we change some -- that's what my plan, to change some of the [speaker not understood] because during a purification meeting there's lots of questions they ask you. if you don't have the experience, you may give a wrong answer. that's one of them because taskses how to get the experience, plan checker to answer those questions? . >> okay. >> commissioner walker. >> one last question. how many requests do you see coming? >> i'm not in that division, so i have no idea actually. i just know people are doing it full time. >> okay. >> at least two people are busy. >> i think just about every day five or six or more. that's why it fully occupies [speaker not understood] honor senior plan checker or good leader. >> i see that our fire marshal

maybe wants to weigh in on this as well >> tom harvey, assistant deputy chief fire marshal for the fire department. this is -- and i want to thank director hui's staff and kirk with the technical service. they've reached out to us on this. this is one of the best bargains that a designer can have. it helps expedite the process really quickly. it's not just for code interpretations. most of the time it has to do with alternate methods. the designer either chooses not to or can't meet the prescriptive requirements of the code. so, this is what puts everybody together into one room and it is usually a higher level. we usually have our supervisors with the fire protection engineer in most of these meetings because it's usually really technical. i think what the main issue is on this, we charge the pre-addendum meetings just like a pre-application meeting because, in effect, that's what

they are. and if the -- following the pre-application meeting, if the plans went through exactly as they had been planned from the beginning, there would not be a need for a pre-addendum meeting. what happens is changes occur with the design. so, then they have this question about does this still meet the requirements? this wasn't our original agreement. so, if this was not to be a fee charged by building and like i said, we already charge, if it wasn't charged, we would have people in every day with more and more meetings. and i would agree. i would say that number is probably a thousand pre-application meetings per year and fire joins with building, sends a letter out, and we expect our plan reviewers and field personnel to follow the agreement that the fire department made because it's usually made by a supervisor. >> okay. that was one of my concerns. i can see this being used very often and how quickly can we

respond to these questions, especially if a project that is under construction needs a decision on an addendum, we need to act pretty fast. >> so, the question i have around this process is this happens before a project is moving forward and someone identifies those areas, those clouded, whatever the cloud or -- the issue that i had some concern about is out in the field, if an inspector has an issue with it, he is mandated to follow the approval. but the inspector oftentimes is able to identify that some other issues on the ground changed that make it may be not. so, is there a process for resolving a conflict between an inspector who may have concerns

about the approval because either issues have changed or the reality of the site has caused concern about approval? i mean, what's the process if there's a conflict? >> i can speak to that. i think the building department's process is very similar to ours, is that every project changes from the plans to when it gets to the field. if it meets the general intent of the letter, our field inspector would follow through, approve the project, and move it as expeditiously as possible. if this is somewhat of a major change in their opinion, then maybe it's not meeting what the intent of that letter or agreement was. then they would inform the contractor, whoever they happen to be with, this isn't meeting the requirements of the code in their opinion, nor the letter of agreement from the pre-application, pre-addendum meeting. and they can always appeal through the process and i get

appeals, not on a daily basis, but often enough through the process. so, i think as deputy director lowery said was that you can always go to a senior inspector. ours is a lieutenant, and work your way through the chain of command for an appeal. ~ so, things change constantly, like i say, in the real world. and most of our inspectors -- and i'm sure building and plumbing, electrical, everybody is the same -- we try and approve as avx as we can as long as it is meeting the requirements of the code. and it's really only when it really gets out there a ways, maybe a stair is going someplace or through somewhere maybe it shouldn't. those are the kind of issues that come up that say you can't exit through a kitchen. that would be huge. or even an occupied space. maybe that would be a better example. but for the most part, if it gets approved straight through, but if a client/customer has a

question, there is an appeal process that they can make their way through. >> how about the inspector themselves, if they disagree? i mean, if they -- if an inspector says, this did not meet the letter of the letter -- the intention of the letter of determination at the beginning, what happens then? >> at the beginning, you mean within the department you mean or -- >> yeah. >> oh, within the department, they follow our direction. >> so, there's a letter that gives approval for the way that that code question was resolved at the beginning at the pre-application meeting. what if the inspector disagrees with it? >> well, we have them follow our direction. ours is a little more simple. once that letter is on there and it's the situation as described and agreed to, that's what we follow because it's really our interpretation. the director is the one with the responsibility for making

interpretations, the ultimate. it's not the inspector. it's the director. >> okay. >> i have a couple of questions, too. so, most of these -- >> do you have something on this issue? >> this is the same as the fire department, however, what we encourage field inspection staff if they have a problem is to go to their senior and their senior goes to the plan check senior and they talk it out. and then the information gets back down to the district inspector. it doesn't come up a lot. and when it does come up, we generally resolve it fairly quickly. >> okay, thanks. >> so, i got a couple questions. it relates a little bit to this, too. one is most of these pre-application meetings, they're for bigger projects, right? so, are these projects mostly submitted through planning and not through over the counter? because this is where i think it might be a little bit rushed

if we just add on these a did -- addendums and these letters. ~ >> there is a pre-application -- at least a pre-application if over the counter. if you're using an over the counter process, there is a pre-application meeting before you even go in to apply -- before you even go in to apply for a permit on over the counter things. you have to go to pre-application meeting. if there is an addendum involved and it's a site permit, and those are submitted jobs and it's during the process, there is no over the counter. >> so, it could be a lot of letters and addendum to the over the counter applications. >> there is usually one letter that takes care of all issues. >> typically these pre-application meetings are attached to larger projects. once you are in the system,

once you cross the threshold you are now full permit and you are under review, the pre-application at this point is used hardly at all. you'd have to get special permission to go back to pre-application. but i think one of the concerns, maybe that's not the issue before us. but there's a lot of projects going through over the counter. it's hard to judge sometimes whether they're big or small. so, so, i think this follows up on commissioner walker's question, is when a field inspector goes out, maybe there might be more gray area than fire. i don't know all the code. what if a field inspector code goes out and says this thing was stamped, this is not up to code. what happens then? >> [speaker not understood]. we approved it. >> what happens then? >> okay, tom, acting director.

as soon as i take over the office since last year and then you see from the website and then we pass out an information sheet, what is a common issue for a small project first, okay. then to resolve those issues uniformly, we have a joint meeting, we have fire department with us and staff that discuss all those issues, i am out, we send information to all staff including inspection. everybody will be agreed. this is the -- because the interpretation from the code, [speaker not understood] issue and all those stuff, [speaker not understood]. and then by the time to discuss the code, staff can go in there

and listen and have objection or opinion and then try to [speaker not understood]. small project, also they sometimes come in for verification. now is substantially big deals because what they call information sheet pass out to the public. then the bigger project, 95% of the time, you know, most of the inspectors, they agreed. if they don't agree, they need to come back to discuss with the senior [speaker not understood]. once in a while some of the field inspector have a problem, go to the individual plan checker to argue. we stop that. we say they need to go through their senior -- communicate with the plan check manager [speaker not understood] individual plan checker to argue. [speaker not understood] be able to resolve it.

you know, because the purification is by the senior member and then, you know, and then there is any ab requirement, it would be -- that plan checker has the senior to sign off on it. sometimes including deputy or me to sign off on that ab, you know, any administration bulletin. that's why i don't fear a big issue. before is, lots of people argue because they don't understand. okay. but i don't think nowadays [speaker not understood], the fire marshal, we always help together to help those meeting. >> if i could add to that. tom harvey, fire marshal. i think it's overcomplicating the issue a little. when almost every small project and anything that's coming over the counter, even if it's a medium size project does not

have pre-application meetings. these are for 40 unit residential buildings. everything is just a high-rise. those are the interpretations and different kinds of methods we're looking at, whether to measure the height of the building. maybe [speaker not understood]. when code comes back from the field, i would go higher than 95%. 99.9% of the time there is never a disagreement about whether this is required or not. it's usually a field change that occurs, and now someone sees something different in the field and then that's what comes back. so, i don't want to oversimplify it, but as far as once the decision is made on the code requirement and occasionally a plan reviewer will miss something. there may be a room that didn't show a sprinkler head. it's something simple like that. we say, you need a sprinkler head. we don't look at that as a disagreement with the code

interpretation. we're helping expedite and get these plans out as fast as we can. sometimes the plan reviewer argues something, the field inspector catches. we have virtually no disagreement from the contractors or designers on those issues. so, i think that, once again, the main reason something may come back in for discussion is because of a change to the field -- in the field to what may have shown on the plans. >> and that will come back anyway. it won't be overlooked just because the letter of approval. >> right. anything that changes in the field, if it can be worked out in the field -- a lot of times we say if it's a minor thing like adding a sprinkler head, great example because it happens all the time. maybe they put up a wall that's not a load bearing wall. that's building department. maybe they put up some sort of divider or something that loses sprinkler coverage and they add

some, we say, look, we don't need them to come back in. we have hydraulic calculation our people can review. but if they say, oh, hey, we're adding this whole area, lots of sprinkler heads, that's a huge one. we say you have to go back in for as built. that is substantial. that is where we rely on the expertise of our field inspectors. they should be able to make a judgment whether this needs to come back into the system because of the revisions or is it something that is not going to have any effect, say, like i say, fire alarm sprinkler system and they can just approve it in the field. >> i'm going to make an example because this is one that we experienced at a meeting. and i think you were there. there was a project that was a pretty big project. it was many different buildings, interior roads, that type of thing. it was approved by everybody as planned, but there was -- there were some alterations in the

field that caused the buildings to be dense or wider, which then narrower -- narrowed the roads, which then made an issue with not enough room for a fire truck to turn around. at the end of the project it came before the commission and it was not okay. i mean, they had to go back and spend a lot of money -- after they had already started building. so, hopefully this process would be able to identify those projected problems. even if it was not included in the clouded area, anything that would subsequently affect it, like the need to make the buildings wider, the roads smaller, blah ha blah. i think this is a good thing for the project sponsors because it's not fair to approve something and then at the end of the line say woops. i think it's a good idea. we need to pay attention to it

to make sure that it's working and maybe as we approve this, to come back and, you know, just let us know how it's working. >> right. and i think one important thing also is the letters -- this is something we've been doing for about 15 years, i would say. include the letter on the plan. so, everybody is reading the same letter because before they used to just get a letter. maybe the field wouldn't see it. maybe the plan [speaker not understood] wouldn't see it. when the letters are on the plan, it really clarifies it for both sides. it helps with the staff plan review and it helps with the design side there aren't a lot of win/wins in my opinion, but this is one. >> it used to be required on the plan all the purification notes and also the administration bulletin should be on the plans. >> and i've always said conditions that are put on it by the various processes whether the planning commission puts conditions on it or

whatever. >> and i think the other advantage of this is it relieves the inspector from having to force -- make a forced decision right on the field. it allows us or the department to make a decision for him and then document it. >> right. and usually these are complicated enough issues. it's not cut and dried. what happens is the design team is not meeting the code requirement exactly as written. if they are, there is not -- nobody would be even raising the issue. in almost every project has something that they want to do a little different. >> yes, i'd just like to add the people that carry out the pre-application meetings are almost always the most senior. in many times they're at the prop s, they come back. they bring a wealth of knowledge. i've sat in the meetings just to see what goes on and they'll start going back to what happened in 2007 code, what happened in the 2001 code and

how we got where we are. and when you start out this is the reason we don't allow it now, then the design time and the pre-application team come up with design criteria that make everybody come for thable. so that's what we're talking about. for instance, it's a vault coming into a sidewalk. we don't allow doors to open up into a sidewalk simple reason. but if it 's involved for pg&e. it will only be open once or twice a year. it's pg&e staff or building staff. what design criteria is everybody comfortable to allow this? it's things like that. ~ >> i ask want to just thank the fire marshal for coming in today. it was really helpful, your comments. any other questions or comments, commissioners? do we need to do an action item

on this? >> is there any public comment first? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, this is an action item. >> there needs to be a motion? >> move the item. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> are any opposed? then the motion carries unanimously. item 8, update on the process to acknowledge an employee of the quarter. >> that's for you. >> yep. >> bill strong with legislative and public affairs. as commissioner mar referred to earlier, we do have a new employee recognition program that i'm sure he can comment further on. we have a committee of five

people. to date i have received about three nomination applications for this first employee of the quarter. the overview of the program is we hope to choose or have nominated and the committee will ultimately choose one employee for each quarter to be recognized for doing outstanding work performance, and this is going to be the kickoff quarter. so, these nominations are due next week actually. i'm going to send out another reminder to people today to see if we can get a few more nominations. then this committee will meet again at the end of the month and we hope to actually choose an employee of the quarter in early april. that's about where the program stand right now. >> i think i just referred to it briefly in my opening remarks, that we wanted to do this for some of the employees because they've been -- you know, we've had a lot of new

employees. also there's been an incredible increase in work load, which is good, because the department's dwelting more building permits and things like that. and we also thought it would be a good idea to have opportunity for follow-up employees to elect each other, their peer. there's been a committee put together that includes myself, president mccarthy, a retired prop f employee, as well as a representative of the human resource department and [speaker not understood]. so, we look forward to doing this. it's mainly a recognition thing that we could do here and we also want to make sure that the employees are acknowledged publicly. >> right. and i would also like to give a special thanks to commissioner lee who in his capacity with department of public works has helped us with the modeling on

this program along with folks from the controller's office and dsr. there are multiple city departments that offer some type of an employee recognition program. so, we're just joining that group. >> commissioner lee. >> yes, it's very important that we recognize the good work of our employees. too many times we give too much attention to what the problems are in our department. so, this is an opportunity to show what we're doing right, which employees are doing well, doing excellent work. and when you do and the department does select a employee for the quarter, i'd like to see if they would come to us and explain why this person deserved it and how that came about. >> thank you. any other comments from commissioners? is there any public comment on this issue?

>> seeing no public comment, we'll move on to item number 9, director's report. 9a, update on dbi's finances. >> [speaker not understood] levin, [speaker not understood]. i wanted to go through where we are with the expenditures and revenue. i wanted to talk about the positions we have hired. so, we continue to receive more revenue than we have in the prior years. we expect to finish the year with about $13 million in revenue and expense savings. that is $11 million in additional revenue in the

budget, savings of $2 million in expenditures. $11 million is primarily chargeses for service which we had started last year, providing a graph in your package and a graph up here. and as you can tell, we are almost completely -- we have almost completely filled the little bucket, if you will, of revenues and we have only been four months of the fiscal year. we have more revenue this fiscal year than we had this time last year by about 24%. and we still have increases in valuation in the projects. in terms of expenditures, we continue to track less than the budget. this is primarily in the areas

of personnel. we have -- since -- we've hired since the last time we were here 10 new positions, two promotions and two [speaker not understood]. so, we continue to be trying to get through the process of of filling vacant positionses. we also have 7 housing inspector -- excuse me, building inspectors starting in or around april 1st. we have the next recruitment will be -- consist of electrical inspectors. we are working on the housing inspectors which means that we now have to take the 60 some odd people that qualify to go to the next process of housing inspectors, which is taking a test. once they take the test, then they get selected, then we'll go through the interviews. so, it's still a little way off. i expect it to be around the

july time frame. that's my short presentation today. >> any questions, commissioners? >> item 9b, update on proposed legislation. >> [speaker not understood], legislative public affairs. there was reference made earlier to the mandatory retrofit legislation that has been introduced. actually last week, the mayor sent over some substitute legislation that cleaned up a couple of items. supervisor breed had an addition of wanting to do more community outreach by the mayor's director of earthquake safety about this program so people are better informed

about it. and there was also an additional code advisory committee recommendation to look at two-story buildings rather than just the initial inventory of three or more stories, five or more tune its. they will look at two-story buildings where there may be hillside types of conditions. actually, our head of technical services, david leong noticed this and informed the acting director. we talked to mr. otellini, the mayor's earthquake safety officer about it. it will add several hundreds, at least more buildings that will be part of this notification process. that process is still being formulated. we haven't yet obtained the list, but eventually dbi will have a list of specific steps that will be conducting in order to implement this program.

there was an informational hearing, as i think most of you know, at land use just yesterday -- monday, rather, where a number of issues were raised. some tenants had some concerns about how this program may or may not affect rent control units and that kind of thing. but the overwhelming majority of that testimony was extremely supportive and it looks like the legislation will go to land use again next week for a forwarding to the board of supervisors. and it could be on track for the mayor's signature by, let's say, the time of the annual anniversary of the 1906 earthquake. so, the middle of third week of april on that particular one. >> you mentioned that there were some amendments made by the mayor's office. what were those? were those in addition to the issues that you just brought up? >> no, essentially they weren't amendments, but i don't think