>> okay. >> hopefully. >> okay. so we'll move. >> got any money in the bank. >> (laughter). >> yeah. yeah holed up we are trying to adjust an agenda commissioner mar. >> is there are we okay to move the director's report and not hear to this commission. >> i'd like to if i can to amend that i wanted to add some things to code enforcement so very briefing. >> okay sorry. >> please. so we want to what's on the floor the director's report you want to hear it at that commission or no. >> i have two maybe 3 that one is well director will be at the next month to month and the discussion on the project tracking system do we want to hear that next.

>> yes. >> yes. >> an update on the department of building inspection. >> next meeting. >> do i have. >> i'm good. >> okay. we'll move that madam secretary and the modification of existing. >> i think those two may have to be heard if i may say. >> so items 10 and 11 have to be heard. >> their action items. >> they'll stay on and legal council a closed session. >> excuse me. this is not normal but let me. >> this is a closed session council -

>> so item 12 commissioner walker if she was here i need four people huh?

>> on summary 10 and 11 and telephone it is being if we could continue this i've talked to the city attorney and . >> we'll continue item 12 so if that's the case then we can move straight to item 10. >> do they want to discuss the tracking system first so if we could have a quick presentation thank you henry. >> back on track. >> all right. mooichg my name it herpes i'm with the department of technology with the tracking system replacement

project the slide it should be in usual paychecks yes i'm going to cover it covers the major activities of the project i'll start from the top in the area of configuration those are in previous presentations talked about the wave one the u organization t functionality the configuration our topic it functional item of the literally of 8 hundred items we've are over the course we're down to the also 21 items the good i live or live go functionality the grand fees we've talked about but those are we've got confirmation from the director and chvd those are all the items no others that need to be covered on functionality for

going live with data migration we're 3 and a half to 4 weeks for the last data migration observe the history this is one of the problematic areas and so this is again, this is the finally stages so that final run takes place at the end of april early may the reporting side of things has become an issue that we didn't anticipate prior and this is really two items the tech reports are philosophical of flow developed, however the changes and configuration that happened over the course of time the data migration changes the procedures have caused us to look at the situation we're not

able to q and a those 60 reports so we've had q and a sessions because the data we can't imply quality of report but with the final migration run in a state we've got a very how qualities set of data to finish the q and a with the reports the where it says dbi that's the m i s team that has the responsibility for developing the reports the most complex to develop the 60 those are remaining balance of the report we have balance issues that left resources with the dbi the staff has been replaced on site so for about a month they've gained traction so we've got 6 to we're

averaging three or four a week this could end up being the long attempt as far as getting the good live, however, everywhere we've recently got fund we're working on secure that shoring up the reporting to bring that timeline in culmination of all those items a series of end to end semilags to one demonstrate across all the decisions between dbi that will accelerate the support we've done unit testing they've tested their system in prior times to show something can interferes from beginning to end and exercise all the function alter incubating item is the final full daylight migration run at

the end of april early may we anticipate that the simulation will be utilize to mid may to have that took place we'll capture times around on the 6th floor the over the counter permits but the inspection we need to make sure how know to pump out sometimes up to three or four hundred permits a day once we've had a successful conclusion of the simulation run the dbi executive team will have that that concludes my presentation. >> that's when you'll actually be able to give us the goal so right now we're not in the business of taking up milestones

imagined. >> correct. >> april may. >> that's exactly know the point i want to make. >> that's the timeframe by which - >> i know the time you're going to decide the time. >> yes. yeah. yeah. >> protecting our wiggle room. >> 21 items, 14 left is it the numbers you used. >> in the 14. >> 14. >> how many items are we still working through to determine a go live situation oar on the 21 number functionality. >> and their prioritized so we know we've got to top 7 handled and the last 14 are not go. >> yes. the 21 items are

prioritized and worked on this to the satisfaction of the department. >> okay. >> better shape than we have been. >> commissioner walker says we're okay well at least we get a pass this time. >> appreciate our time and thank you for waiting and any public comment on this item? seeing none, item 10 discussion and possible action for modification to exist administrative ab 004 progressing guidelines to line with the department of building inspection and permit and processing requirement. >> good afternoon dbi technical support we have administrative bullet processing guidelines before you again we've been unthe bar over last

year to keep the number of permits that are authorized to do the priority permit processing to a minimum otherwise all permits are priority especially with the mayors you housing issues so this time a it is fairly minor changes the planning department has issued a new bulletin that is two of the bulletin substituted the last bulletin the bulletin covers not only dbi and the planning and department of public works since planning revised theirs we're in discussion with them along with the department of investment and we made suggestions that there's

aligned a little bit more with our benchmarks with the green building regulation they decided that they were with respect not interested in doing that so we had to decide to follow theirs or create our own and it was decided that one set of guidelines works best for processing things we opted 3 new items under the green building requirements one is other than the high-level of green buildings certification they are 7 new residential unit more than 10 thousand square feet of commercial or more or 24 scapegoat of changes so anyone one of the four qualifies in addition to the requirements that are put in place that's it on a b o for your

recommendation. >> so do we have to take this as a separate item or both together. >> they can be taken together. >> commissioner walker had a question. >> no a motion. >> we need to have a decision about 11 i can present for 11 and possible discussion and for the administrative bulletin for the volunteer the volunteery soft story would do frame building the board of supervisors ordinances number 30 dash 16 so history wise we have a no it's already in place 54 dash 10 this has an update program for san francisco nodding is when it

passes passed through this defines soft story buildings and as what standard to update interrupt to that we have an ordinance 6 of dash 13 went into effective last year the or may or may not program narrowed it from the volunteer program and the - now we have a new ordinance not necessarily soft story but 30-dash 15 allows planning relax of planning code regarding parking and number of units density and stuff they're doing projects that quality for the previous two seismic update

programs and with that i'm going to introduce ed finney the chair of the co-advisory committee that will fill us in on how those interact. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you nice to see you you so ab 94 an administrative bulletin we didn't have standards for update those soft story building we wanted to encourage people not to come up with a standard but go ahead and start the process to myth the soft story building and then 34 b changes captured is intoxicate a willow for the fema standard that provided the engineering criteria to calculate the soft storys so the

incentive to accelerate the volunteer soft story building under oakland army base is superseded offering them expedited permitting didn't net us any value from a housekeeping stand out we don't need ab 94, however, it got written into this this is a question legality some folks think we should keep it as a reference i'm not an attorney but it probably happens more than times than not not sure how to dismiss the ab the cac talked about the needed for the seismic subcommittee we talked that and they don't feel

it is no longer needed so the code advise committee suggested to have ab 94 rescinded. >> can ask a question. >> yaed commissioner walker. >> the distinction of what is soft story is different slightly in both of those cases if that's the case are we 86 does that make sense to leave something in place in order to apply it to those buildings that don't necessarily apply to our announced program or mandatory standards to our mandates building. >> for instance, the mandatory program a 5 units or more and

the other didn't have the mandatory unit so four units or less are still under the volunteery program the date of the buildings built was may have 19783 are before and the mandatory is 1978 or later so there is a slight difference clean up work to be done. >> you're dealing with that so we don't create a - >> correct. >> okay. >> so associated with that a letter we forwarded to the commission also based on the recommendations from the seismic subcommittee regarding the new ordinance 30-dash 15 allowing new living units into buildings that quality for mandatory

updates under 34 b but other buildings but particularly the structuraliers were consulted go ahead time and the folks that helped to create and the following abs were not involved with the supervisors office regarding the creation of that class of building in the ordinance so in we're surprised it came out actually and i'm not a structural engineer i'm a architect forgive me their concern if i can look at a global picture from a high-level the new ordinance courageous new

units in uthsd building, however, the structural engineers said those are the weakest of the building and ab takes the achilles heel anti but at the end of the day decrease a game bit of building in the community we're giving incentives to the weak buildings even though they've are mandatory they're still weak building in my letter i had help from the committee to write we have two concerns we want strong buildings and housing; right? the basic gift of discussions landed on we want to encourage new units in the stronger buildings not urge encourage new units in the weaker buildings it

may be a possibility to discuss with the supervisor i think there is open channels for discussion about following this we want your support to help spur those cultivations into something meaningful but a possibility maybe a new possibility for an upgrade an added occupant to that building or maybe other provisions that we can workout but the idea is that we really want your support in getting the mess out to the community we want seismicallyly sound builds at the end of the day the upgrading will be not to the level people assume it is not be up to code levels and up

to 40 one it is something much lower than that we don't want to encourage housing into places that are not necessarily the b.a. best places for people >> in a nut shell. >> commissioner walker i'll be interested to hear from you on this if you can talk about that before i get to my comments. >> pass i'm hard with the eyewitness names i'll be interested to hear our comments on the soft story. >> good afternoon chief resilience officer first of all, commend ned they've been

champions to make sure our housing is more safe if san francisco and how they apply to the building code i want to make a quick comment only ab 94 is it provides incentives for 3 and 4 incentives not required to follow there are still small property owners that need this protection. >> what protection is written so does one - what our proposing does that account for what comes. >> i'm sorry i don't we can do this together. >> please ab 94 to stay in place means a rewrite no standards there are no standards for three and four

unit buildings only standards for a 5 unit building is needs serious jerry. >> so to aimed that. >> i recommend the commission good attacks to leave ab 94 as an incentive program and another initiative that supervisor wiener school district but maybe ab is more robust. >> in our world as someone that went through this based on your experience whereas did most efficient you know a way for people. >> the most efficient keep ab with general hours keeping to make sure for the small business owners i think the cac is appropriately looking at the changing the environmental code it is

something that be solved quickly as well. >> thanks i think we need to open to public comment. >> public comment. >> he's been standing they're for two hours. >> i have some money to give to our department. >> you should have told us. >> the soft story to improve the performance not all buildings will be perfect create a bell shaped curve on some buildings most of the average better than what we were before i also 20 percent in that bell shaped curve this is what we can for the record we have a program which is actually my idea that's why i'm here defending it we can add those assessor retrofits and

there's a concern that we're adding additional unit and buildings that may not be perfect but we're in a housing crisis seriously so, yes adding units in better builds but adding units in those buildings one suggestion i'll make of the 6 thousand buildings we're talking about this is a highly tech term so retrofits that's the end of the bell curve will be 20 percent of the reevesing building about thirty percent opt in to add a unit 18 hundred housing units that are by their nature affordable because their smaller units what we should be doing is making sure there's a

firewall betweenthe $18.0 and we have to bump up the standard or put firewall we're not alexander units based on our program great idea but we're talking about 50 to one hundred units that maybe in this cross over and in the total soft story program 62 thousand units we shouldn't lose site of the soft story program is is huge program if we can add units here let's do that. >> thank you. >> commissioner walker please. so to the issue of being able to seattle which of the retrofitted units in the dangerous part of bell curve is there a way we can

maybe determine that in the evaluation and apply to the standards i mean is that what our looking at to mop that is code advisory maybe because i agree i mean, we're in a housing crisis but providing housing is not - >> the difficulty i work with love engineers with all due respect mean they gooedz quickly as an item of so, so gosh we could hold a years of hearings it took us to look at to get foam to write it so the local engineers felt comfortable following it i think we can get to that question i haven't asked the engineers i don't know how they'll get our arms around but maybe we'll get something to

show us who the dogs what i'm hearing other things some of them are coming out nicely maybe a combination of hay if you have a stronger building than we saw under for me gosh we're the ones that want the unit in there need to be something else put on the issue i think it would be resolved i don't know if it is going to happen but it will get there. >> i mean, that's from my prospective we need to. >> yeah. >> yeah, but to the loaned of milk and honey.

>> in the process their needs to be more details about identifying the dogs as you say and either providing strengthening methods to them or clustering them i mean it's a different existing building as see when you add a unit it is a different. >> right and i think we - i think there is a really philosophical