return air, coming in and so you are assuming that a system that just might push in the air and go out from some of the other source within. and so it will go out, and not in the corridor. >> right. and that, and i think that it paul's design or in tent, the air comes in from the core and it gets relieved, either through the exterior openings or the windows or the exhaust shafts that are serving the other functions as well. >> okay. >> and you mentioned that is the air pressurization idea, thank you very much. and you know, we do the exact same thing that we are proposing for the corridor and we do it for stairs as a requirement of the building code for high-rise buildings, it is the same idea. if you are a pressurizing that stair so the smoke can't go in and then the stair is safe. >> the idea is to pressurize the corridor and it is not quite the same pressure, and i am not claiming that it is the same as the air pressurization but it is the same concept. >> but one more question here. >> okay. >> what is the standard now for

allowing the smoke into these corridor and stairwells? >> what is the standard for that? >> there is not one defined in the building code. >> i understand that, and the reason that i asked if we are allowing the smoke to get into the corridors we are actually changing the people's perception of what is happening in those corridors, the layman people, may not recognize it, and this is not, this is safe. and there is smoke in here, but this is safe. >> right. >> that is one of my concerns, about allowing the smoke into the corridors and only into the stairwell, and i can tell you from experience, and in my college days i lived in an apartment and there was a fire in the corridor and where there was a fire somewhere, once i saw the smoke i didn't go in the corridor i went out the back and through a window, that is throughout, and i don't think that layman's original public, general residents living in those buildings, will recognize, oh, this is safe enough for me to go through. >> that is a good point. >> you know, in modern and fire

protection and engineering we look at this to look at a lot of smoke conditions and it assumes if you can go through the smoke you will. but it is a good point that some people will just see it as an eversion to the unit space. they have a requirement for the rescue windows and that is not change withing this proposal. and so this is still that option in the buildings that require it. >> yeah. >> and i don't know if you are the person to ask, but with regard to that discrepancy and the high-rise and the 75 feet and verses the four stories here

how do we address that? by thank you for taking the time for keeping an eye on this and we appreciate you are input when we get the closure on it >> and i would like to continue to be a part of the process. >> could you close out mechanical? >> good morning, commissioners. thank you for your time. and i would also like to thank the department of public health and listening to my proposal, and moving along to the various departments of the city, and particularly the fire department, and the building department, and like to thank, dr. rich for his study and i was, i was pleased to hear the results and the initial results and i know that we are looking for a final report but the positive information at this point, regarding the corridor of the outside air proposal and just as a background on the conducting engineer in san francisco and i have worked in the city since 88 and in our firm, we specialize in the

high-rise and the low rise multy family housing in the project and so we see this system as an enhancement and not just in the 38, but the enhancement on the various building, and ventilation aspect and just an improvement from over all building, and science, and stand points and to hear that the fire and life safety, potentially could not be impacted, and it will be a good step. and i wanted to address a couple of the questions that came up if i may. i think that one of the questions is the difference between the high-rise and the low rise and so in my proposal, i address the ventilation requirement of the california, 2010, not 2013, energy code that differentiates the buildings up to three stories as low rise, and everything, four stories and higher is a high-rise, residential in terms

of energy and ventilation. life safety is 75 feet and higher, but the study that is being performed right now, is the environment in the low and high-rise, from a life safety standpoint, and the ventilation is a separate issue but it has the same terminology but in a different application. of the height of the building. but either way, both have to be ventilated for the code, both building types and there was a question about what happens after an events. if the power is restored to the event and the all clear is given to reoccupy and the normal power is restored and they go back open and the mechanical system goes into the 100 percent ventilation mode and the building assumes the normal activity and so there is no rebalancing required after

an event. but you know, over time, perhaps, a recommissioning of a fire system, is a good idea. and but there is no rebounds, required once it is set, and operational. >> so, let me ask, so, after an event like that, for example the fire alarms you just reset it and say that it should be working properly again and so are we assuming the same for this system and the system that everything is going to be working properly until the next inspection? >> it is an interesting question, and i have not been personally involved in the restart of a building after an event and i think that we should address that with the fire departments specifically. but from a technical, air flow standpoint if that fan was turned on it will be able to deliver the air for the floor. >> and let me ask you, that sort of like a smoke detector and the carbon monoxide detectors and we can plug that into the wall and we know that

there is something wrong. is there something like that for this system? >> so, each fire smoke damper and there are many ways and we are getting to some details at this point, but there are many ways to control the fire smoke dampers and the simple way is with a local detector at the device and the other one is using ai detector in the unit to be in the fire alarm system. to activate that damper. >> they close within 15 seconds. >> and so, there was a question, earlier about the amount of smoke into the corridor. and that damper is going to close in 15 seconds or earlier and so, the event moving the smoke into the corridor is very limited and i'm assuming that it will be addressed in the study. >> all of the details are not flushed out. i think that we have little time, once we get through this initial phase, to further those. i also want to address the

high-rise exhaust method, so in a high-rise building if an event occurred and the fire smoke dampers closed and the supply fan operates on 100 percent of outside air, we will also employ an exhaust riser which is used to evacuate the corridor egress, as in a current normal high-rise life safety building soe. we are not changing that and it will be off in normal mode. i think that they are the main items, could i answer any questions from anybody? >> no i think that we are good, mr. mayor, thank you for your time that you put into this. and we, you know, we look forward to a conclusion on this within the next couple of months. >> i do, and i remine committed to assist. >> thank you for coming out and taking the time out of work to

be here. if mechanical just want to weigh in that you like what you are hearing here? that in the land of milk and honey when this is done you will be tiebl plan check something like that >> good morning, my names is james van and i am the mechanical supervisor of dbi before i start i would like to make a correction that he mentioned that the article 38, kind of do away, with the egress window that is not true. the article 38, and it may, prohibit the natural ventation through the windows, egress windows and included and but in the event of fire, the egress window the buildings should still be designed by the egress windows and so they are by no means made available. in terms of the dbi's position and this issue, it clearly

represents a deviation from the current code and we all know that the code is a little lagging behind most in the case behind the technology and mr. oneal correctly pointed out that today's technology, the response time of the smoke damper is much better than it used to be when the code was made. and so, conceptually, we think that it is a sound concept, design. but, on the other hand as the code enforcer we are also concerning that in the event of the fire smoke damper failure the smoke could potentially get into the egress channel. and that is the corridor and so, the very much would like to work with the fire department and continue to take a closer look on the issue and make sure

that it will not infringe the life and safety of the occupants. >> and also, in the mechanical code, there is a requirement mandating once the supplier's flow rate over 5,000, it must be built in a auto shut off system and now, we are talking about incorporating the filter supply here and being supplied to individual units through the corridor. and the, the flow rate of the outside air is of course, many times larger than this only supplying the corridor if we are to award the corridor in a positively pressurized environment and we might need

to incorporate this supply air system into part of the life safety system, ie, the example from that auto shut off requirement of the mechanical code. in order to keep it positively (inaudible) so that even if the smoke and fire in the individual unit we can do a better job in keeping it from the corridor. so in short, in summary, we will work with the fire department and work with the peer reviewer dr. rich and everybody involved. and to try to come to a resolution. >> great. >> questions? >> i think that we are good there. i see, mr. corbit would like to weigh in one more time here. >> yeah, sure. >> come to the mic here. >> like there is a lot of questions about the emergency

egress and rescue windows and it is not a simple answer, okay? and you know, the building code has gone back and forth apparently the state fire marshal forgot something in the code and it depends on the building construction type and that will mean that in the number of levels of the building. okay? and so, it is not just either they are there or they are not there and it depends if the building is fully fire sprinklered and so it really depends on the building construction, type, and the number of levels and if the building is fully sprinklered and the right construction type, those egress windows are not there. they are not a requirement, so the size may be different, and i related that to the operatable windows and that i am not absolutely sure if article 38 blocks, but i do know that in a report, that it was just discussed about the

noise abatement too. and having operatable windows in those cases whether or not it was required, and it seemed like operatable windows were an issue, and maybe it was just intended that they be allowed to be closed or something and prevent pollution and noise. >> okay. >> i just want to make it clear that the rescue windows were, and it is on dependent on the type of construction, and the number of levels, the sprinkler system and it is not a simple, yes or no, answer. >> thank you. >> i see miss cohen here and then obviously dr. rich, if you wanted to add anything, otherwise you are fine, that is fine. >> i just want to clarify that there is nothing about the windows in article 38 whatsoever, it does not tell you how to do windows or how to

use window to do make-up or anything like that. so if there has been any change in how the natural ventilation is calculated for buildings it is because of energy codes. article 38 does allow operatable windows because it does not mention windows at all. >> thank you for that miss cohen. >> if there is no more comment, then we could close and go for public comment on this. >> okay. >> if there are any public comment on item 7? >> seeing none, we will go back to the regular order. >> i do want to get the article and the change on the dbi mechanical and i do want to add that article 38, requiring the filtering of the outside air, and in the applicable cases, to be filtered by 13, before it

could provide it to the individual units, and it does effectively eliminate the natural ventilation. >> okay. >> all right. >> and so we have an interest in the bay building here and what we are going to do is i have closed and so commissioner walker has got the final and then we are closed. >> yeah, i just and this is a really interesting, yeah. >> and i also would like to know how it effects the existing buildings. >> you can look at that as you are doing it and my assumption is that this goes back through all of our process and including the code advisory committee and all of that before it comes back, in any way shape or form. >> i am not quite sure, what the process here is. and i know that it goes back to the board of supervisors and i know that the working team right now, would come to a conclusion, and from there, then, i guess that the director, you are going to probably make the decision from there, then, i guess.

>> they will do the study and you know, come back with the finding and you know that is difficult and you will extend it for more days? >> so we are not quite sure, yet. >> and so, we are and but it is. >> and there are dually noted how do we get there? and once again i want to thank, everybody for coming here and the planning department, even though you did not get a chance to come up to the mic and i am sure that you are devastated and but thank you all for coming and thank you, mr. neal and maddox and thank you for dr. rich today and the fire department and the mechanical for coming and i look forward to the next conversation on this and i will table it for now, and as soon as i get the signals that will kind of come to the conclusion and we will come back here for one more kind of discussion on that.

john from the city attorney's office and i think that one option that you could continue this item to the call of the president, and then, or put it on the agenda in the future with a new item. >> i would like to do it to the call of the chair because i am not quite sure when we will get the conclusion on this, if that is okay. >> so if you want to continue it, then there should be a motion and a second, and a vote. >> did i have it down as an action item. >> yeah. >> okay.

>> and good, let's do that, then and so if i am able and if i would propose to continue this, until, to my call of the chair, if that is okay, to the call of the chair? >> second. >> okay. >> so, there is a motion and a second to continue the item to the call of the chair? let's see, a roll call vote? >> president mccarthy. >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> commissioner melgar. >> yes. >> commissioner walker. >> yes. >> commissioner clinch. >> yes. >> the motion carries unanimously, okay. item 5, discussion, on accela permit and project tracking system. >> thank you for your patience.

>> commissioners my name is henry and the project manager for the dbi implementation of the platform and given to you as an updated time line, and you also have received an e-mail from director hui with the project and i was going to review and in that e-mail, director hui did point out that through the uit process, we have had a change to the time line and, so i wanted to start with discussing that. and then review the other significant items within the project. so as you know, with your at, we have completed the uat wave one and this was the functionality testing of the accela platform and we had planned in the time line to allow for two weeks after the testing concluded to fix any issues that were found and then retest them. what we found through the uit process is that we found out

with four weeks of the process that came ut out and the issues that to fix is the severity one and two issues and so those are the ones to be resolved and retested for we can say that we have readied the system for production. and the uat one has completed, and so we have no more testing to do in terms of functionality. and the number of issues that came out of uit one were 53. and of those, 13 of those are reports 40 of those are actual functionality items. and we have a time line and committed resources to make sure that all of those issues are resolved by the 12th of december. and so that is what the pressure on the december 8th go live that we have been working towards up to now. uat waived too, which started last week, and this is the testing to test the migrated data and so all of the data

from the legacy platform, and you can get a permit that got migrated and you can continue it and you can take the inspections that were midstream in the old system and get them to excel and continue them with the work flow and that testing is going on now. and as i stand here now, we had as of last night, we had 19 issues that were found, and through the uit wave two testing, and on that, that testing will conclude, this week and so we will have a finite box of what the known issues are in terms of the excel platform and the readiness to launch by early next week, we will have a firm time line on what it will take effort wise to fix the items that came out of uat two. and the direction from director hui, is that the project team is able to come to him on

december 12th, by december 12th with a firm committed time line to resolve all of the issues that we found to be able to put the system into production. and so that is, and we are tracking to that date. but that is why we are not talking about a go live date here today as we want to make sure that we have addressed the current risks on the project which are the unknown in terms of everything that will come out of the wave two testing, and making sur sh*ur that we have a time line to address those and we will have that lock down by december 12th and be able to provide that to director hui and the management team. >> okay. i know that commissioner walker has some questions for you. >> so, just want to point out to everybody, that we had a december 8th go live date that we have missed. so, i guess i understand the issues that are up and

certainly we may need to be dealt with before we go live. so, but my concern is to make sure that we have all personnel, committed to be with us until we go live and are working in an entity and i don't want to and i know that we are borrowing you from someone and i just want to make sure that we don't lose our captain again in this process. so, are you going to stay with us until we finish this? >> yes, i am committed and the department of technology. >> yes. and i am working through. >> yes. >> is 100 percent committed to seeing this through to the end. >> okay. >> and as our partners in the project excel and the 21 type of partnerships their resources are committed and concerned. >> the sufficient levels to work towards a continuing accelerated time line? >> yes, and although we are not speaking of a go live date,

here, from a project team perspective there is no loss of urgency. >> okay. >> or dedication to seeing this through as quickly as possible. >> all right. >> these are the last rounds of testing so we know that once the issues are fix and retested this system will be ready to go live. >> okay. >> and i see that our training is going along within this time frame. even as we have extended our goal live date. we are going to be training and... >> correct. >> all of our personnel. >> yes, this week is our third week of on site hands on training. so that is started two weeks ago and we have the instructor on site. and so the training focused on them and their area of specialty and how they use the system and that also includes the other departments that participate in the review

process and so the puc and the ppw and fire. >> and those are coming through the training as well. >> did planning, were they able to go live, their test go live, and they were going to go earlier than us just to work out some of their own internal processes, have they done that? >> yes, they went live on october 20th. they are currently running accella and the legacy system in parallel, until the point that dbi goes live. >> and we are learning from them? >> yes. >> are there any surprise? s >> they as we have meet with them weekly and we share the status and they did have issues around the data migration and so they are definitely saying, the morris yous of course you can pick before and you might rate your data the better off you will be and but they have had a good support from the accela 21 tech partnership to basically quickly, address the production with the issues that

they have had, they are not reporting the disasters are the impact of the ability to do business. >> thank you very much for your guiding in this process. >> you are very welcome. with that, then i will just touch on the other items on the project, as we talked about training, although, the teacher-led training finishes up this friday and we will up until the point of go live, have and offer the refresher training at dbi so that we can mix make sure that the skills stay fresh, once you are trained and not in the system in a timely manner, some of that may be saved and so we are definitely anticipate thating situation and we will continue to offer the refresher training. and we also have added business simulation, pilot. and this is a it is not a test, but it is really more to

exercise the system, and to get the timings, around what it takes to get permits issued. and particularly the fifth floor, it is often said to me that they do 300 permits a day and we want to make sure that with accela what kind of performance can we expect out of the fifth floor initially when they are still learning and getting used to the system and where should that level allow because we want to be able to make sure that we can inform the managers of what the staffing needs might be if we see a dip in performance, initially. >> so that is plan for two days, the week of december 8th. >> the other items that we have and the citizen out reach program with the move and the go live date, lily is coordinating that and continues to coordinate that with the planning department and that will basically slide but the date will be 1 week prior to go live. and that is when we will do the

citizen out reach, and we are coordinating with the citizen's advisory group on that out reach and we will also include the key stake holders of dbi and the commission as well as others. >> and those are my prepared comments, any further questions? >> no, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on item five? >> okay, seeing none, item 6, the discussion of the department of building inspections and enforcement division statistics on complaint and inspections continued from the october 15, 2014 meeting. >> good morning commissioners

my name is patrick (inaudible) and i am the chief building inspector at dbi. i have done this back in october and i have added a couple of slides because this was based on data to the end of august and i did add some numbers from september and october. >> this includes the snapshot of the building inspection division or the bid complaints and it