examples. what do we have here we have a 42 floor structure with a culture heritage element it is a miniature delay on the ground floor and a room is invited in to look at things that's like a museum and important importantly there are outdoor facilities that can handle more people it's right next to the pg&e facility and it's inviting the public to come in. my opinion that is the wisdom of maximum standards we want to make sure a appropriate standard is cello. you can see in the earlier slide there's another profile forbid

the facilities that are essential. those performance targets are way above what is the 4 classify facility. we're asking you to revoke the permit we don't believe the right targets have been chosen and in spite of the unique proximity of the pg&e facility and because of those new standards anytimeings performance standards and allowing people to return to their homes after an earthquake >> i have a question mr. white. mr. white i have a question >> i'm sorry yes. >> you cited the pummeling substation have you had conversations with them.

>> yes. we have had one meeting in person and telephone conversations. >> did they weigh in open the project. >> they want to see the details they haven't seen the shoring design which is the next element over the she or he we don't have complete information but we've shared, you know. >> they're aware of this appeal correct. >> yes. >> that's something they're interested in it sounds like you're open the same page. >> they want more information they don't have enough. >> you don't have to intervene but if that's their substation i think they would have concerns.

>> to speak frankly commissioner we've met with them so their fully aware. i can't speak for them i don't represent them >> sir 9 minutes. >> commissioners i don't have much to add mr. gaga take care was a member of the design panel for the design of the infinite he signed off as a category 2 risk i don't how you can reference a book for the project. the dbi has a well-thought-out and thoughtful process for the basis of the design and the subsequent design for high-rise

in san francisco that's why the design review panel is independent and makes its own decisions about the designs and meets all the requirement that the stiffer san francisco and dbi as credit card it's been accepted by deploying and having third party's come in and render their own opinions unsupported by books and hear is a statement are not good. using the more than that be technology and techniques and everything the design professionals have used in the last 10 years i submit the appeal should be denied >> the building isn't going to be built to the 2006 standard?

no >> okay. >> no. >> i believe it's 2010 code. yeah. which is the current version of the code >> i didn't ask this i think i know the answer based upon other comments you've made the reason why you don't want to provide the specifications your client didn't want to provide. >> the spell qualifications their subject to review there's a whole process with the rectify panel where the calculations are shared baertd and it's a complete process and our view is i think dbi and the panel that accountabilities weighing in and intervening with that process would lead to chaos. >> okay. thank you.

>> counselor what are the other comments made relating to the shoring. didn't i see a design >> you saw a demolition. >> i saw that. >> there was a discussion between the she or he engineer for this project and a representative of the metropolitan regarding the possibility of a she or he agreement. we were going to increase pin their building and put in tiebacks unfortunately an agreement wouldn't e couldn't be reached. so a decision was made with respect to the she or he you understand it's the shoring of the site we were going to comboernlly shore open the edge

next to the metropolitan rather than putting tiebacks in >> it was okay with pg&e. >> they've been out to look at the demolition with you we've not heard any concerns we'd be happy to share information with them. >> thank you. anything further mr. sanchez anything further mr. tom from dbi. okay nothing. commissioners the matter is yours. a couple of comments perhaps. >> you know, it's interesting they will bring forth open the on hand a resume of buildings designed and on the other hand,

it's the two sides they bring in the discussion on a structural basis for that particular design. i remember very well the comments that were made and it was both within the building department and general public and the structural engineering community here in the city that if you take an example like the con with the cobra design that there was a concerns about the redundancy and the systems. it went back and forth and, you know, now we have multiple buildings that are designed on the same basis. my comment was that it was to provide a little bit of history but i'd like to go back to a

couple of points. the code tissues. >> a minimum level depending on the occupancy. it was skirted around in the discussion a little bit but it establishes it and it goes between what is minimum to what for example, if you have a hospital or a nuclear reactor site it's designed for the highest level. that allows you to have a facility that will withstand a maximum credible fire department and at the same time allow for continuance operation then all the levels in between. and that's where they're getting into the difference between them but i san diego with the appellant on one statement

that's determination is by the owner the owner can upgrade what he wants to do i'm be more simplistic if i have a house a $50 million art collection perhaps i want the structure to withstand that but by code it doesn't have to be like that. i understand the permit holders concerns about entering into discussions with other parties other than who they think they need to do which is the building department and perhaps some of those things she should have shared especially with the she or he design would be one that is essential between the two parties. if i had to guess i would guess

that the appellants building was designed to a life safety standard. and what that means it is the building does not collapse it allows the occupant to egress safely but in a credible event it will require it to be demolished not necessarily but libel that's the standard by which the building code meets. the structural team at the building department is quite good you wish be aware that mr. tom and the head of the department are licensed as structural engineers and that's more structured so i have some level of confidence their ability to not only know the systems by to review and study

the exact criteria. i'm prepared to the uphold this argument and the demolition permits. on that basis >> any other comments? i thought that was a very 2306 preceding and appreciate everyone coming out to give us their comments. i know i good am not persuaded there are concerns with the permits at issue for that reason and the reason stated by my fellow commissioner i'll move to deny the appeals and uphold the permits they said they don't have any. on the basis their code compliant

>> we have a motion then from the president to uphold all 3 permits on the basis their code compliant commissioner fung. commissioner hurtado commissioner lazarus so the vote is 4 to zero all 3 permits are upheld open that basis >> okay. so we have one more temazepam 8 which is our discussion and possible adaptation if you could exit quietly we have one more item. the departments budget for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. so commissioners what i wanted to do tonight was to give us a

belief update on our current year in the budget process and the recommendations for the next to fiscal years we have to submit the proposal by february 21st so what we need action tonight to meet the timeline. i don't want to get into the detail i know you're familiar with the surcharges and a filing fees and well familiar with 9 way that your expenditures are generally divided among the various bucket of expenses but as per usual the majority go to personnel costs. i want to focus on the revenue we're seeing a slight increase in surcharge revenue and it will end the year with a surplus.

we continue as we have been in the 640s months we'll have $12 million in surplus revenue. as far as fees we're not looking a exemplifies that line item depends on the type ofs of appeals and in terms of the volume of appeals we're looking at year to date we have a 7 percent increase from the past mid year point but we're still about 7 percent under the 10 year average. the reason i focus on an appeal volume besides the fixed personnel costs the place we can have over ages is the cost appeals so it's the notification

maps and pieces of information we send out and sfgovtv cost we have to pay for. so when we have a year like we have now the appeal is up we're below the average we could look for spending savings. we look at the an average of appeals. we're looking at possibly around $75,000 in the savings so annoyed with the surplus charges we'll end with $87,000 in surplus dollars. we do have our rainy day fund $175,000 from last year's surplus and to the extent with very surplus dollars that money will go going into the fund if

we find ourselves at the year our expenditures are studying our revenue >> can we ever lose that money. >> it's segregated specifically for the board it could be tapped. the reason we didn't have one before now in the past years when we had a shortfall the city would help us out and the surplus years we'll pay back the fund we'll continue to pay that back but at this point the controller's office and mayor's office have decided to keep those funds. so looking forward to the next two years there's minor changes that are currently proposed those are 1y5i69s less than 1.1

percent additional adjustments are likely the city is in negotiation with the labor units that cover the board employees we'll have a much clear picture for any adjustments to our personnel costs are the unbelievable of the expenditures. we expect those to be finalized in mid-spring and we'll make adjustments necessary at this point. i'm not recommending increases for the permit vitamin it will be in the range of dollars we've been budget over the last several years and not recommending any change to our city attorney work order we've about that struggling with that. last year we were a few thousand dollars over by this year we've

spent 30 percent of our annual allocation so i think unless something big comes and we need a lot of city attorney hours we're in a good spot >> i wonder if this corresponds to the number of attorneys other than the board. >> i project the revenue for 80 for 2015-2016 will cover our operating expenditures. but the big poise of the puzzle doesn't come in until the departments collect the surcharge so the surcharge is levied on the surchars we'll see if those needs to be adjusted.

adjustments can be made through adding the cost of living there inflation the controller has the authority to do that by changes beyond c pi we have to go through the legislative process but i'm not thinking we need that but we'll wait and see after the labor negotiations are done. i'm not recommending any changes to our filing fee it wouldn't make a big difference for our overall allocation. after pefrnl charges are known through legislation if we need to go beyond we need legislation to adjust the surcharge rates because their out of what you can and they canned be adjusted

because their more than that what dbi would allow so for example, police department currently it's $26 and some cents it's through the appeals we have not seep that in a while on the other hand, we've about that getting more dpw charges and fm there's some adjustment needed to the surcharges applied to tobacco related permits there's a high charge related there if we added that to the elective we could spread out the dph to a broadly scope of applicants but cover the types of appeals that the board gets

paw how do you go about macro the changed >> the mayor's office would introduce it and, yes that's my recommendation and, of course, to teaspoon to monitor expenses as we also do to make sure we don't spend over. that's the remthdz you have in the appendixes in the details what we're spending where and where the slielth changes in the current recommendations if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and would ask that you consider a motion to strike to approve those recommendations is so i can go ahead and submit them >> overall it's a well done document but i have two comments. first is to talk about the fee

structure. a long time ago i remember our director at that time, made a comment to me i never forgot he said that e6789 we discuss increasing the fees he was personally against it and the reason is that, you know, for it is mission of this particular board you have to make it as affordable as possible. if i look at the you know when i look at some of the purely comments this building penalty imposition their usual also small guys. you know, if you're trying to save a thousand dollars and file 3 one hundred hundred bucks that's out of what you can the

building permits are from planning and this but yet our building permits appeal is only one hundred and 75 bucks but planning is $35 it didn't look right. i understand to some people it's a little bit more contentious but on the other hand, it's a question of what's important to a neighbor fidgeting a permit vs. a larger body. i understand though the effort is different but still it's equal in terms of who we serve a that's one issue and i brought this up to cynthia earlier it's about time we joined the new technology. two things i started to say that perhaps we need a some kind of 6

a dedicated website where everything is lowest and it has different wuz to improve communications and things can go back and forth and the department responds to certain things and legislator responds instead of having to wait where their letter is buried in a pile. i took to another step i know that the planning department has provided ipads to their commissioners i'm not worry about that but looking at ways to improve the flow of information and coordination instead of going through the same old process we've been doing for 50 years >> is that it.

>> yep. >> i noted some of the filing fees as well i don't know how they were arrived at. i'm on the penalty it jumped out but the reheather requests especially the reheather it seems like the bar should be a little bit higher on the fee when we've had a fully vetted hearing the jurisdiction is a different issue but i don't know how you come to that i want to reiterate when i usc saw this report i thought it was everything you do an excellent job. and just putting this together for us is clearly visual and it helps someone like me who doesn't have a lot of time.

i agree and have been thinking about it those are heavy i don't like to carry them but the waste on the paper and assuming they get recycled. but i don't role understand the one the part of your staff or either maybe it's you've got a terrible copy but some things can be just loaded into the thumb i don't know if this would reduce the messenger costs maybe a saving here or there i don't need an ipad i'm fine with the thumb drive. i don't like to look at a computer i love parch i feel

like we need to move in that direction >> i agree with that. i mean, i mean, i imagine it would be a cost saving >> maybe a scraper we have them in our office. >> we have a scanner but. >> you know there's the cost of the size. >> and the paper is provided to us by the parties. if we start scanning we'll be paying for the charge open the quickly scanner but in terms of clarifying and paper >> you can require them to file electronically and maybe if i create a survey for the board i

know some members like the paper at the hearing some people want an electronic survey so we can sketch it out in terms of costs. >> switching back and forth to the end of a belief or looking at plans. >> yeah. or making a mark on and on on top of i don't like paper but i see it as this mixed feeling not search warrant stand high old ways we need to move forward. >> most of us are going to review it at home anyway and most of us have fairly large monitor. i'm not worried about the size issue >> because slinking down a plan. >> they're only - the ability

for us to mark into the computer & book mark it and going through the paper you see what i'm saying the only reason i leaned toward the ipad we have the ability to access something here. but the fact is that it's easier for me those days now to book mark with the note than for me to handwrite something i'm sorry >>