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 services 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.? seei 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 26 are in development. the other item for the full date of migration is the end to end business

migration, we have been able to set a date for the end to end business simulation to start the week of july 13th. that we will start that simulation. that is our point to both take measurement of how long it takes to go through the typical processes, for permit issuance. it happens, on the 5th floor group of the counter. it's also a point to be able to demonstrate and build confidence within the dbi, organization, that they will be able to handle the business activities of the department. that concludes my comments, i will be happy to take questions. >> commissioner mar. >> thanks again for your work on the report i want to know after the end to end starts on july 13th, is there a projected guesstimate how long it would

take from that point to go live and i guess the second question i had was is there any planned scheduling of any training or you know bring in the stakeholders for demonstrations or anything at this point? >> okay. so the end to end simulation will be a 3-day process. july 13th one is the initial end to end, anything that comes out of that or things we are not ready to test we will have a second simulation, as far as the amount of work that will take place between, end to end and go live, there are three weeks of refresher training we will schedule them, once we have ago live date so we don't train too

early, we have technical tas whys that have to be gone through for the preparations of the go live date. >> so the refresher is internal for staff? >> yeah, sorry, i forgot -- for stakeholders, i'm working with lily, i know lily is working with her counterpart planning we do work with public outreach for contractor being able to use aca, which is the citizen access which is the new website, similar to what is offered in pt s today, we will offer training to contractors, to learn how to use that system as well as publishing materials to help them with that. and on-site so the members of this commission as well as any others interested will be able to hear about how accela will change the way dbi does

business and how they interface with the public. those also are planned for but won't be calendared until we have a firm go live date. talking to lily this week, this plan is to have those within 2-3 weeks of the go live date. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on item nine -- seeing none. item ten. >> sorry excuse me -- >> discussion and possible action resolution. >> i wanted to continue this to the next hearing, if there is no objection, i know she wanted me to mention, supervisor weaneriner

has information that will parallel this. i will -- with commissionerer walker does on our behalf if we way continue it and have it brought back at the next bic meeting, thank you if there is no objection. >> we will be continuing item ten. item 11. update on the nominations sub exity regarding vacancies, on the code advice ree committee. >> commissioner lee was excused. we have currently two vacancies, we want to fill. the outcomeses of the meeting, is we decided we

wanted to follow the normal process of posting the vacancies, for a period of 30 days and see who applies, and let them properly you know, look at their qualifications versus what is the requirement of the two vacancies. we do have two two current applicants, already for one of the positions, because we didn't want the break from the regular process, we decided to go ahead and post them. that's what we're going to do. stay posted for our next update, after we have received up indicates, and gone through the committee process. dr. mccray has anything to add? >> nothing. thank you very much. >> what is the vacancies? >> public at large, and emergency eventses contractor the. >> thank you. >> if any public out there is

xesed. >> i think that is posted. >> it has not gone up yet but it will. any public comment on this item? item 14, review and approval of the regular meeting, of december 17th. 2014. >> move atto approve. >> second. >> motion and approve, any public comment? all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? it passed. item 15, review and approval of the minutes on regular meeting of january twenty-first, 205 >> move to approve. >> second. >> is there any public comment, are all commissioners in favor. >> aye. >> and opposed? approved. item 16 commissionerers questions and matters, at this

time. commissionerers, may make inquiries, to staff of documents, policies and procedures, that are of interest to the commission. >> commissioner melgar. >> i had a question about a case we saw la time on the deloris street, it would be nice to have updates. >> anything further? item b, future meeting and agenda at this time they may take action to set the date of a special meeting, and determine those items, placed on the agenda, next meeting, for june 17th. 2015. >> okay outreach to our ma'am secretary, on vacation time we're coming up on that time again, i want to make sure we have a quorum i'm sure we will

have people missing. >> okay i can send out an e-mail ahead of time to confirm. >> they will be on vacation. >> any other commissioner discussions? any public comment on item 16 a and b.? seeing none item 17, adjournment. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor to adjourn? we're now adjourned. it is 1:18 p.m. thank you. (meeting ends at 1:19 begin.

good morning, today is wednesday, may 20th. 2015 this is the regular meeting of the the first item is roll call. clinch here. mccarthy here mar here lee here. walker here. vice president melgar, and commissioner gray are expected. all parties giving testimony today, please raise your hand right. do you swear that the testimony

you are about to give is true to the best of your knowledge? thank you, you may be seated. next item is item c, election of officers, but we will continue that shortly when some of the other commissioners arrive. item b approval of minutes, i would like to request that we continue those as well as possible. item e, new appeal order of abasement. case 6804285 kikz washington street. owner of record rita har personal opinion appellant mark, gupin. appellant, contends, that the retaining wall that is the subject of the abatement. on property. 2308 to 231 to.

the wall was constructed maintained and controlled by the adjacent owners, appellant seeks edition to the property owners, staff? >> we will take these separately, so seven minute, right? >> actually the attorney request they be combine because some of this are related, she requested 21 minutes for all of them. >> the washington streets? >> yes. >> good morning for the department. there are two buildings, the first building, 2856 washington street four cone does, the other three condos, 2858, 2860, and

2862 washington, it's an unsafe condition, on the break foundation wall. on october 7th of last year resulting in abatement being issued there are no permits dealing with the violation. therefore, staff recommended to pull out of abatement, and oppose the assessment of costs, the other building in question 2320, devero street three condos, the other three condos, 2322, and 23220. the evaluations are the same. they're hearing two place on the same day, resulting in order of abatement, no permits, staff recommends that you uphold the aabatement, and services of cost. hopefully, since there are seven cases involved if you choose to let's appellants do the

presentation that way, i will be glad to take questions on rebuttal, if that is okay. >> thank you another point of clarification, we're considering seven cases at once not three? >> um, all of them. >> commissioner there's seven properties shg seven addresses, seven condominiums. >> does that mean we give the appellant 49 minutes. >> she requested 21, if she needs to go over, it can be granted, considering. >> aren't they different appellants. >> she's representing all of them. >> oh, okay. >> there are seven condominiums shg but two lots. >> can you describe the violations, specifically so we know. >> so on washington street, you have two buildings, side by side, so it's best to call them one building, there is two

condos in each -- yes -- yes. so there are four condos. so we have four separate lot numbers, four separate owners but the point of view of this discussion, it's best to consider them as one building in the other building before you is devero street three condos, and one building, >> behind it? >> it's kind of an l, shape. >> okay. >> so those three condo owners, separate lot owners all in one building, so basically, you have two buildings, two groups of condo owners that have retaining walls that are considered unsafe. and you have from what i understand, one representative for all seven. >> all right. and before you go, there is two

walls, not one. >> yes. >> are these walls garden retaining walls or foundation walls underneath the building,? >> they have a major brief, answering all of those questions, i will be glad to answer later, and the deputy director of inspections is here to answer them also. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> to the chair did you actually visit the site? >> i understand the deputy director visited the site yesterday. >> you are not familiar with the site? >> he is familiar with the site yes. >> thank you. >> just wanted to clarify we are calling all of cases today, so the additional cases, case 6805, 2856 washington street. 2856 washington, 2856

washington, case number 6808. 2320. divero and devisidaro street. >> i would like to acknowledge that commissioner mccray joined us. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is -- rubin, genius and rows i'm here for all 70s on deviro, and washington street. we have dan gray who is allianced surveyor, with 30 years of experience taking a look at the site we have bret fer rar ree, who is an engineer

to discuss the site conditions i would like to speak about the abatement for context, and ask the experts to speak briefly on their representative topics first as we mentioned in our brief, the control of these retaining walls, is in dispute between three adjacent property owners it's not resolved as a practical matter, it should be determined before the city imposes fines to take action to repair them, as a policy matter allowing the abatement to move forward, is undesirable, because of dbi and ownership responsibility of the wall it may encourage owners to use dbi