is based onurq normal type of budgeting mechanism we use, which best projection of revenues expenditures. atnthe second year, in terms of é for the big changes we thought would occur. the process will be reopened )kwe will go through our normal process of looking at thenormal budget, the needs, revenue, and in today's discussion, the second year is just planning. it is not5o÷ a hard and fast budget. any changes that were made by the budget and finance committee, in tem when you see the changes,ç as i think about it, they truly planning document. the budge