president hechanova: thank you. >> good morning. my name is nancy. i wish to thank everyone who responded to my public comment a year prior commission meeting where i inform you about a missing complaint on the tracking system. the complaint has been restored on my end, and i wish to acknowledge this correction. thank you. today, i wish to bring to you a much more serious complaint, that i am requesting the agenda for a hearing by this commission in the near future. you will recall the tragic failure at a construction project on third street in august, where four workers were seriously injured because of that incident, i reviewed the dbi procedures for special inspections, and written in administrative bulletin 046, issued january 1, 2011. as well as looking at a sample of dbi files and special inspection reports for projects currently under construction. from my initial analysis, i can say that some of the procedures and certification outlined in ab 046 are not being carried out as written in the san francisco building code regarding test samples ar

commissioner hechanova? >> yes. >> commissioner murphy? >> yes. >> commissioner romero. >> no. >> the motion fails because there are five commissioners here and we need four. >> i moved to uphold the department's recommendation to give the appellant 50 days to resolve the permitting requirement issue. >> is there a second for this motion? this motion is to uphold the order of abatement costs? >> 60 days. >> to resolve. >> [inaudible] we have a quorum. >> you can conduct business [inaudible] >> the rules are the chicken hold a meeting if you have a quorum on the majority of physicians that constitute a commission. but you have a majority of commissioners present, but to take action do have to have a majority of the seats. >> so, we need a majority of seven? >> you would need four votes to support a motion. >> can i make a motion for continuance until we have the complete commission? >> under roberts' rule, a motion to continue takes precedence. >> we have a motion on the floor. commissioner walker's motion to

commissioner hechanova? >> we have to use good judgment in the category of not necessarily putting single- family homes and their replacement of windows and a violation and, say, the violation of a building where the benefit to the community was, of course, operations at the school that would basically meet a greater need of students and families. i believe that leniency is in place that allows for resolution to happen without spending both additional money and time where all of this could be resolved with the department and with project sponsors. without having to come back. that is how to move this project forward. >> this is going to come back. no matter what. the issue is, are we going to require a permit or not? if you think that there is a permit required, that is why you uphold this. get a permit and it comes away -- goes away. the abatement is removed and they are fine for the time because they have been offered the resolution of getting a permit from the time of the issuance of violation. that is wh

president hechanova: i am very pleased to hear you speak about that. it has been my impression, and sound like yours as well, that it does not cost a lot to make improvements to buildings. the first $200 goes a really long way in improving safety. >> i figure $5,000 to $10,000 extra. and you are seismically upgraded. and it does not have to go overboard. it does not have to become a huge engineering cost. it is is simple common sense. >> thank you. commissioner walker: i think those are the details that we actually have in that book. and i know all of us have been very frustrated at how long this takes, for something you can do so much to avoid damage. but when you make it mandatory, you have to make sure the engineering is correct. as you know, we actually contracted with structural engineers of northern california to give us very specific details so we could put it through our code advisory board and get the right details so we're not misleading people with incorrect engineering. i think those parts are done and delivered to us. hopefully we can star

president hechanova: first, i would like to say welcome to penny. i would like to also thank ed for the newsletter. that was terrific. it really gave a strong support of those that have come back in and also the growth of what our department is going through, and i am looking forward to more of the great information and the newsletter that you provided. thank you. >> i wanted to comment on that, too. we have not got a newsletter from a director in three years. we were just kept in the dark about everything. it is refreshing. these commissioners can confirm what is actually going on. so thank you for that. >> thank you. >> ok, is there any public comment on item 5a through 5g? >> good morning. this is nancy again. i have a comment on the issue of the tracking system. i certainly appreciate the need that this needs to be expedited, but i want to give you some insight into what is before you. i have to support debra walker's comment by virtue of the fact that my personal experience at san francisco general hospital, when we had to convert from a very a

commissioner hechanova: isn't that more planning? >> primarily, yes. but we have been asked to provide reports. >> item 5 nnumber 5c, a day on permit tracking system. >> i was hired 2.5 years ago -- 2.5 weeks ago for the permit tracking system. my background is in program management. 20 years i tieck, business, and quality assurance program management. -- i.p., business, and quality assurance program management. the ceo from excelia moaurie blackmen. we provided you a project -- -- projects thastatus. i would like to walk through the status. we find a contract of that debt on september 12. -- we signed a contract on september 12. we are finalizing the relationship. we are beginning the initiation stage, and that includes a work chart, project charter in the draft, we are preparing for a kickoff meeting presentation for next week, and we have a system staging environment ready. we have had meetings with dbi in terms of discussing the liberals and time lines. our kickoff meeting for the internal stop is on october 26 from 10:00 until 11:30. we have provi

commissioner hechanova: is it the same process for everyone? >> we can provide a permit at that time. any more questions? commission>> will this be able o accommodate the small homeowner, as also the large permit? >> yes. most of this operation is for the fifth floor operations. when you look at the flow chart that i have, a very simple flow chart, when the customer comes in, we go to the information conduct. we will look at the scope required for services, and they will review them to all the stations we have, and then the most important station is the initial permit and takintake one fifth floor. they will input in the record the permit record, and also determine the station they need. we give them a ticket how many produce stations they have to go through, and each station will perform the check, and hopefully they will go for permit. right now we have two screens. i would like to have more when we see the need of it. commissioner hechanova: do you have some sort of a system that people can hear when they're called? >> yes. in the future if

>> no. >> commissioner hechanova? >> yes. >> commissioner murphy? >> yes. >> commissioner primero. >> no. >> the matter is continued until the december meeting. >> case number 6754,. 536 a laidley street. notice by appellant to waive the notice of violation. >> appealed #607 number 6754. this is a single-family dwelling and the violation relates to kitchen and bathroom installed without permits. that is a plumbing permit. september 1 of this year. it was issued within conditions to obtain a plumbing permit to legalize or remove kitchen or bathroom at ground floor. the staff recommends to uphold the auto abatement. >> is there appellant? >> thank you. >> my name is ian hedlo. have you been provided with exhibits for reference? i am the owner of the property. it is a residential property consisting of two houses, and the subject house is the rear house, which was -- i became the owner in february 2003, four months later a fire spread it from the adjacent property, and damage to the rear building. the adjacent house was beside my rear of building. the