thompson said she removed the eastern property wall due to a fire. that's not true. the fire occurred prior to the 1989 major remodel when the wall was installed. i recently learned that jonathan kaplan told my neighbor and others i requested $100,000 from him. he also told judith thompson i received money from him. that's not true. i never requested my money from jonathan kaplan or anyone affiliated with 655 alvarado street. i am aware that in building in san francisco is not an easy process. >> sorry, ma'am. >> i have to ask you to wrap up there. >> thank you, commissioners. >> thank you for your comments.

>> it will take me a minute. >> good afternoon. my name is jerry. i handed out a copy of the whistleblower complaint that i had filed with the controller who was also the city services auditor regarding the removal of the house at 655 alvarado street. i requested the city service auditor to opine whether dbi classified the violation at 655 alvarado correctly as work beyond the scope of the existing building permit or if dbi made e error and it was an unpermitted demolition. page 18 clues a copy of the complaint the planning department filed and they used the word structure removal. i'm going to repeat that. structure removal. page 19 of the complaint showed the work was classified as exceeding the scope of permit.

code section 103a.3.2 defines it as tearing down of a principal portion of a building. principal portion being more than two-thirds of the exterior walls, roof, and interior bearing elements. 655 alvarado meets this definition. i filed a second demolition whistleblower complaint for the demolition of the richard [indiscernible] house at 59 hopkins avenue. a copy of the notice of violation dated october 4th, 2017, page 13 of my complaint, stated, quote, the entire house has been demolished except for the garage area. the violation description is additional work permit is required. that's nonsense. the before and after pictures on pages 7 and 8 of my complaint show that very little of the house remains and the nov states that all that remains is the garage area. why did dbi not issue a

demolition notice of violation? we have a code enforcement problem. we have two clear, unpermitted demolitions that dbi refuses to enforce. i could give you five more examples. today's demolition discussion was put on the agenda to address the lack of enforcement and dbi has talked around the issue of their failure to enforce code section 103a. failure to enforce building code is much more than building safety. the issue at 655 alvarado is replacing a 900 square foot house with a a story 5,500 square foot how's. how would you feel if you lived next to 655 alvarado.

i would also like to mention that should be the adjudication at 214 state street if you had properly classified it as a demolition. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. this particular project is slightly different than 214 because this one clearly you can see that there's nothing left out of the building. if what 214 states you can say that there was something, maybe the second floor that's been supported through shoring, this one has nothing. this is clearly a demolition that was not permitted. as he pointed out, even the building code states that if principal portions of a building, two-thirds of the building is removed, that's demolition. here we have letters in the

presentation that the chief inspector did this morning for you, there are three letters here. overhead, please. i'm sure it's hard for me to point out this because you actually need to hav magnifying capabilities to see this. i believe the last letter here says that maybe 8 to 12% of the building is left. that's all. so that, to me, is within the building code, you know. many building code says 2 two-thirds. 8 to 12%, well, that's definitely less than that. so, again, this is a bad actor that acted on bad faith, and they do need to be punished. we really implore to you declare this as illegal demolition. this is clear-cut illegal demolition. nothing is left out of the building.

we do need to use your support to go back to the planning commission, to ask them to reduce the footprint. this is not how we could continue to do business in this city. these are speculators that continue demolishing buildings that are absolutely relatively affordable, and they could be occupied by families. we keep on hearing about housing crisis. well, we can't invest housing crisis if we're going to empty buildings like this and keep them in a demolished state as this has been. so, again, i don't want to take too much of your time, but you know what i'm asking you. please declare this illegal demolition. this is clear-cut. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. actually when i looked really closely, the letter is 8 to 10%,

according -- from the letter. it's on the handout. i don't see how you can't say this is a demolition. i mean, it's just a demolition. they're using 317, but i think that is sort of a ruse. it's a demolition. if you go out there, you've seen t i've been out there. it's a demolition. i think it goes back to the whole issue of the excavation. there wasn't over-the-counter permit to expand the building that caused more excavation. please look closely at mary's handout. she's got a lot of pictures in there. but the one that stood out to me is the following. overhead, please. this is her yard. okay. next door. then here is an example of some of the cement work. out of focus. in 655.

there are a photos in the packet that she gave you that showed the extreme amount of excavation that went on there. this is a demolition. it's nothing but a demolition. it's doubly concerning and upsetting because her house was damaged. forgetting about whether it's illegal or not, her house, her property was damaged by these permits, by this excavation. all this cement is there. i think, please look at her packet. also, i would like to suggest that -- there are handouts there from the two project sponsors for 214 and 655. i hope those are made available to the public. it's just one copy there. i hope that the project sponsors will give the neighbors the courtesy of giving them the handout. i also hope that if there's any other correspondence like the three letters in this handout

today and e-mails, those are made available. maybe i'm making a public records request now, but i think especially for 655 alvarado, we need to see all the correspondence that's gone on over the last number of years. i mean, this started in 2009. that was when the original 311 was. mary filed a dr. she didn't file a second dr when the second 311 came out in 2016 because she thought that everything was okay. so it's a very, very complicated project that you need to really consider what happened here. i think it was a demolition by your standards and 317. thank you very much. >> i just wanted to clarify for the record that all of the materials are available on department of building inspection's website under supporting documentation. if you want for any copies, we can do that for you, but they are posted on the website.

they are there. they say project sponsor submittalsment it's all the way on the bottom. no problem. any additional public comment? would the staff like rebuttal? >> i would like to comment on what was spoken to in regard to the initial permit that was filed in 2009. the site permit process is such that the addendum to that permit will keep the same number. it's the same permit. it's the site permit and the addendum is issued still having the same 2009 permit application number. so it's not a separate permit. two sets of plans are different. site permit plans, structural

addendum drawings, but it's the same permit application. so it is one permit. it's not more than one permit. a subsequent permit was filed in 2017 that talked about excavating in the basement, that one of the speakers spoke to, and that permit did show a good rendering of the scope of the project and the massing of the building, which are pretty much all planning related matters. it spoke to 317. unfortunately, that permit was not reviewed by planning. so that in itself, that permit in itself does not really have a lot of relevance because it spoke to a lot of planning related issues, and it wasn't in fact reviewed by planning as it should have been. thank you. >> could we just talk a little bit about the comments from the architect, the removal of the walls and so on and that

whole -- so my understanding, the way it is, and to his comments was structurally, this is a completely new structure, structurally. >> yes. >> architecturally, it's a completely different building. >> yes. >> can we talk about the walls and your understanding of the sequence of events based on the inspections that happened. >> my understanding in regards to the walls was that those property line walls were to remain and for whatever reason, be it the fire that may have occurred between the buildings or whatnot, the walls were, in fact, removed. with, what we like to see as building inspectors is that the contractor or project sponsor or whomever is working on the project calls for an inspector to go out there prior to the removal of those walls and ask for the issuance of a correction notice so that the permit

applicant can get back to dbi and get the permit that would be necessary to document their removal. that would be typically what we would like to see happen. >> put myself in the builder's shoes. right? you like me to call you and tell you to come out here and these walls you can't save them. we understand, which we approve all the time. you asked for a set of drawings to be reflective of how much of that wall that you've been told to keep should be shown on the drawings. correct? >> absolutely. we would like to see you, as a contractor, request an inspection and to point out that you would be removing walls that were shown to remain on the drawings. >> but if my structural drawings say completely different, what happens then? how does an inspector work around this? what is he looking at here. >> as an inspector, he would be looking at the fact that the structural drawings, if they hadn't been through planning and they were showing removal of

portions of a building that were just on the site permit, then there's a problem. you need to stop. you need to -- the inspector will issue a correction notice, go back with all your documents, both site permit and addendum drawings, and you're back at planning for review of what it is you are, in fact, removing, both on the addendum and what walls you're removing. in this case, the site permit drawings, they were reviewed by planning. the addendum set, same application number, came along and showed additional work. those drawings were not reviewed. >> were they structural drawings. >> yes, on the addendum. >> why would an -- why is there two different paths here? why aren't they matching on

here? >> this sitar permit process is basically for conceptual design approval of the building showing the outline of the building, and the basic code requirements need to be shown and met on that permit. so what that does, having that approval, it allows for the engineering drawings to be worked on in the background and submitted later. it's the same permit, and to your question, i think what you're saying is, why would anarch text or whoever commits the addendum set not reconcile those with the original site permit drawings. >> i mean, the architectural planning approved is the trump piece of the equation here. everything else kind of follows to what that was approved on. right. >> i see that as being the entitlement approved by planning showing the scope of demolition and what was to remain.

then along comes the addendum drawings for the structure, and -- >> they're not reflected -- >> if they show work upon what was approved, then the project sponsor or permit applicant should be back at planning for review of what additionally is being demolished. again, the next step beyond that is that additional walls, even beyond what was shown to be removed on the structural drawings, were removed. again, like you said, president, is that if you were the contractor, the thing to do would be to call an inspector out there, have a correction notice issued, and -- i mean, before the walls are removed have the correction notice issued so they could be back with planning and get the support drawings before they, in fact, do work beyond what's shown on any of the documents they have. >> so to my -- i mean, what i'm

hearing from the architect and i'm hearing from the presentation here is they didn't do anything wrong. they removed walls because it was on their drawings, and they didn't feel like they had to ask for -- it was all permitted. that's the disconnect i'm having. i'm misunderstanding it here. >> right. >> i just kind of -- >> to that i would say it wasn't permitted correctly because they didn't have the properly approvals to do what they did. >> beyond the architectural drawings. >> above and beyond that. whatever drawings they had, they even went beyond that, even though some of those materials weren't approved correctly. they weren't submitted correctly because they didn't, you know, go back to planning like they should have, you know, for the proper approvals. >> thank you. >> sorry to interject as well. i want to state the project sponsor needs to do their rebuttal as well, and then you can continuing with the questioning.

>> okay. thank you for pointing that out. it's important. i just needed clarification before i heard the rebutted al. rebuttal. >> you're probably going to be called back up, but we need the project sponsor. >> i'm hearing something different here from the project sponsor, and i just want to be sure. >> you can come up. >> there's a number of topics to address here. i mean, from the community at large, there seems to be a really significant misunderstanding of the language of 317. we worked to comply with 317. to be honest, to summarize, 317 allows 100% removal of all the floor and horizontal systems as long as you maintain radio% of the walls. that's the law of the land. that's what we follow. i totally understand if people don't like the outcome of the policy, but we're just following the policy. on top of that, there's a lot of discussion regarding an indication of what's to remain

and what is to be removed on the structural drawings. the structural drawings in all architectural -- in most architectural representation, it's not their job what is existing and to remain. their drawings show mandatory structural features, and i can let the project engineer speak to this, for the building to support itself. we show the walls to remain f they require a 2 by 6 wall or sheeting, those features need to be added to the condition. that's 100% typical to architectural representation. so like i've mentioned, our drawings show compliance with 317. they show the side walls to remain. that's our job. that's what needs to happen to have a compliant building. that's what we got approved. and i think the structural drawings included features and even annotation to represent

that walls needed to remain. that in certain cases sheeting needed to be placed on the inside. the finishes need to remain. these are the structural drawings. these are finishings to remain protected. now, i see this as a completely separate issue in terms of the documentation and the approval. you know, i've gone around and round. i'm spoken to patrick about this perceived miss coordination of the drawings. it's honestly just not there. like it is not -- it is not the job of the structural engineer to indicate where -- which portions are being kept and which are to be removed as long as the design is compatible with both. has to what we provided. furthermore, we can have a much more broad ranging topic about the field conditions that are broad ranging conversation about the field conditions that necessitated the removal and how they want us to interface with them. i would be happy to do it. maybe patrick can chime in in a

few seconds here. >> patrick, my comments are really about the walls that were to remain that did come down. again, as i stated, the intention was to keep them up. however, once we started demo. we did see that there was evidence of draw wall as well awe fire damage from the fire that had occurred on the east side. you're right. we should have asked for permission before we took down the walls. that was our mistake. we recognize that. >> i appreciate that. i was looking for that. thank you. >> commissioners, discussion. >> okay. all right. thank you very much. commissioners, i open it up to the floor again. >> to the project sponsor and the engineer, please, as a complete layman going out there and looking at this -- can you

please come up? thank you. i can understand where people are coming from that you look at this and you say there is nothing there. there appears to be nothing there. there are side walls and you're saying that you're compliant with the drawings of what the legal standard is. can you explain? you designed a building that is basically a new building as commissioner said. the moment frame is the support. the side walls that were to be preserved were there part of a calculation effect to have it classified a certain way. then in process, some of them proved to need to be replaced

because they were deficient. so you can understand why anybody looking at this would say this building has been demolished. if you could at least start with some comments as to why it was so important to preserve these completely non structural invisible walls on the sides because that gave you a certain classification. if you can just explain why it was so much your interest to do that rather than just say, this is going to be a new building, we're going to demolish it. everything from side walls to side walls will be newest, best standard.

>> well, first of all, i commend you for your understanding of the drawings. you seem to have a greater grasp than anyone i've encountered on this project. so this isn't an attempt to show up responsibility, but my involvement began on july 22nd, 2016. it had been filed. it had been secured. my job was to secure a building permit for the site approved documents. now, as i mentioned, we've taken certain -- we do modify the design and the drawings as necessary. my goal was to interface that process in as candid way as possible. for example, there was a portion of exterior wall that we showed to be removed on our drawings through the site permit process because we thought that was the most up front way to do it. it was going to be easy. it was going to be exposed on the other side. it just made the most sense and fit within our calculations. so we showed it diligently so it

could be reviewed. i can't speak to why -- i mean, i guess i could. i'm going to choose not to speak to why people pursue an alteration versus a dem lation and replacement. i think we're at a unique time in the real estate market. we serve at the request of our clients to perform the project they want. i think, you know, did he definitely agree with dbi and patrick. we're here to produce, i think, the most code compliant, safe, nice building possible. it's our job to create structures that are going to stand up for a long time and that fit within the code requirements. we spend an inordinate amount of time reading the letter of the code and complying and performing calculations to make sure we do. that's a huge part of our job these days. you know, honestly, we look forward to the part where we get to do some of the more what

people think of as architects doing, but it's been replaced by this stuff. i think it's -- we're happy to engage on what processes could happen differently or we're grateful for a comment that requests a specific document, like demonstrating compliance. that's very easy and straightforward for us to do. if the department wants to establish, you know, submittal requirements, different phases, all these things are totally fine by architects. the more it can be written down on a piece of paper and less something that's subjective, the better for everyone, i believe. >> just one comment from me. you were there for the planning process? yeah? >> i was not. >> you were not? so who submitted the planning? >> it's a different architect. we are the third, i believe. >> you're the third architect?

okay. >> i believe. >> so you had nothing to do with the planning process? >> we modified some window sizes and location, some due to planning request, and some due to title 24. again, regulations -- like so much of our design is now governed by title 24 to be honest. we did a lot of that. we provided all of the -- for example, the rating assemblies that we all know are required on these blind wall conditions. that's the document documenting this project for approval by building department to confirm it has all the life safety features. >> and also all the other approvals were given by planning both preservation of the facade, you would have read all that as well. right. >> we received the approved drawings and we also received developed documents from the

architect before his placement on the project. we -- i think you might have noticed the original project description on the site application is somewhat weird, like second basement and all these things. we very intentionally maintained all of the elements that were in our opinion a condition of the approval of the planning process when we submitted our final site application. even though it was less than ideal, it's important that we weren't, like, change the project and that it was clear we weren't changing the project because it really was not -- that's not what happened. like i said, we increased the demo because we thought that was being the most up front way to interface with the agency. it's a wall 14 feet long. >> commissioner. >> i have a question regarding the structural part. when you were designing the structural part, was there any discussion with the structural

engineers -- i know this may be impractical -- but to tell the structure 5instructional engineo touch the walls. >> the structural engineer is here. do you want me to -- i mean, if you look at the structural system, primarily the floor joists rest on frames. the side walls provide sheer value and the relevant structural details have plywood indicated on the interior where necessary. so that's how we dealt with the existing side wall conditions. i think there's a lot of confusion around the fact that the walls were drawn to be 2 by 6s. i think this falls under a couple different categories. one is we don't know what the side wall conditions are. additionally, i know this was stated differently in the joint meeting between planning and dbi

that i think the sistering of 2 by 6s would be considered demolition of the wall. i actually had a lengthy conversation with jeff horn and we dissected the actual planning code 317 and it does not prohibit sistering. so we typically need the 2 by 6s in there to satisfy energy code for the insulation. i'm sure if it had come to anybody's attention that the 2 by 4s needed to be maintained, randy could have developed a detail. that's not really 'problem with them per se. sistering is something that happens all the time. we don't try to not do that. it's totally normal and feasible. does that cover your question? >> any further questions?

>> i've been hired by the owner to help provide some assistance in the presentation of the materials, and i think that we could have done a better job in doing so. i want to highlight points where there's act text and engineers that have been hired since 2009. it started in 2009. i think after going through a lengthy planning review process with a 311 notice, it started again in 2016 because the owner had stopped the project because of finances and wanted to make sure he can move forward on that. in 2016, another 311 norths was sent out and in particular on page 83.3, about the plans, what we try to do here was really just kind of show you that this is not a case of serial permitting. in the application, it was clear on what we were doing and what we were not doing in terms of the removal of the walls. the one thing that did set us over unfortunately was the site conditions and unfortunately for the contractor, he was not that

aware of the process and i don't know if the building department was aware that he was not aware of the process of the correction notice and so no discussion was made in the field we needed a correction notice. had we gotten that, we won well within the confines of 317 and would be consistent with the plans the and permits and the inspections thus far. so just wanted to make note of that because i don't think because there's so many different consultants with the architects and engineers, i think everyone is speaking to their own individual roles and so i just wanted to get you from the perspective of the owner. he is a family home. he purchases this many years ago. he hired the consultants and the architects and engineers and contractsers thinking they were doing the right thing and i believe everyone intentionally did the right thing in terms of what they submitted. i think it's just a mishap with the side walls and not having the correction notice. >> okay. thank you for that clarification. okay.

thank you. so i have no more -- where are we at. >> if there's any further commissioner discussion. if not, then i guess you can wrap up. >> yeah. wrap this up. so commissioners, does anybody -- should i close it out? yeah. okay. commissioner lee, please. >> well, i think we had this discussion with the planning commission about the definition of demolition. i think this project essentially illustrates the point of why we need a clear definition of what a demolition is. as i mentioned at the meeting with the planning commission, we have projects that require existing walls to be upgraded. there's absolutely no way -- there is a way, probably, for this project to have the top floors built, and this would be essentially floating a building on top of the existing building.

right? that's impractical. right now, if the top floors for example, we know they said the walls of the exterior has to be 2 by 6s, for insulation. is that what i recall you saying? it's to satisfy title 24. so at the top floors, if you can imagine, are 2 by 6s, the bottom floor, if they're load bearing walls are going to have to be at least that size. if they're 2/4s, what is the contractor going to do? the structural engineer is going to say it's not going to work. so i'm going to leave it with the department. i know there's a traffic force formed. there's supposed to be work on trying to get the definition of what a demolition is and to consider whether these code upgrades or these structural elements that have to be removed and replaced would be considered part of a demolition or not.

>> commissioner lee, i just want to kind of bring light to your question that, in typical engineering design in the industry, basically, engineering plans and calculations, they indicate on plan minimum requirements, whether it's existing or new or whatnot. so when the site permit is approved, the engineer would design it with the minimum requirements that's required to provide a structurally sound system. in view of these plans, basically the structurele a system was safe and conformed to code. whether or not the contractor leftle wall or not, that's for industry standards. that's not a concern of the engineer as basically it's reviewed as a structural stability of the entire system. what we're proposing to implement dbi proposing to implement is a site permit, you know, that would incorporate demolition plans and indicate what existing walls are to remain and what is to be removed and basically have -- we do that right now on certain projects,

but we leave the means and methods to the contractor of how to shore these up. we don't want to overstep as the department and tell them how to retain these walls because we don't want to give them instructions. these are means and methods by the contractor. we are proposing to basically, you know, ask or bring it to light to the contractor or the engineer, okay. well, these walls remain on the basically second floor and you're adding an addition. how are you going to support these walls. i think that's what we're doing as a department right now, incorporate this in demolition. >> okay. thank you. >> sorry. i have to -- public comment and closed. i appreciate everybody's input. so commissioners, i mean, to commissioner lee's point, the joint talked about how we need to deal with 317 and i forget the gentleman's -- the architect's name. he gave us a good schooling as

to why they feel that nothing was done wrong here. i see it -- i mean, it was apparent to me there that it's not my problem. i have to meet code structurally. this is why we had this hearing. true supervisor peskin's office, i believe there's legislation being generate add long with the department which we've instructed along with planning to come up with some guided guid principles going forward. we need to have a clear road map as to what happened and guided principles in place that clearly state that if you're anarch text or an engineer, you're a contractor and you do a, b, and c on the site. your plans are going to be reflective of the work you're doing out there. i think this is very fitting. i did my research last night. mr. riordan, i have a question

for you. i just -- the role here today is do we get the department to get all the facts together here. >> yes. >> i'm still very confused abou, we're hearing testimony from the owner's representation that they did not exceed the 50%. right? because whatever reason. we're hearing from the neighborhood groups and from based on what my understanding, like the facade and all that, which i looked at photographs, that's gone. right? other so -- so i'm a little bit confused. can we get drawings from the department how lighting exactly the understanding of what was removed and what should have stayed and kind of a better -- if we're going to go up to the planning department with this, i

really want this -- i know the commissioners will find the same problem we're having right here trying to figure out, you know, how do we get here, you know. >> certainly. yes. we can provide those drawings. we can provide the site drawings and addendum set. there was a revision that was filed in march of 2017 for the additional space that was created in the basement. those would probably be relevant, too. >> can we do it in a color code. >> we can highlight and we can maybe deal with an overlay fashion that shows what was to remain and what was actually removed, et cetera, just to give it clarity. >> i believe maybe the ownership might have something done to that level that would help out as well. >> that would be very helpful. anything we can get from the project sponsor, the architect would be appreciated. >> but i kind of need it coming from you. >> it will come from us.

>> it will be helpful if they do that, but i need it coming from us before we can -- the other thing that -- i want to make sure there's no more moving parts in this whole equation. i believe there was another nov filed lately with a neighbor next door. so can you please tell me what's going on there? >> as a matter of fact, we responded to a complaint last friday. the senior inspector went to 661 alvarado. now, that's the property on the other side on the right-hand side. so the complaint was that there was cracks and some signs of distress on the building. the senior inspector wrote a notice of violation requiring an engineer's report and a permit be filed for whatever corrections needed to be made or mitigation measures were necessary. we have currently received a

report and we're reviewing it right now. we obviously need to make some additional site visits and review of documents to establish all of the facts in relation to this complaint. >> so you have the structural comments that were generated through this nov are back in your desk and you're reviewing them. >> we're reviewing them. it's a three-page document, and we'll need to take it back with us out to the site to see what it is we're dealing with. so we're currently looking at that. >> that will be something in th- >> it's probably going to take a few weeks before we can have an answer for you on that, that review and what might be necessary. >> okay. that's fine. thank you. so obviously the decision is

going to have to be made if this is a complete demolition. i just want all the facts. i'm cognizant of the fact of what that outcome is of a complete demolition where we could be -- if it's deemed that, we're looking at five years, if i understand it right, that that's going to stay looking like that and to me, i don't know who wins with that scenario. sorry? >> well, again, this is really getting to what i was thinking of, you know. many you wrapped up 214 beautifully as to where do we go forward from here? 214 we looked at a situation whereby planning's rules, property, that had a house on it, elevated, was demolished because of how much was removed. here we have a situation where there's no house but there are side walls, and they're saying

that there's no demolition. so we're saying the opposite in both cases. here we're saying the fact is there's a demolition. there is no house. >> well, two points. i'm not trying to -- i'm just making a comment that that could be the outcome of this. >> it could be. exactly. we shouldn't presuppose. >> again, just add as you did so well for 214, it's where do we go with this? again, having our staff present our position to planning so they have a clarification -- >> and i -- forgive me now because let me finish my thought and see if you feel the same way. what i'm going to ask is for you to complete the report and bring it back to us here once we understand the structural and everything and also with more

information with regard to the coloring and what walls were left so we would have a more complete presentation. i don't think we need to have full public comment on this. it's closing out before the next recommendations. does that help. >> just a clarification, while the remedy, as we found out, while the remedy on a legal basis is for there to be the five-year moratorium on any further progress, we have also, in the joint hearing, established that because neighbors do not want to have properties just empty and foundations continuing to erode, that very rarely is that ever applied. so while that could be a penalty, it's one that history shows is very, very rarely enacted. >> yeah.

okay. noted. i'm sorry. i can't take anymore public comment because i've closed public comment. with that, my recommendation is when the department has finished their report back on those items that i called out for, that let me know and we will calendar a date immediately to have this discussed and close out the report. if staff has anything ho t to ad that, should do it for now. thank you. >> thank you. go on to item 9, update on accela permit and project tracking system.

you can start. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am working with the department of technology on implementing the sf permit project on the accela platform. here's our monthly update. in the upper left hand corner, we'll talk about the accomplishments this last month since we last reported. the good news is that all of our non production environments have been converted -- have been built and are operational. so development environment, a staging environment is an awful lot of work to be done to be prepared for the testing processes. that has been completed successfully. there are portions of the application that have been completed where the whole build, the development portions have been completed.

that's for the planning component, code enforcement component and inspection. those are all looking very, very positive. date of migration for all the major entities including permits and complaints has been completed. there was some work, a little part of the project, where planning was going to get some enhancements to their portal and the ability to collect payments. that was going to be in early. that was completed and went live in april. and we have started what we call a systems test. that's basically when the development team starts testing and starts looking at the application before turning it over to the business for user acceptance tests. that's all the positive. if you look at the chart, we do have a red for build, though. not all components were built. we had wanted all of it done basically late april, early may,

and we did not meet those dates. there are some elements of data migration that missed that date. there are some elements of build that missed that date. there are elements of reporting that missed that date. so you'll notice that we have the overall status and overall schedule still scheduled as green. we don't think that the -- the vendor doesn't believe the -- we are pushing to make it all true. so, you know, a number of dates missed the beginning of may and some of it we're making up and some of it, you know, certain things especially in the area of reports where we are lagging the most, the reports are going to have to come later and not all of the reports will be available at the start of testing. that's probably the biggest ramification of that. we are working on how to get an

adequate systems test completed in the time frame we now have. we're working with a vendor to make sure by the time we open it up to user acceptance test, we have an acceptable product that we do want to share with the business and we do want the business to be able to test and complete. prior to next month, the build on the remaining tracks needs to be wrapped up. there's a couple of interface items that are still in the air that will be wrapped up. data migration, again, we have all the big items done. there's somance larry functions that need to be wrapped up. we did have some misses.

it's shortening our ability to do our internal testing before exposing it to the business. we are working on that to do everything we can to make sure we have a quality start of user acceptance test. that's where we're at. the key risks and issues are the ones that we talked about, one of the biggest issues is reporting. there's a lot of reports. they're complicated. we would have hoped to have had a number of them done by now. we only really had our first reports delivered for us to look at within the last week. so reports are where we are mose we are at. the vendor has put an additional resource on it even within the last couple of weeks. basically, that's where we are on those risks and issues. if you have any questions. >> commissioner walker does.

>> thank you for this. i'm glad that we're still on for september 4th so far. when we talk about the issue with reports, is it coming from just the structuring of the reports or the accessing data? i mean, is there something troubling that is creating just across the board issues with reports, or is it the creating of specific reports and designing them? >> i think it is the activity of designing, and it's pretty short version is it's complicated, spending a lot of attention on the report specifications to make sure that the calculations are right, that the selection criteria is right, and that process has been slow. that's basically the challenge. so where we initially would have hoped to have basically them all done by now, now we've got a wave, you know, a couple of

waves of delivery over the next few weeks. that's our new set of dates. unfortunately, it means we don't have everything at the start of test, but we are working on priority advertising it and having more -- prioritizing it and having more monthly reporting down the priority scheme and, again, anything critical customer facing, you know, hand-delivered -- with a city logo on it has a much higher priority. >> great. that's helpful. thanks. >> i did want to add a couple of notes i just wanted to add. one is we are having a department wide meeting on may 23rd. i don't know to what extent you're aware and i guess we'll reach out to you. i know who can and can't, the number of commissioners attending, but there is a department wide meeting centered on launch and helping everybody prepare for the launch coming up on the 23rd. i wanted you all aware of that.

>> what time is that? >> i believe it's 8:30. >> 8:30. >> another item that i just wanted you aware of, we're working on, as we've been doing data migration runs and moving everything from the legacy system into the new system, and you know, it's an awful lot of data. if you look at not only all the permits and complaints, you also have to look at all the history of inspections and all the decades of history of detailed plan check records, contact information and whatnot. it's a pretty eye opening and shocking number of 110 million records are being moved from the old system to the new system. 110 million records. when you break -- one of these things looks like one thing, but each of these lists are different records. right? it's complicated. it's a big job. we've been planning on having

four days to migrate those 1 10 million records from the old system to the new system. when we're talking september 4th go live, we're talking about being down and starting the process thursday night and being down friday, saturday, sunday, monday. we'll open for business on tuesday. our recent data migration cyclet the timing, and the timing as one might expect, long. we may, at this point, just a heads up and warning, we may even need a little more than 4 days. we're currently planning on 4. we may need more than 4678 more. i wanted this out there so you're aware. heads up. >> we're waiting for the hearing for that. we appreciate it: thank you. >> really appreciate it. >> public comment on item 9?

seeing none, item 10, director's report. 10a, update on dbi's finances. >> good afternoon, commissioners. before you is the april 2018 financial report. it includes revenues and expenditures from july 1, 2017 through april 30th, 2018. i'll just go over a couple of the highlights and they will sound familiar because this has been the same monthly report every month pretty much. so on the revenue side, they are slowing. we're actually down by about $6 million from last fiscal year. however, compared to budget, we're still doing very well because we budgeted very conservatively. we thought there would be a more of a slow down. we're still doing very well. once again, the reason we're doing very well is primarily due to the plan review revenues.

we're doing very well there. on the expenditure side, you will see a difference in this month. before they were lagging last year, now we're roughly the same because we started to receive a lot of work order billings from the departments. so one update on the work order billings, we would expect in some ways to overspend in some, particularly city attorney, so that may have a little impact. we'll have savings from other places to cover it hopefully, but i may be coming back to you with that. instead of on the first page you'll see that we're projecting about $2.1 million surplus in expenditures. that may not be as high as we thought it was going to be because we may have to cover other things there. that's basically it. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> no. >> delighted to have you overspending on city attorney. [ laughter ] >> very happy for that.

>> we do get it back at some point. >> that comes back very well. good investment. we're saying our revenues are estimated to be $7.1 million over and our expenditures $2.1 under. so there's a $9 surplus, approximately. >> approximately, if these projections are correct. but the 2.1 probably -- i mean, it may not be that much. these are just showing the services to other departments, the work orders and budget. we may go over that budget. >> okay. but it will still be substantial. >> yes. >> so you're saying that this will all go to building our reserve fund or what? >> yes. >> because we are anticipating a slow down. >> right. so this will go into a variety of things. this is a good segue for the budget update. based on our revenues for projections for next year, we will needs fund balance to help. some of this will be used to

help balance for next year and then what's left over, it will go into our reserves. now, our first reserve of the straight reserve of the 42 million just for business reserves, we've already budgeted to the top. the place that we still need to put more money in our reserves is the one we discussed before, and that's the one for the retiree health benefits. yes, that money will be moved along there. >> terrific. also wonderful use. thank you. >> okay. >> and if there are any other questions on the financial report -- i'm sorry. >> i'll just ask, maybe easy question, there seems to be -- there was a spike in march for revenue for permits. was there a reason why there was a slight spike in march? >> in march? >> yeah. >> could you tell me what you're referring to? are you looking at the monthly. >> yes, the monthly. >> the monthly? >> is it seems like all the other months average about 2 million and then all of a sudden, march is 3 plus.

>> okay. so let me go back and look at that. let me see. i probably have an explanation for that, but let me just look at it quickly to see where there is a jump. ] [ stand by ] >> april was 5.1. we've been at about -- >> are you looking at this one? >> yeah, this page. >> at which revenue source? >> it's the one after the summary report.

>> everything else is 2 and then march is 3.1. the inspection services is what you're looking at. >> for plumbing? >> for everything. >> electric is up. plumbing is up. building permits are up. march, spring. >> well, if you -- for instance, look at building permits. right? so we're at 1.8 million. so we hadn't been that high before. the other place you'll see is plumbing permit issuance fee is about 436. so just a variety of things. they just happen to be just a net month that a couple things happen at the same time. i wouldn't think it's to one project or something. it's just happening to be a busy month. building permits went up a lot. >> boiler permits?