here, you would image that it's at least the minimum responsibility of the planned officials to submit plans for us to look at and know they were followed. if we looked at all the drawings, we don't have that kind of man power. that's what the design was there for. what was given to them, approved, they should have followed it to the t. i'm just saying we need to send a strong message here. if you're going to get produced and you think you can hide behind it because it has a stamp on it and the first permit gives you more work than the first permit, i think that's a huge mistake, and that's something we need to point out in this meeting, that it's not the intent of the department. it's the responsibility to have

what was approved from the start. >> also, i do think we need to pay more attention to how we catch -- before it becomes 2800 -- before it becomes 88%, there's something in there that with the structural addendum, we should be paying attention to what we're doing. we missed it, i think, in this case. >> they didn't do any work until the structural addendum was issued. then they started doing the work. the 44% on the structural addendum grew to 88% once they went out there and found a dry rot and fire damage and all that other stuff. that's a big leap. >> i get that. i'm just saying it might be good for us in our process to create alarms that go off so that somebody goes out -- if you would have looked at what they

were doing as they submitted the structural addendum, you may have been able to foresee they were creeping. >> i agree with you completely. i think we've had discussions about start of work discussions and maybe if we had starter work inspections, we might be in a better place. i believe there's some discussions about legislation based on the joint meeting in regard to demolition definition. >> great. >> that's good. we embrace that. i think, you know, if we can have that starter work inspection, we avoid the 9/11 call where we hear, oh, the building is gone. then we're racing out there, and we see that they eave gone way -- they've gone way beyond the scope of the apartment. >> i'm not satisfied, deputy. i'm not satisfied. commissioner walker asked a question. let's talk about little bit about the addendum. the permit that was brought up the last time the presentation was done here to me.

i don't know if you have this permit number in front of you, but it was the permit that was presented to us as a reason why this was illegal and all the work was done. i believe it's 012703161580. do you have that permit? >> yes, i think i have everything here. >> do we have a copy of that permit, by any chance? >> yes. i can put it on the overhead. >> do we have the permit -- >> it's highlighted right there. when this was presented to me the last time, this was pretty much as the reasoning why we got approval from dbi to continue work out there. would you agree or disagree with that? >> yeah, that's what i remember. >> would you do me a favor and read into record here what the language of that permit is and what it says it's doing? i think it kind of talks to

misinformation that has been given to our staff, and yet we're expected to somehow catch this. so would you please explain that? >> permit application 2017-03161580 which was filed in march of 2017. it was issued may 4th of 2017. the evaluation on that permit, which you can see i've written in here, was $33,000. it describes revision to 2009, 12, 13, 61. increase the size of basement by 200 square feet. modification to window door manufacture. it talks about new ratings and minor improvements to window size and operation. thermal envelope and mechanical

equipment modification. now, in looking at the description of work as it's shown there, i understand the planning department, when they look at basement scenarios and increases an area, they don't really give that a lot of attention, and they would be looking at what's described on the permit. >> sorry. it does say 200 square feet. >> yes, correct. >> so how much work was done of that? >> so on the back of that permit, i mean, we know what we ended up with, but on the back of this permit, i don't know if they went ahead and did this other work based on the language -- or based on having this permit, but the drawings were approved by the planning department for this permit, and i believe that our colleagues in planning were looking at the description that was shown here

on this permit. even though the drawings showed a lot more detail in regards to walls that were kept and removed, et cetera. planning looked at what was in the language of the permit. so i don't think -- i think you have to kind of take these things at face value when they're submitted and describe a certain set of work. >> yeah. the amount of work that was done under that permit exceeded 200 square feet and did a lot more. right? >> i don't know that it was necessarily done under this permit, but this permit was mentioned at a previous hearing as being a substantive permit in regard to the project. >> the demolition? >> yeah, the demolition was -- the scope of demolition was elaborated on this permit.

they said, it's okay. tell your commission we had the conversation, and the conversation was we looked at the drawings, and we looked at the description of the work. our focus was what was being described. maybe we need to look at it again if at least additional materials on that. we'll take it back and look at it again. >> mr. reardon, i understand you're trying to represent everybody here, but the wording of that was not meant to be a part of a demolition. >> okay. i think, in my opinion, if the intent of that permit was to show additional demolition, above what was approved, that should be the verbiage under the description of the permit, not the windows or doors or increase in the basement area. what i think is if i want to --

there's a whole bunch of other items, so i will go to the core of what it is i want to address and speak to that first. >> i think that's the point. we may go wrong sometimes, but we're trying to get to the bottom of this and these problems. if we just keep giving that escape goat to the design professionals by saying that we're responsible to catch this every time and when there's obvious deceit and misrepresentation done on the plans, we can't be kept responsible -- can't be held responsible for this. when we catch it, we catch it. great. but we don't have the resources. your staff, deputy, you know, don't have the resources, and we can argue this all day, to catch these type of misleading permits

to scape goat the books. we need to send that strong message out to the stakeholders who pull these permits for design professionals. we're holding you responsible. if it's a genuine mistake, yeah, let's agree it's a genuine mistake, but when you have design professional number one come in with permits and design professional number two says to heck with that. i'm going to do whatever i want. then let's demo the whole thing and blame the contractor. this is not working for me. that's why at least not much talk about where we're going to have stronger messages coming down the line with regard to clear understandings of the lines of what is an renovation and alteration. our code has lacked that for a long time, and understand you've

been working on it. it seems i'm on a soap box, but i'm getting tired of dealing with these. this is people's homes. i would like to move on to one other item, if i may. >> to the issue of responsibility, is there something we can do for upping the penalties for fraudulent statements? that is the issue here, if they're misleading in what they're defining, that -- i don't know, i haven't seen it, but i know there's legislation coming that is going to look at all that. i'm not sure for sure, but i'm hoping that's a part of the dialogue that's been going on with you and the department and mr. duffy and dan has been dealing with language. there's going to be legislation that's somehow legislatively

done rather than just amending the code. hopefully, it might have something in there on that. >> it would be good to. >> the other part of the equation that i want to talk about, the underpinning issues that were out there. there's issues about underpinning. i've done a lot of building in this town. i understand what type of problem that is when you're working on such tight lots in this town, you're always affecting your neighbor, right? so with that in mind, you have to check in with your neighbor every time you do anything there. when it comes to an opinion, the laws are very clear you can't go and undermine a piece of a person's property without their acknowledgment and permit. can we talk about where we stand with that. if this is not resolved -- if you're going to tell me these are not resolved here today, i'm not going to feel comfortable pushing it up the line. i would be interested in where we stand with the underpinning. >> i would love to speak about that. 3307.1 of the san francisco building code requires

notification of neighbors prescribe to excavation adjacent to their buildings. it's also spoken to in 832 of the california civil code. so there's an obligation on the project team or the owner to inform adjacent neighbors when excavation is proposed adjacent to their properties. now, i'm not aware that this happened in this case. now, i do know that there was an impact on both adjacent properties, both the properties to the east at 651 and the properties to the west at 651. i know there's a homeowner here. as you saw in the pictures in that slide, there was an impact on that property at 661. the subcontractor, i guess, took it upon himself to try and make the building safe based on what

had just happened. so there was no permit in place, and i believe the contractor or subcontractor reacted, just knowing that something was unsafe, but the question in my mind is this should have been a little bit more predictable, and there should have been reachouts to the neighbors. i don't know that this neighbor was contacted. i have some information given to me stating that she wasn't contacted and she may not have been reachable or out of the country or whatnot. still, you're into working under somebody's house without their knowledge, without a permit, and based on, you know, a fluid condition at the site -- which we shouldn't have been there anyway because they're way beyond the scope of the permit anyway. so with regard to that property,

we were only made aware of this in late may, i believe. that was after the previous hearing here regarding this project. we immediately, based on the information we had, wrote a notice of violation for the subject property, 655. of course, we have to write in a notice of violation for the day the work occurred on to make sure they get the necessary permit to document the work and for us to understand that it was done correctly. we did get information from the engineer, saying there was no immediate safety condition for the building. there were some superficial cracks for the building. however, a permit will need to

be issued, and we'll need to try to figure out how we're going to understand how the work was done in a code compliant and appropriate way. now that, wall is already blanked off by probably the foundation at 655. so we're probably going to have to work with the engineers that represent that owner to try to get a handle on understanding what it is we have here. this was our initial complaint on the property. we wrote the notice of violation. so the neighbor's property, again, we got a letter from an engineer representing the neighbor telling us that no

imminent hazard. the work should be done as soon as possible with a permit. i don't know where they're at with the agreement, based on giving him the ability to obtain a permit to do the necessary work. i've heard conversations they're discussing what needs to happen to facilitate that. that's what i know. >> as far as processes know, it comes back to the planning department. i would see that as incomplete because if there's no agreement there, there's nothing going to be -- they're planning -- >> well, the planning department won't have anything to do with the permits for the underpinning of the neighbors or the shoring work. >> yeah, but you can't build

anything there. the process is stalled until that's resolved, right? >> yeah. i think what the plan is is that they will be putting back a good foundation underneath the exact footprint of what is already there and what was there. i don't know that planning would be looking at anything in that regard. >> i'm hoping there will be testimony from the property owner on that here today. that something to me is a loose end in this process. i think, first of all, she didn't ask for this. i think we should do everything we can to make sure she's getting due process. i understand it can get quite legal on that stuff. if there's anything we can do as a commission to move everything along in the right direction there so she would feel safe that her home -- i do understand that the engineer said it's not imminent right now, but it's going to have to be addressed and done. >> to add to that, we're concerned about making sure the permit is issued for making these buildings safe.

it is understood, i think, that these are civil matters, sometimes, between neighbors, and giving authorizations to get permits and so forth, but our effort is -- our concentration is to help these people get the permit out the door so we can make get the work done and make the building safe. we'll help anyone who comes in with that in mind. >> thank you. thank you for putting up with my long lectures. >> it's okay. >> i know you're very involved. do you have anything before we go to public comment on this? >> good morning -- or good afternoon, commissioner. commen comments i suppose. based on your comments as well, the issue of the 44% to the 88% accounts enough that the earlier we know about this dry rot or fire damage from these design

professionals, the contractor, somebody out there, get us out there to let us view it rather than taking it down and coming to us later where we're in this position, and then we get the complaints from the neighbor that they exceeded the scope. we don't want the damage to remain either. we've said this before, but there's a process in dbi. we usually issue a correction notice, stating that the wall is inferior. we ask you go back to the planning department and get a revision permit to document that you need to remove these walls due to these conditions. so that's not being done. it wasn't done in this case. the other issue is, of course, if there's an error on the drawings, that would be caught. it was on the design professional at their office to check that. sometimes there's drafting errors. i've had this happen on heights to buildings. there's an overlay on something. it gets submitted. everybody misses it.

i've had this happen. i don't know whether it was done on purpose or it's a mistake, probably a good question for the architect, i think. i think the difference from the 30 to the 44, i don't know what happened there. certainly from the 44 to the 88%, we need to get out there. these preconstruction meetings we're going to be having in the future on these type of projects will help. we need to reiterate the walls that are shown to remain. we could also deal with the understand pinning issue if they haven't started the work. how are you going to take care of the neighbor's foundation if you go below it. it's all as patrick said. a lot of times, we get the call when it's too late. then we're doing the stop work order. we're asking for engineer reports, geo tech reports. it can be done to help. we can do it if we're on scene in time. >> thank you, mr. duffy.

we go to public comment. >> public comment. >> my name is jerry gratler. sometimes in life you witness projects that while not representative of similar projects serve to illustrate what is good or bad about the process. 653 eldorado is a bad example of code enforcement in san francisco. finding fault with who did wrong at 655 eldorado does not address the broader policy problem that exists. the planning department said the building at 655ed a -- eldorado was removed and a complaint was filed with building inspection. someone in planning tried to do the right thing, and you would

think dbi would have issued a notice for violation for demolition without a permit. this was not the case. the department of building inspection is currently in an awkward position of being sworn to enforce a building code section that is unpopular with the neighbors of unpermitted demolitions due to the five-year moratorium on new construction of a replacement building, larger than the building that was demolished without a permit. dbi's current practice of repeatedly failing to enforce the code section is unacceptable. the large at 49 hopkins avenue is a second example, and there are many more. if they're serious about sending a message, it should have dbi enforce the code section until a better solution is developed. if the bicc and dbi want to hold licensed professionalals

accountable, when will the city address the numerous violations of structural engineer rodrigo santos that have been referred to the city attorney? he appears to be the poster child for this type of abuse. the larger issue before the commission today is when will the bic and dbi develop a meaningful deterrent to unpermitted demolitions and addresses the concerns of the neighbor of unpermitted demolitions? i suggest the bic establish a timeline for dbi to review neighbor concerns over section 103a.3 that addresses the current position of dbi. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> commissioners, my name is mary fredy. i'm directly adjacent to 655 eldorado street. i want you to know i signed an agreement with the foundation contractor, sunshine construction, to repair my foundation last friday, august 10th. also, i believe this is a tant amount to -- tant a mount to demolition. >> i'm glad this was resolved. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, everybody. my name is myra they. i'm the owner of -- eldorado street. just to clarify a few comments i

will share with the chief inspector, mr. patrick reardon. there were cracks around the house. we approached the neighbors. every week i spent hours just trying to get a repair done. however, we have yet to not resolve or get a resolution. we hired an engineer to review the damage. he did mention that at this point, then, back in march, it's not a safety concern, but just rou roughly, the cracks -- how do i do it? here? >> just put it on the overhead.

>> the cracks on the foundation, this is one of the main cracks. a bathroom to the property. the vacant lot. so, in all honesty, me and my husband do not want to see the lot vacant. we're starting to see the -- has not participated in any resolution. i hope that the commissioners feel we need to postpone this until the completion of our repair. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm georgia shutus.

i want to clarify something that was said by the architect. there was a dr, but it was back in 2011 because there were two 31 # -- 311s issued. september 1st, 2011, mary's dr. they did not take dr. they approved the project. nothing happened on that site all the time until the second was determined that a second 3111 needed to be issued. that was issued february 2016. so just to clarify that. the other thing i want to say is it's all terrible, but the commission -- the planning staff is determined back in february that its tan tae mount to demolition. there's a draft motion prepared that it's tantamount to

demolition. the staff has determined it. i think the commission needs to hear it and make a decision. it doesn't mean they're going to go ahead and do something because obviously the project has been sitting around since 2011, but i think that it needs to go back to the commission as tantamount to demolition and the commission can decide what is going to happen on the site beyond the repairs that need to be done to the adjacent properties. thank you very much. >> i actually have a quick question. to your point, dually noted, but how do you feel about the testimony from the neighbor whose home is damaged right now and why process should happen? she's asking for everything to be fixed before this goes back to planning or anything else done here in this project. what is your -- >> i would agree with that. i'm not a construction expert. >> yeah. >> i just think that needs to be taken care of. i would image that regardless of

if the commission has their hearing, i would think that work would need to be done before the work is done, whatever the commission approves on august 30th. i just don't think the hearing should be delayed again. it's been delayed four times now at the planning commission -- no. it was one hearing and two delays, and then this will be the fourth hearing. i'm totally and completely sympathetic and horrified at what happened to her and what happened to mary, but the concept, the idea that it's tanamount to demolition is where it is that the commission has to decide what to do on the site. that doesn't mean they don't -- they need to do her work first. that's my point. thank you. >> president, members of the commission. my name is joe butler. i'm an architect, 30 years in

practice doing work much like we're looking at today. two of the neighbor's foundations were damaged as the team -- and i do like the term team. it's a team that does the projects. as the team excavated two stories, no plans had been shown to the neighbors as required by the california building code as amended by san francisco or by the state law, section 832, as your staff referred to. before the excavations began. i think this owner/contractor should pay for damages to the neighbors or have their contractor do that work before any conclusion of any issuance on the lot. they should make the neighbors whole. it doesn't seem like an issue, but mary couldn't lock her back door. if there's an earthquake this amp, how the building -- afternoon, how the building

would perform is different than if it were on its own foundation. these exaggerate the existing conditions or exceed the permits. always an excuse, dry rot, et cetera. i think, unfortunately, president, even dbi bear as little bit of responsibility here. i don't mean to say it lies at your feet, however, as commissioner walker points out, when the planning department gets an addendum -- oh, they don't get an addendum. once the site permit issues, building keeps it to themselves. so if you're not going to give it back to planning so they can check the 317 drawing that came with the site permit against what the drawing show, well, then you do have some responsibility because you're trying to streamline the process. we appreciate that as architects because we don't want to have to go back to planning at that

point. the team knew that they were exceeding what was in their 317 calculation. they must have known. if they didn't know, they should haven't a license to practice what they're doing. the planning never looks at structural drawings. that's no excuse. no expertise is no excuse. if you can look at structural drawings and see a floor that's supposed to be existing and has now joists, you can read the note. new joists. we lost a -- at chestnut street because the plan department failed to look at the drawings that showed new framing for the roof and the floors. you two are the right hand and left hand of what gets built in this town. if the two brains can't join, this continues. let's have it stop. thank you. >> thank you.

>> we'll close public comment. open up the commissioner's comments. commissioner warsaw, please. thank you. >> i agree that we have to prioritize the safety of the neighbors and do everything in our power to make this team of owners and professionals responsive to both neighbors fully and take care of their needs first. the structural drawings came up in the comments by our president that very often the verbiage doesn't match the reality of

what the drawings tell you. when we had the whole issue of montecello street come up, that, once again, illustrated that this is something that does happen. the verbiage says one thing, and the drawings say something much more profound, and they are not consulted. so i think that we do have a lot of work to do with our colleagues to ensure that verbiage does not preclude adequate examination of the structural drawings. so that is an extremely important piece of the continuing discussion we need to have with our colleagues, and we look forward to doing that, as

well as addressing the legislative issues that provide adequate fixes of severe penalties for serial violators since the five-year penalty obviously puts the burden on the adjacent homeowners and the community as opposed to primarily a burden that is born by the property owner and his or her design teams. so i was pretty clear in my comments before on how i feel about this case. you know, if anything, hearing the additional comments here today, it just reinforces that we have a lot of work to do as a department and as colleagues with our counterparts in

planning to ensure that these occurrences do not happen again. i understand old buildings, especially at complicated sites, are likely to encounter dry rot or other issues that require people to come back for additional permitting and that the issue should be that we move things forward as expeditiously as possible to see that housing is built and projects are complet completed. the whole idea that there are so many incentives to underestimate the scope of what you have to do to affectively create this new

vision for the lot. we have to understand exactly what those incentives are in determining the scope of demolition and hold the professionals responsible more accurately for assessing what a reasonable and likely course of action will be. those who are constantly coming back to exceed and need adjustments should be held accountable that this is not a good standard practice, and it will not be tolerated. you know, clearly, the start of work inspections so that we have people on the ground before anything is begun is a good first step that we're all in agreement needs to be put into effect. i look forward to working with my fellow commissioners, the department, and our counterparts

at planning to finally put an end to this. this is intolerable. >> thank you. so, commissioners, any further comments? close it up. so next step, i guess. i'm still not -- i mean, i'm hearing that the big blighted neighborhood hole in the ground is not the way to go here. do we need to go back and get some closure on this? i would like to hear from both neighbors on each side, their opinions on how they see things moving forward. i believe you're the owner of 651 -- >> 661. >> both of you come up here. it's just going to be very quick. >> so because i think it's important because it strikes me

that you have real major issues that needs to be resolved before anything else happens out there. that said, if you feel that it's okay for us to recommend to send this back to the planning department with our recommendatio recommendations, i would be interested to hear that or would you like to see your issues resolved before anything else is done on this project. >> i think i would like it to go to planning, and we could resolve it there. i would like my foundation fixed, but i was told it could take up to six months. that's how i feel about that. i don't want the fact that my foundation needs to be fixed to stop this. i want it to keep moving forward while it's hot and heavy and get it done. >> okay. that's very helpful. thank you, mary. >> i'm myr, 661. >> she's 651. >> yes.

>> so i definitely would like it to go into planning because i wasn't there when they originally approved the plan and a lot of this advantage to my property. it's blocked and everything. so i definitely wish for the projective scaledown, but how is it possible to get a full cooperation, even from the project sponsor or the owner just to make sure that my house is being repaired? it's been almost six months now. >> commissioner lee and then commissioner walker. >> i just want to talk to the chair. i think the planning -- it may affect the neighbor's foundation.

i think right now we need to make sure the foundations are stabilized that, they're not going to move, and they're not going to be more insecure, let's say, because depending on what planning approves that, foundation may have to be touched again. if they've got to go deeper, the neighbor's foundation is going to be touched again. so we don't know that yet. i mean, the planning could say, no, we're not going to allow it. it will be fine. we don't know that right now. >> okay. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. i think that we have issued notice of violation for both of the underminings on either side. so those are cases that have to be resolved. i think it's best to have planning review. it makes sense they're reviewing it tanamount to demolition. that's kind of what happened. they have jurisdiction to figure out how to best move forward.

so, i mean, i feel like they need to be -- i mean, if we need to -- as we're presenting from our department, if we need to remind them that they have the surrounding properties to deal with in addition to the actual project itself, i think that we can -- we should do that, just to remind them that they have to address at all. we have those outstanding notices of violation that will have to be cured, to your point of not having it swiped away, i think those things have to be resolved at the same time. >> okay. >> so, yeah, that's fine. i just wanted to have that conversation. i felt if we could get all parties agreed and we have somewhat of a little bit of bargaining power here that we could do that, but i think everybody has spoken loud and clear.

move forward. obviously, we hope this is resolved before any permits are issued. i mean, i think that has to be the case. >> but one more thing. i really do hope that we can look at our process with planning and be better at identifying these type of things with our process. it happens in many cases where sometimes the lack of communication or misunderstanding between our departments creates or perpetuates problems. i don't think we created this one, but if anybody has ideas about how to identify opportunities in our process to help capture this, i think it's time to put those forward. >> so if i could close out, then, so i think on behalf of the commission, obviously we would like deputy reardon to go

-- on our understanding of what happened here, where we feel the default lies, okay, maybe a statement of accountability, something that we could recommend that goes on these plans for the professionals, to bring that awareness to them that they need to be cross-checking and double-checking. obviously, like mr. duffy said, if there are drafting errors, that would jump out as a drafting error, but things like that is what we're recommending. obviously, we talked before and i know you're enforcing these on some other projects in the past. the increased enforcement with regard to the senior inspectors going out to the jobs and having the pre-meetings and so on, we're going to implement those policies and procedures going forward. we can talk to that. i just want to make sure we're sending a very strong message to the planning department, we're

doing our job the make sure that the checks and balances are kept, please, and then we can close it out. okay? >> a brief comment. i think what's really important in my mind is that we're doing this already. we're acquiring a demolition page on the drawings that makes it very clear what the actual scope and percentages are with regard to the demolition. we're requiring that now. that's really, really important because it's a clear identifier. the other thing that's really important and we'll probably get some help legislatively in regard to starting the work and requiring inspections, we have to have these contractors -- like joe mentioned, you see dry rot and -- don't keep going. you have to say time out. inspector needs to get here. we need the correction notice. if i'm the contractor, i want

the correction notice. that's money in the bank for me. nobody is going to do work and risk not getting paid for it. correctionals is a good thing. >> the state of accountability, some kind of red alert to everybody to do their jobs sthashgs a possibility we could -- is that a possibility we could start implementing soon? >> that sounds like something we could discuss. it sounds like a good idea. there is that out there with the licensing of these individuals. that's at a state level, i'm sure. we don't have authority over their licensure. >> have it on the books. >> that would be a great idea. >> thanks. >> thanks, staff, everybody, for the presentation today. i noticed a lot of people involved in this. good luck with the next step. okay. thank you. >> next item is item 10. update on sfpermit or acccela

permit and project tracking system. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the project manager from sfpermit. as you can see from the status report, we got an awful lot of work done. we have much more to do. the main thing i'm here to do today is to introduce brian weber, senior director of accela's delivery service, and linda jerl to talk about where we're at and what the next steps are. i would like to head over to brian.

>> members of the commission, my name is brian weber. i'm the senior director for accela over the western u.s. i represent all activismations west of the -- activismations west of the mississippi right now. on behalf of accela, i had a couple of goals ed to. i wanted to acknowledge and apologize for the original project a few years ago that didn't get off the ground. i understand that's not where anybody wanted to be. on behalf of the team that was there in place, i apologize for that. secondly, i also wanted to thank you very much for partnering with accela to do the restart project, which is what we're currently at. the restart is vastly different than the original project. i'm going to get into some reasons why. from a benchmarking perspective, there are over -- just to put weight to what we're doing here, there are over 2,000 requirements that we've had to vet and go into this project.

there's over several hundred c calculations. that's 40% larger than the next largest city in accela's platform right now. permits are processed in a day. there's a high volume of permits. before i go on, i want to recognize two areas. we wouldn't be where we are today without the partnership to dbi. it's a tremendous team at the dbi building. linda's entire team, bruce and wilson, all the others, this is not a solution we're working on where accela has done in a cave and brought to you. this has been done in the trenches with everyone. we're proud of where we are today. we've radically changed the approach from where we were a few years ago to where we are today in regards to the restart. we have an extremely dedicated

team. since may when i stood in front of you, kicking off the project in 2017, we have 10 to 12 full-time accela resources that have been on the project. we have a director of engagement. one and a half architects and eight to nine full-time technical leads to one degree or another. we also have -- at the start of this project, thought we were going to go live in a multi-tenant environment. what that means is it was designed to be shared. what you're going live with was going to be shared with all accela clients. we determined that was not optimal for san francisco. so we negotiated, created, and designed what is called a private cloud environment for ccsf. so when dbi does go live, you will be going live in a single tenant -- think of it as your own cardboard box -- stronger

than a cardboard box, but your environment that's a cloud. i also want to recognize -- hopefully it doesn't get dampened by noise, but the planning department went live within this cloud environment. very successful, not only by the planning's accord but by the end user as well. we've worked with tom and isabella on that. for the larger, more complex project, you saw it was in yellow, and now it was red. significant resources have been added to try to hit the timeline. the fees were significantly more complex than originally estimated. when we started testing, we noticed the data migration issues were detected. the best way i could give you an analogy is if you have a trsh

map, we've created and engineered those points. that's easy to identify. there's 700 plus possible routes you can take from the start of your treasure map to x marks the spot. we've been working very closely with devon and kathy at dbi to determine when do you turn left, when do you turn right on those routes based on a number of different parameters that come up. also, property look-ups were problematic in the way the system looks at multi-high-rise condominiums. a complete rearchitecture was needed there. september go live is unattainable at this point. i wanted to, without going any further, acknowledge that hearing those words, we're not going to be live in september

probable causes significant frustration and potentially some doubts. i also wanted to acknowledge that your 12 full-time employees that have been here since may are not going anywhere. in fact a lot of them are at dbi right now. quite a few of them have travelled 42 of the last 52 weeks to be here. we remain your loyal soldiers in the trench collaborating with dbi, making sure we get an accurate and efficient and a quality go live for your customers and your end-users. if i can equate this to 700 fees is a good analogy.

years ago, you could say i need all of these fees to be calculating and we could have done that. it would have been automated, but it would have been done. what you're walking away with, the mystery house, you have hallways leading nowhere. brick walls in the middle of staircases, and it would be a monstrosity to maintain if we're gone. what we did as part of the radically different approach at the outset over a year ago, we created a blueprint from the start with a line of visibility to your go live needs. when we managed these 700 fees, for example, they have to connect to the blueprint. they can't just be done in a vacuum. we have to understand, does this fee go in the first floor bedroom or the fifth floor bedroom. therefore, when we're done with this, and you're live by the end of this year, it's a model home, for example, to stick with the house analogy. you're going to be able to pick that up, maintain it, and the cost of ownership is going to be

dramatically reduced because of that effort. i just wanted to close and thank you for your time today as opposed to any previous project, we're extremely proud of the architecture that we have to date here with dbi and the planning go live. the partnership that we fostered with all of the dbi users, we find a strong sense of enablement and accountability on both sides. with eh know what needs to be focused on and the enhancements to reduce the risk of maintaining an area of three areas. it's accurate, efficient, and pleasurable for your customers that they're walking in the door and logging online 24/7 to do electronic permitting. on behalf of the team, we appreciate your support. hopefully toasting to an arnold palmer when we're live by the

end of this year. >> thank you, mr. weber. do you have comments? >> so maybe we could hear from our director of i.t., ceo of i.t. then we may have a question. >> good afternoon, just about.

my name is linda jarelle. we're supporting dbi in this project. we support all technology projects in the city, and we have experience project managers and technicians and technologists to make sure we're helping as much as we can as they move forward. i am personally engaged in this project and working with director huey on how we move this project forward and to make sure we all have clarity on what we're working on. definitely thank you to accela and brian for being here today. definitely thank you to the dbi project team, everywhere from the leadership to the technology teams. they're just doing a terrific job. also, thank you to the dt project manager sean and henry who are helping move this project forward.

so my goal today with you is to -- hello -- is to talk about where we are and talk a little bit more in detail, if you like, about some of the topics that brian brought up and remind you primarily of what our goal is. our goal is to deliver a modern permitting, planning, and inspection system that will serve the city that processes 69,000 permits a year and conducts 156,000 inspections annually. we want to ensure public trust in the process and ensure employees have confidence in the system as they go live. we're doing everything we can to meet that goal. as we talk about the sfpermit, which is our new name and the replan for the go live. please know we're following

gartner's recommendation with accela's concurrence that a reappropriation is appropriate at this time. we want to reduce risk. it is all about reducing risk. when we look at risks, we're building and designing to that risk. so what i'm going to talk about today is where we are from a risk perspective, which is what brought up at the end of july, the end of this conversation about what is the appropriate time to go live. this is significant, and this is involving permit processing. so one of the biggest risks of this project is not being able to process the permit. that's the bottom line here. what would cause that is

incomplete testing, a large amount of error, a system where the performance is slow or the online processing does not work, where there are errors, and you have to have many work arounds, putting workarounds into your system will end up slowing the entire process. what happens when you do that is you have a few super users who know how to do those work arounds. everything has to funnel through them. we end up with a restricting way to do work. a lot of people can't do work. they rely on these other people to do the work, and their whole process will slow down. [please stand by]