legal counsel. continued from the 4-15-15 meeting. discussion? seeing none. convene on closed session, is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> okay, we're now be on. >> we are on item 12, for 12 d, motion to reconvene in open session, to discussion motion held in closed session. >> i move we come out of closed session, and not discuss what we discussed in closed session. >> second. >> there say motion on the second, not to disclose closed discussion. item 13, discussion

regarding -- >> do you have to roll call that. >> i'm sorry. roll call -- not disclosing, president mccarthy yes. mar? yes. clinch? yes. lee? yes. mccray? yes. melgar? yes. and motion carries? >> thank you ma'am secretary, it's request to item 13 please if there is no objection. >> okay i them 13.

>> discussion regarding approposed new draft cost schedule -- >> based upon research from our skigs, from a variety of sources ark teches, engineers, construction and cost data books. these sources of cost data are organized into 21 binders, or books that are in our technical services library, we also maintain an index i, on the methodology, with tracking the sources for each line item of the cost schedule by popular request, we have included three new separate sections for ease of use, and things that we're dealing with currently, costs that we're dealing with currently, this is tenant improvement section using information by construction estimating institute. a seismic

retro fit from fema documents, and fire code developed with the fire department and dbi we have included many items, atm, machines store fronts, incline flat form and wheelchair lifts. are there any questions? >> oh, yes. [laughter]. can i open up for section -- first? you had mentioned with different groups and so on do you have a record of those meetings and who participated? >> that is part of our appendix

i, calculation methodology for the source we used for published. >> when is this going to be implemented in the department. >> first of the month with your blessings. >> commissioner melgar? >> i wanted to say this is a lot of work. before i think you guys, are -- thank you. >> obviously, i recognize a lot of work. [laughter]. let me ask you this we're getting push back

from stakeholders that have legitimate concern on it. what is the resource for dealing with that? >> that is part of the -- the previous items that are questioned or brought up. and look at those costs, so if someone has a dispute about the cost evaluation first of all there is two options, the code gives us we can use the actual cost or the cost schedule that is greater. we can choose the actual cost or what is reported on the application forms in cases it's nol realistic, on the drawings, we spend the time to come up with our own estimates, if it comes up to be higher, we will re-evaluate that at the

higher amount, if that's not agreed on by the customer they're free to give us whatever contracts, that kind of thing. their own estimates. it's escalated to the plan checker supervisors, that goes to both sides, it goes down to our technical services division where 1 or 2 people recalculate everything and go over it again. >> that's a good point. director? >> they have an issue there they can appeal to the deputy director, after that, they can come to me. then we will look into the case. >> this might be an unfair question here i don't know if i can ask it. city attorney if i'm getting into territory i'm not -- with regard to the

martial marshal swift formula, how is this? >> we use different sources, so it's ape ls and oranges. >> if you came to a conclusion concrete for a wall is 35 bucks a foot was the marshal swift be $35. >> i have no idea. >> we don't know if they went up or down. >> correct. some things went up some went down. again with inpupt for instance with the tentative improve cost i have seen them change every the years, per the people in the industry felt that different was preerpt -- remember these are not supposed to be actual cost there is no way to determine an estimating cost from a system like that there is $25,000, or

$100,000 bathroom it's kind of pay baseline to start from. a fall back position. >> do we have -- it's probably more to the director. do we actually have something in place where -- i can actually see -- having trouble with the price plate put into cost. do we have -- okay let's take it to a supervisor over there. do we have a place of appeal that is dedicated, that can make a better evaluation on a case by case, for example, than another deputy that might be on duty. >> definitely, we have technical

service, we have david leon he's dedicated to doing the calculation, he came up with this table, basically, the small job, a kitchen remodel or bathroom remodel or small t i. >> yeah. >> big job usually, tell you the truth is they should be higher but that's why most of them, they don't complain that much because it's hard to calculate those, take a job. >> yeah it's a challenge commissioner lee? >> i'm i'm thinking back o commissioner mccarthy's comment, there is a disagreement with how they were calculated, would a person be able to address that? >> yeah he's assert fied cost estimator, he can determine it

also some people may have a contract to show us but we need to do away with that one, sometimes contracts may not be contracts. >> i don't want to travel back down this term eweurbulent -- they have a one person that is consistent that is better obviously, but these, we have to test them in other words, if we feel a particular square foot price, doesn't add up you get complaints about that it might be a permit that is more than it was over the year and no real reason for it example, you have

the ability to change that number, right? >> correct, we have to do that to you in a batch the changes, on an individual permit, we can make that derment nation. >> if it keeps rising it's a continuous problem -- okay got you, that is good. commissioner mar? >> just to follow up on the terms policy of fairness that commissioner mccarthy raised in the new accela contract system all of the costs of the permitses be listed based on the type of construction so that if somebody went in because they had questions about their own evaluation, they will look and say hey. i may not like it but it's there, everybody else who did the same thing more or less paid similar? >> yeah commissioner mar, you

can look at each type of permit. construction type, cost put in and there will be rise cost everything is there. the new pps system will have the same thing. >> deputy sweeney, i don't know -- just one question for you. >> as he's coming mr. chair i wanted to ask, as you look at this document what fear do you think we face in this document and how we address those fears, is our fear that someone's going to say the value of this is wrong? is the fear that it's too high? what is our fear and how have we addressed it? >> i'm not sure what you would fear if the document for

calculating our permit fees and usually, the questionses i get all the time are usually small jobs, like the director said a person is having their own uncle do the work, they found the materials some where so that didn't cost them anything so why should they have to pay evaluation of 25 thousands on their kitchen, if they only 22 or 3,000, they were trying to normalize this so everybody doing a $25,000 kitchen value is permit fees whether your uncle is doing it or found materials, that is the part they are most upset, over a few thousand dollars, there is no difference in the permit fee, 5 or $10 difference, once they

realize that then they realize it's not a big issue. there is public concerns for a high evaluation. they wonder if their taxes are going to be increased or property they want the slowest number on there, whether it's actually valid or not. those arguments they're trying to save themselves money property tax wise, not necessarily the permit fee. >> deputy sweeney, have you had a chance to look at these numbers? >> no, i haven't. >> obviously, they will directly impact -- >> they will be right at me. i don't think it's a great change though. >> i'm looking for street smarts, somebody that deals with them every day. >> it passed my desk in fact, it wasn't a great game change. the prices are going to stay

roughly the same. i think curt have it the problems we have, people come in buildings with no prices but they want a building permit they will want the $9,000 bathroom remodel, which our code allows for but that is strictly cosmetic only and we're pretty much figuring it's going to be your local super market quality coming out. you are not going to do imported italian tile or light fixture, that will be up to our building inspector to say, wait, a minute, you have a cost down and it's a lot more. >> so it's multiple contacts with the department. >> i get it quite a bit, i can do it this cheap, i'm going to

ikea, my cap netses cost 1500 where i get it is the 15 unit apartment building on golden gate, that is studio kitchen apartments happens to be four cabinets, there you can say, it would be the 9,000, probably, isn't the right evaluation. >> but you have the ability to deal with that? >> yes. >> thank you for your presentation. so this is an action item -- >> no it's not an action item, but we can have public comment, is there public comment on item 13? seeing none combo going to go back to eight. eight a,

update on dbi's finances. >> in your packet is the march -- i'm sorry, it's april. financial report as you can see, we're still doing well. we had a really good month in april because we had a couple of big projects coming in masconi, projects, for example, the plan review fees came in for $4.3 million which is double of what it normally is. so if you look at -- let's look at that one. -- if you look on the second page plan review 61101 will you see a large number

there, you will see 2 million there. and this kind of goes back to originally we talked about the fee study, our revenues seem to be very volatile at times, one projects can make or break, or change the actual projections, given that, based on what we have done through april, we're now actually projecting we're going to have about a $7 million revenue surplus in the current year. if you recall back in december, that number was not a lot lower, because of the pick up of what is going on so consistently every month, i say the same thing we're doing better than budget, but we're not projected to do better than we did last year last year at this time i we were at $66 million, or so. so we're doing budget but 14-15 is

turning out to be a big year. on the expenditure side we continue to fill positions, we continue to try to make sure the departments are fills our work orders, we're projecting, to spend more money and have more million dollars, in salary savings, i know that is still a lot, but it's better than even what it was a few months ago, earlier, at this point, had we not hired january through now april, we're projected to spend over $5 million, so our hiring plan is working, we're starting to spend down the funding, it's just that we have to do a balance of hiring, losing people to retirement possibly losing others, to department a lot of times, in the case of promotorcycles, promoting from within you have a vacancy some where else. we're working on

that. i'm here to answer any questions if you have any questions about the report? >> thank you deputy. >> thank you. a testimony eight b, proposed legislation? >> good afternoon, bill strawn legislative and public affairs, i will mention a few of the highlighted items you will see in your packet the piece of legislation that supervisor weaner passed with respect to doing a seismic retro fit and add units, did become law at the end of april it's been almost a four week period when i chicked with our permit services yesterday, we did not have

permit application to issue in that area while we're anticipating, we will be receiving, permit request to do that as you know there are a few seismic retro fits under way, we're not yet seeing the evidence of that yet. the director mentioned earlier, the fact that the city attorney and the mayor's office has been working on an additional ordinance that would have dbi and planning wave our plan review fee as an enticement to encourage legalization of the illegal units. today, we have issued about 27 permits for that. that permit is just about exactly one year old now. and there are probably 7 or 8 permits that have been approved but not yet picked up. so if the

ownered come in for those, pay for them and pick them up. it will be around 32 or 33 issued permits on that. i think by any eval indication we can say it's been sort of a slow response in terms of what we know is out there in the way of illegal units, taking advantage of this opportunity to voluntarily legalize a unit the thinking is a little incentive on waving of plan review fees from building an planning, we may see that change and actually increase there is a hearing tomorrow at the public safety committee dealing with fire safety as a special task force. that dbi

will be part of deputy director lowrey, and chief housing inspector, rose mary boeckh will be participating with the fire marshal, and a few representatives, from the sfpuc, that ordinance once it leaves committee will be heard by the board on june 2nd, and probably approved on june the 9th. if the mayor signs on that we will come into effect about the middle of july that gives the task force they have three months to come up with any kinds of research or recommendations on ways to improve fire safety especially in multiunit or mixed use buildings, and the older buildings, where the sources of the fire in late january and

early february. so ultimately. that report will go back to the board in september or october. depending on how quickly that particular process moves through. i will only mention one other thing from a state legislation point of view there is an assembly bill 57 that calbo, and city officials has opposed, and dbi is supporting that which would enable cellular sites, to automatically become an issued permit, if our review process that both building and planning didn't meet certain arbitrary deadlines, given the press of other business that is

already under way if for some reason we were not able to say yes or no to a permit application, which is essentially federal communication deadline the permit would be automatically issued, no one in the city thinks that is a good use of authority, i understand the health department is concerned about that. so i don't know that this particular piece of legislation is going any where, just to make you aware, we're monitoring it and officially opposing it. with that if you have any questions, i would be happy to take them. >> thank you [inaudible]. >> item eight c update on major projects. >> good afternoon commission. tom hui, department inspection

[inaudible] increase the value we are increasing by 5% compared to last money question you have on the major project? >> no thank you. >> item d. update on code enforcement. good afternoon commissioners, dan lou rear dbi, this is a code enforcement update for the month of april. inspections performed for 5,507. complainted received 2009, complain response is 251 -- violations is 136. abated complaints with notice of violations is 46. second code

violation is 32. for the housing inspengs servic is 1004. complaints 109. response 207024-72 hours, is 375, complaints noticed to the issue were 152. abated complaints vie leakings is 326. number of cases sent to director were 51. and routine inspections were 161. for the code enforcement services, number of cases sent to direct were 67. number of abatement issues 20. number of cases under advicement 13. number of cases abated 102 and code enforcement inspection for performance is 213. number of

code inspect is 203. there are graphs for the month to month. >> thank you deputy if that report. >> any public comments, on items a-d.? seeing none [inaudible]. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm the project manager for the accela project -- the functional items of the system development. we have eight of the 21 punch list items that are remaining, finish and ready to test we started the testing of those remaining items part of the uat that testing started last week will continue this week and next and continue to test the remaining items, on the 21 item list

without the remaining weeks in may, as well as mid july, when the balance of those will be finished. that does include the grandfathered fees, we have talked about previously to correctly charge fees that were filed from years past. date of migration, we have a significant milestone that is achieved. this is all scheduled. this is a committed date to do the final date of migration run on may 29th. that say 3-4 day process, by the middle of the polling week we will start our last qa, activity around the migrated data. this is a milestone that has been worked on very hard to get to this point, as you know over the history of the data migration has been one of the most difficult items to get closure on. that positions us on

the project team to restart our qa of reports being developed bell accela 21 tech, we caused the q and a, for the final migration runs, so we have a clean set of data to test against. i wanted to make sure everybody understood the significance of that milestone. on the reporting front, we will restart the accela 21 tech report qa in the first few weeks of june when we have the migrated data shg the dbi team they have a set of report they're continuing to qa many of their reports, don't require the migrated data. for the process to continue, which is why we continued that process. we have two accepted reports at this point, 8, and