>> it opens up a door for protests to have more legs on them than just a raw low bid. >> i am not certain that is the case. in professional services we don't do price only. it is qualifications. price is either a factor or not a factor opened at the end and you negotiate on price. we have protests but a very well understood ability to base contests on other qualifications than price. >> general counsel. one you have the requirements for doing the best value is set forth in the administrative code. how it is scored that sets forth the process. those agencies throughout the city and enterprises have

undertaken this scoring method. we are confident yo you are not facing new challenges using this as your criteria. >> thank you. okay. erica, thank you so much. commissioner adams. >> i am in favor. i wanted to make sure we were on the same page. i heard a lot of different things. i support it. thank you for the presentation. what i wanted to understand what commissioner makras was saying. are there other options? for your benefit and benefits to the community.

>> yes, there are potentially. there are other options. this is one. we have used the low bid for a very long time except for the cruise ship terminal. it was not a price competition. we have been talking in earnest with the dpw about ways to have more social impacts through contracting. we have consistently heard best valubestval is a good tool to -- best value is a good tool to try. some contracts have been too small and some too big. this is slightly lower than recommended. it is close. we want to tries this. it is recommended to us. it is a great conversation. i am grad it is on the calendar. when we come back we can look at

how it worked and before it comes to award. we are as curious as you are. for us this is the first time. >> any other comments? i'm sorry. public comment is closed. erica, thank you so much for this presentation. i think it is great that we are trying the best value approach. i think it is great we will be able to ask about the safety record and project history and experience so we don't just get the lowsist bidder. we don't know how many times they come back for an amendment. this will save us money in add

advance, i hope. i want to understand the bid alternate. what is the base bid? what are we put anything the alternate? >> the construction estimate $3.9 million, 4.3 with the 10% contingency. the bid package an option for the restrooms and at the time we were looking for way to save money, the project is lure kind of value engineered a lot. you can't take out the roof and foundations. the rest rooms we saw as one of the only options at the time. that is a backup if things go wrong. >> i personally don't see spending $4 million without a restroom. >> if i can add a different component. you are adding a higher cost

later. at mi minimum i would do the infrastructure for the bathrooms. we are putting in concrete floors and the grading and a slab and later go cut it and find the main line for the sewer pipe and bust up what we built. put in th the infrastructure ano the physical part of the bathroom from the floor up. >> i would not support spending $4 million on a shell. >> understood. we are trying to scope it in a way to save the project if it is higher. that is the bidding climate. we want the rest room included. it is a deductedtive alternate so we understand the pricing. in the long-term we are looking

for a partner to run a cafe. there is an opportunity for ti down the road. we are pushing to get a restroom in the facility. we hope to come to you with an award to do so. >> our $3.9 million estimate will tell us how up for the bathrooms. >> that 3.9including the rest rooms. they are about $750,000. >> $745,000 is underground. it is the pipes underground. >> any other comments? all in favor. resolution 18612 has been approved. >> item 9 new business. you would like to see gordon

ball back in six months to give a contractor's router. when we do the he wall project we are looking at the funding sources and the gap. any other new business. >> six months for gordon ball, six months from when they start. >> i would like to have the master tenant for pier 70 if they can come back to do informational to us. >> we will have them come in. >> one other thing, commissioner woo ho was talking about the rfi responses. she wanted more of a dialogue on that. >> we will get you a calendar of the plan. >> on the pier 70 if you can send me the lease so i can review it on the same subject

matter. >> sure. >> it is a good idea for an update on the project and where they are ozi. >> i can't help but support what the neighbors are saying. the board of supervisors says no smoking and they are telling people if they can't smoke all over town. >> we will put it on the agenda. you. >> any other new business? can i have a motion to adjourn. >> motion to adjourn.

>> hello, this is the building inspection commission meeting. we are reconvening. i wanted to make a brief announcement that those commissioners that are not in compliance with san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 3.1-1031 a. one and b. one will not participate in the voting of items today. our next item on the agenda is item three, general public comment. the b.i.c. will take public comments within the commission charge a jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

>> seeing none. >> no general public comment. next item is item four a. commissioner questions and matters. for inquiries to staff, you may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures which are of interest to the commission. >> i see no commissioners. >> seeing none. >> you can contact me later in the month if there are items you would like to bring for next month's meeting. our next item is four b. future meetings and agendas. the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting, and other future meetings of the build and endorse building inspection commission. our next meeting date is december 19th, 2018. >> seeing none. >> okay. is there any public comment on items four a and b.? seeing none, item five for discussion and possible action regarding ab 082.

administrative bulletin presenting guidelines and procedures for instructional just instructional, and seismic engineering design review of buildings and other structures. >> good morning, commissioners. and the deputy director of permit services. i want to wish you a happy holidays and a safe holiday coming up. for our bulletin, 082, it was at the last hearing and it had a trapped marker does watermark on it is why it wasn't approved. i want to thank our engineers and our staffing group who worked over a year on this to put it together. there are guidelines and procedures for constructional -- constructional and geotechnics reviews. the purpose of the administration bulletin is to present guidelines and procedures for structural, geotechnical and seismic hazard engineering design review of buildings and other structures. i will also add it was up for

tall buildings over 240 feet. they will be required for repair review. i will give it to our geotechnical engineer, -- and also for large projects where the foundation does not go -- go down to the bedrock. >> no point of clarification -- >> this needs a vote right now. >> okay. got it. i guess public comment. >> yeah,. is a public comment on this item claw seeing none, i will do a roll call vote on the item. [roll call] >> the motion carried unanimously. thank you.

>> next item. >> our next item is item six. discussion of possible action regarding a proposed ordinance, file 180-0166, amending the building code to enact an expedited and streamlined permit process for electrical vehicle charging stations. >> good morning, commissioners. i am a legislator in public affairs. this is an item we have talked about over the last few months. supervisor tang introduced this sometime ago. essentially, we are conforming with recently passed state law that requires all jurisdictions in california to expedite electric vehicle charging stations. san francisco has been doing that as a matter of policy and practice for a very long time. this ordinance enables us to codify already existing practices. there was a slight strengthening

of the event -- amendment courtesy of the department of environment. we have barry huber uber here who can speak to that, or if you have any questions. we have our chief electrical inspector here to answer any detailed questions. but i would urge you to go ahead and support this. it is a very good thing to ramp up. thank you. >> is barry going to update us on the amendment? >> i hadn't planned to. the amendment that his proposed was suggested by the code advisory committee. it was asking for the ordinance to include a 12 month timeline for completion of the administrative bulletin that is called for in the ordinance. no substantive change.

>> no change to that? so it is just a timeline -- what was the original? >> there wasn't a timeline. there was a suggestion to add one. >> twelve months. that is all the amendment is. okay. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? is there a motion to approve? >> moved to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. we will do a roll call vote. [roll call] >> the motion carried unanimously. the next item is item seven. update on s.f. permits and project wrecking systems. >> good morning, commissioners. i am a project manager with the department of technology. i want to give you an update on the permit project. i wanted to start off to let you know that due to some personal

circumstances, shawn beal and has had to leave the project team. he is transferring his responsibilities to me. for those commissioners that do not know me, my previous capacity on the project, i have been involved with the project since 2014. i have been involved daily on the project since it relaunched in may of 2017. in terms of this change of project leadership, there is not going to be an eruption to the timeline and the activities. i'm sure you have questions about sean. i'm happy to take those off-line it would not be appropriate to discuss it in a public form. all right. now to the status reports. says the update of last month, we have completed a user acceptance testing in round three. as you can see from the statistics shown here in the top left box of the status read out,

the suspects -- of the success right back of the testing was not at all at the quality mark that we expected or need. [please stand by]

>> now, the system is completely developed at this point, so we're not at a point where things are still in development. we're in a mode of testing, fixing the defects, and testing, so i wanted to make sure that was clear to the commission where we are in the state of development. and so as -- as linda, the city c.i.o. presented a few months ago, we are still wanting and

[inaudible] >> that does conclude my comments, and i'd be happy to answer some questions. >> commissioner walker, you had some questions? >> thank you for stepping in. you addressed my concern, because that is my concern, you can't be two people. you are wonderful, but you can't be two peoples, so i just wanted to make sure we have staffed up whatever you and sean were doing covered adequately. i wonder if we could drill down a little bit on what the

failures are and the high rate? what was that about? can you sync it into a sentence or two? >> yes. well, the use cases, if you were to uncover some of the cases in the d.b.i. division, if it was central plan review, their main charter review is getting applications in, getting them through reviews and getting permit cases, so their use cases are all centered around their processes. in terms of the failures, these use cases are a series of steps basically going through a process from start to finish that's within their job role, and so as they were going through each of those steps, there's steps that are not working. to characterize those in a blanket statement is difficult because they vary, but it's -- it really cancered around discreet function points, you

know, not meeting the requirements, and there are issues that are involved with -- with work flow is one of our items. we're moving from a platform, the p.t.s. legacy platform that really does not have -- there's a concept of, of course, tracking the status as they go through permit reviews, but it's not exactly a work flow structure. but we're migrating that status into accela, so it has to mold itself and morph itself into the more sophisticated work flow status of accella. we have -- although fees with working very well, there are -- now we're testing now -- there's a lot of -- as you guys know from our fee structures, that i know you guys review regularly, there's a lot of complexity in

that, so we're teasing out the fine points on fees. >> but that one's working better than it was. >> yeah. fees are being generating. there's just some subtlies that are getting teased out. it's really teasing out those types of things as well as getting through the use cases cleanly. >> being ookay. i got it. makes sense to me. so refeeliare you feeling confi about the process as we are in it, even with the high level of one and two severity cases beyond what we wanted? >> yeah. i think the actions that we're taking now and planning around now to make sure the next round of u.a.t. to go more smoothly will address the causes of where we are now. and i did want to address your

question of i can't be two people. already i do have from the d.t. staff, linda is already giving me a person that will work with me. they are also working to recruit another senior project manager to join, but in the meantime, i do have another resource from d.t. available to me that's going to be stepping in and helping me out. >> okay. >> on the -- kind of the back office-bookkeeping aspect of the project which will be very, very helpful. >> beiokay. great. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >>clerk: is there any public comment on this item? >> jerry dradler. i recognize the complexity of the task that's being undertaken, but i think there's some questions that could be -- or should be asked that could be helpful in pinpointing where we

are. my first question is in what area are the bulk of the system failures? my second question is what are the resources that are most c straining using -- constraining moving forward? and my last question is are the business processes changing at this time and causing problems or have the business processes been frozen or locked down? thank you. >> thank you, jerry. no further public comment? >>clerk: any further public comment? >> no? okay. >>clerk: no. >> obviously, i -- there's three questions that were called out for public comment there. could you address any of those questions. >> oh, i could respond, yeah. the first one, i'm open to coming back or providing a report in the interim that

better describes the nature of the failures that we're seeing because as i said prior when commissioner walker had asked, it's hard to just have a blanket statement that covers all bases, and i'd rather provide enough detail that you have an accurate accounting. >> perfect. >> on the other two questions, in terms of resource c constraints -- so -- the d.b.i. staff is fully participating. we have an excellent business sponsor in ron tom. so if the project needs anything from the business, we generally just go and ask the business ourselves, but if there are any challenges that we need help with, ron tom is our go-to person in that area, and he helps on u helps out, and he's available to us every single day as our

business s business sponsor. in addition, accela, they have added their staff when we need it, and p.r.o. which would be a combination of department technology and d.b.i. -- additional d.b.i. staff, apart from this morning's announcement with the departure of sean, we are fully staffed there, as well. so we're not hampered by any resource constraints at this point. and then, the last question in terms of process and requirements, yes, requirements are frozen. they've been frozen. we wrapped up the design discussions, which was the last opportunity to introduce anything that hadn't been discussed through all the rounds of requirements that happened all the way through the ten months of 2016. those were frozen at the end of january , beginning of february of this year, and that's when

our build phase started, which means we've told the developers, these are requirements, please go build it. so that is locked down, and we do have a formal change -- what we call change control process with the product in place because it's just human nature as you're going through discussions with users and they're testing, they'll say, well, what about this? this isn't quite working. so we as a project team is looking at each one of those as they come up, and saying is this a requirement and it needs to be met or is this something we haven't discussed prior? and if there is not a pressing business need to have to introduce it, then, we put it into our parking lot for ideas, which is actually called or idea factually, which we've got a long list of all the great ideas that have popped up during the pronl that we can't take on as

new scope, but we don't want to lose those ideas from the staff. so that is in place and has been in place all year. we do react to legislative changes. we've had a few of those in the timelines of a project where we have to deal with that. if we do have a gray area, where something has been discussed by staff, is it strictly a requirement that needs to be built or is it something new, then, we go back to our executive committee and ron tom and discuss those and make a determination. >> great. >> see no --

>>clerk: our next item is item 8, 8a, update on d.b.i.'s finances. >> good morning, commissioners. taris madison, deputy department of building inspection. before you is the october 2018 report, and it gives you revenues and expenditures from july through october 2018. i'll just give you the highligh highlights. it's almost equal there. on the ex-pension side, we did see an increase of almost $1 million, and that's due to early billing of some other departments. basically, that's the other funding we give for services -- departments that provide services to us, and last year,

we had a lag in building improvements, but this year, we've got those going. because we're so early in the fiscal year, our projections are just as budget. the data is very preliminary. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, deputy. >> thank you. >>clerk: next item is 8b, update on proposed or recently enacted state legislation. >> good morning again, commissioners. bill strom, legislative and public affairs. there is a similar solar -- expediting of solar energy permits that again, d.b.i., from a matter of practice and policy has long expedited. there is another state law that

we are passing another local ordinance to conform with. supervisor peskin did introduce that ordinance about a year ago. somehow it fell between the cracks, and we're getting it revived. i hope to bring it back to you for your review next month before the end of this year. and again, as i say, that's really just a codification of already existing practices. i will say with respect to supervisor safai's proposed ordinance to have d.b.i. do additional code enforcement regarding paved over front laws, there will be an enforcement hearing on next friday, the 26. we expect to move that forward with no debate or questions about it. i guess i would also mention that the recently enacted supervisor ronen fire safety

additional ordinance did pass. that actually takes legal effect on december 10. but that's the one that both the fire marshall and d.b.i. will have additional property if an owner has a property with still two open fire safety related notices of violation that haven't yet been corrected. somebody in that situation -- and i'm told we don't have very many of those, then either the fire marshal or the building authority, building official could ramp up the requirements and say you must do sprinklers or you must upgrade your fire alarm system. but with that, i think everything else is covered in my report unless you have any questions. >> commissioner warsaw? >> near and dear to my heart is supervisor peskin's ordinance on

demolitions, and i saw the update that it's being discussed with city attorney and d.b.i. and all parties but there is as of yet nothing. if you can continue your diligence to try to get some dates as to when we anticipate this really coming up, it is one of the most important pieces that we need to stage our next joint commission meeting with the planning commission, and so any of your efforts to give us better insights in that so we can plan. >> sure. i'll be happy to check with his office on that. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner walker, please. >> i'm -- want to update on tang's -- the multiuse retail. >> oh, okay. >> it looks like it's coming through, and is there anything that we need to do asou