tv Government Access Programming SFGTV February 27, 2018 8:00am-9:01am PST
there's a lot of unknowns. >> yeah, but i think the moral of the story is maybe we should be looking at this preapplication, like the deputy was talking about, at the very start -- i use the words face our did he mondaemons when it e construction industry, and maybe we should be doing 134g about th -- something about that. i really appreciate your update from the planning department. and your timelines, i wish i could get those on some of my projects. >> building some adu's. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> so next, fire marshal. thank you.
>> good morning, commissioners. thank you for the invitation. always happy to speak before the building commission and/or the building department -- our partners. we see them as our partners. i would just like to say dan lawry laid out a very good process. it makes a lot of sense, and it's a very good process. i thought he did a good job laying that out. i'd like to just respond to our planning department. we're talking about waivers, that may work with the planning department. the fire department cannot waive fire code requirements. it's basically straight law. we cannot be less restrictive than state law, so i'd like to put that out there. the other thing i'd like to mention as i begin, and i'll be brief, we're all for additional housing, but at some point, when we get started with, it's worth taking a pause to remind ourselves why we have building and fire codes. i know we all know this, but it's worth mentioning.
it's because over the centuries, we've had loss of life and property. we all know that's how that's evolved. it's just worth reminding ourselves that as we move forward. we're all for additional housing. we want that, but we want safe housing. i'd like to briefly talk about scope and jurisdiction. so as with you e all know, the on a three year cycle. the government adopts standards from the international building and fire code. it becomes the california building and fire code. the local jurisdiction from the fire department's perspective asks to or adopts the california code with amendments, local amendments, in san francisco that meets challenges of san francisco due to topo graphy, geographic cal challenges, requirements. we can be more restrictive, we cannot be less restrictive, so
again, when we're talking about waivers, that's outside. when we're talking about adu's, let's talk about adu's. first of all, are we talking about r-3, one and two family dwelling units, or are we talking about ru's. r-3, planning department jurisdiction. r-2, fire department jurisdiction. the onus, when an applicant comes in and has a proposal for an adu, the onus to meet code and the requirement falls on the design professional, falls on the architect of record, engineer of record, etcetera. i cannot agree more with my colleagues here about the necessity for a preapplication process. that's where we sit down, the design professional comes forward, lays his or her plans out and says yes, this is my design scope. i meet code from a to z, or no,
i can't meet it in certain areas. it's the onus of the design professional to bring that forward to our attention. as the authority having jurisdiction, we look at that and say, okay. what is your proposal? how do we meet the intent? can we meet the intent? can you give us an enhancement that offsets the deficiency that you cannot comply with? that that's what we ask, and that's where it becomes subjective, and i understand the differing opinions. when the fire department looks for an enhancement to offset the deficiency, we look at it through the lens of the fire department and our experience with fires. we understand how fires, how buildings perform in fires, how they affect our egress system, how they affect our fire department access, etcetera. so when we are looking at an equivalency or some kind of enhancement, we're saying okay, from our experience, and our expertise being in a fire, are those occupants of this building, are they going to be
as safe as if you meet the letter of the code. and we as the fire department when it falls under our jurisdiction has to look at that. we try to apply it consistently and fairly as much as possible. ultimately, we're looking out for the safety of the occupants of the building. challenging with adu's, i'll just give you a couple scenarios that i've run into. it's rescue windows, access to rescue windows, and egress. so when the applicant wants to use the single entrance exception, and they do not meet the travel distance requirement, so if they go beyond 75 feet or you go up to 125 -- i don't want to get in the weeds too much here, there's requirements where you can go beyond is 25 feet if you're fully sprinkleered?
>> we brought up proposals -- first of all, let me say, we've taken a little criticism on some of our proposals. the onus is not on the fire department to design these for the applicant. we partner with building department and the applicant to try to work through this to get to where we can all have a good -- a safe structure. so if -- the point being, if the applicant meets the code, he can -- he or she can round file our fire safety sheets, info sheets, ab's, etcetera. they can round file it. if they want to find an alternative, we give them a path. rescue windows, is a rescue window truly a rescue window if the fire department can't put a ladder to it? is a rescue window truly a
rescue window if the occupant cannot self-rescue? is a rescue window truly a rescue window if i can't make it to the public way if i'm still in the building? these are the questions we have to answer, and these are the challenges that we face, and these are the solutions, and we try to find solutions to that, to our solutions to that. nfa-13 as opposed to -- 234 fa-13, we look the aall these enhancements to ensure that that one point of access or egress will always be there in the event of a fire. and then lastly without digging too much into the code, i'd like to say this. i think the process is not being followed property, and when i say that is, when an applicant comes forward, and our plan reviewers makes comment -- makes a comment, a requirement or so, and you, as the applicant, you either disagree with that comment -- it's not required by code,
disagree with the interpretation, or want to propose an alternative, the solution is to go to his or her officer in a chain of command, request a meeting to have a discussion, and send it up the chain. and they can't resolve it through the captain, assistant fire marshal, i will get resolved. if i can't resolve it with my team, then, the applicant can go to the state fire marshal and request interpretation. that's the process, and we would allied by any interpretation of the state fire marshal's office. i've seen a couple e-mails fly around where the applicant kind of glows arouoes around that pd goes right to the building department, can you help with this? you're unilaterally making these requirements, etcetera. that is not the case, and i'm not going to speak to details of e-mails.
but the e-mails that i have seen, i am not aware of those applications. so again, the process is not being followed properly, and i think we could head off a lot of these problems if it was followed properly. and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you, fire marshal. if -- if i may, i have a few questions. >> absolutely. >> and i -- you stress about getting into the weeds. i would never dare get into the weeds with the fire marshal. >> all right. >> i'm just talking about in the spirit of the conversation, and terminologies you use of less restrictive codes. >> yeah. >> partnership was a big one that kind of jumped out at me, and i'm glad you said it, because this is a partnership. with regard to the adu's, now that we've kind of -- i think one thing that's coming out, and the feedback i'm geding,--s getting, as well, is it's a very successful program, and it's a great option to provide
housing in existing structures, and looking at these numbers, please correct me if i am wrong if i'm wrong, but we're looking at well over 1,000 units that could be produced without having to go to the taxpayer. it's an incentive for the existing property owner to improve their properties and in many cases bring their properties up to code. as i look at the numbers, like let's just say we had almost 109 that were approved, right? and then right now, we've got, i think let's say 50, round up numbers that are sitting there. the question that i have is -- and i'm not saying, fire marshal, that i -- i think you're -- right now in fire, there's something like 14 or 15. >> which is a pretty good number. >> yeah. well, it's a pretty good number. the question i have it now that we know what we know, the kind of resistance we're getting, just maybe as i was saying,
facing our demons, there's certain procedures we can follow as a department, and that could be a mechanical scenario. it could be right down to the exiting issue, but it seems to me that there seems to be a pattern of a type of building that we seem to be putting into the department that probably will never be able to get out of there because of its, you know, for example, let's say the exiting issues for you. and i'm hearing that the ones that keep coming back a lot are these dual exiting, not going to the 125. let's say they were the small -- what we would know as the workman's entrance. >> yeah. >> that seem to be a lot of the issues. and so some of the resolutions that are forwarded there as to solve it -- for example, let's say, we might have to do double shoot rock for fire exiting, i think it's sprinkleer, so on.
the corridor might be kind of narrow. we might have to relocate the gas room, and so on. they could be potentially financially so burdensome and time on the property, we probably -- are we better off telling these people up front that rather than going through the process, chances are -- unless you're willing to pay a lot of extra money and getting a lot of extra approval, that we shouldn't be approving these applications. >> two things. i think it should be a preapp that would include building, planning, and all that at once. you bring everyone on at once and say is this a feasible project? i think that would go a long way. i'm hesitant, when we talk about -- when we refer to the fire department making these calls, you need this, you need that. earlier to my point, when i first got up here, the onus is on the design professional.
the design professional should be thoroughly knowledgeable of the code and understand what he or she should not do. and the trades men, that's a nonrated passage. so if i can't get, by code -- and again, we cannot be less restrictive, if i cannot get from the most remote area of my adu to the public right-of-way within 75 feet, i need a secretary exit or you can give me a rated passage way to an exit, and i can rate the entrance of that. if you're talking feasiblity, i can talk feasiblity. the code doesn't allow it. let's take it a step further. trades man, i'm going to have trash cans in there, gas meters, as well, and that's going to be my only exit for the people that i'm putting in my building and far deep into the lot? we have to look at that, as well. so i think to sum it up, one size doesn't fit all here, and
it's a case by case, and we have to look at it case by case. head off a lot of these problems, early intervention, and early intervention means preapp, with all involved, would go a long way. >> so if i may finish, can i ask you something -- and this kind of talks to the less restrictive, and i think i know the answer to this, but i just wanted to see if i am going down the wrong rabbit hole here on this. if i do have workman's entrance that might make it, right, we can fireproof it, we can make it, out of one to ten in your world, an eight, that was never there before. where obviously an eight is better than nothing. >> right. >> where does those type of decisions fall for the department? >> so there's a process for alltive means and methods. how do we meet the code? is the intent to have a one who are? two hour? how can i physically do it?
can i not physically access both sides of the wall. there's a process -- building code alternative means and methods. fire can be part of that discussion, and yes, we're open to that. again, with the measurement in our mind, in our mind, with the approach -- we have to answer, are we -- do we meet the intent, if the intent's for one hour, if the intent's for two hour, do i meet the equivalency, and that's the question we have to answer. to just say hey, it's close enough, that's the wrong path to go down. the path is what is required, what are you giving us, where is the deficiency, how do i offset the deficiency to makeup for that deficiency, any kind of enhancement is it an alternative design, is it an alternative means or method, and if we're confident of that, we move forward. one other thing i'd like to make, we talked a lot -- we
mentioned a couple times about our fire safety sheet, our bulletins, etcetera, and we standby them. i personally signed -- that -- that bulletin and the fire safety sheet does not address exiting, does not address fire safety windows. it addressed sprinkleers. it does not waive requirements for stand pipes, does not waive requirements for exiting. so i think there's a misunderstanding that someone reads that document and take it's too far, that reads something else in that it's not. >> so -- i think -- i technically appreciate your trying to get me there. i mean, where my concern is obviously, we're going to have 600 of these coming at you. >> yes. >> so i'm asking the question, and let's just talk a little bit about the preapp. >> yeah. >> maybe that's where we're at. in your experience, is it all
the sf-05 and the g-23, so they're the first round of applicants, applications to come in. you sit down with the fire, everybody sits there, and they tick those boxes, right? >> correct. >> that document, is that document good enough to pretty much look that project in the eye and say okay, if you don't change anything, and you present what you have presented here, and what the information you told us today, we'll stand behind that decision, and you can go forward to all the next -- you know, go ahead with your design team, go ahead everything with that? >> it answers the question, how far -- to what extent do i sprinkleer the building. i'm changing the use from r-3 to r-2. do i springler the whole building? it answers those type of questions. it does not answer questions on egress and other life safety provisions in the code.
so -- so yes and no. it gets you halfway there. you still -- you still have require -- other oth-- other requirements to meet for code. >> i think we're talking about the same issues here, the exiting and so on, the fireproofing of those corridors and so forth. is there anything that could be done as a part of that check list that could get us there before we go down that rabbit hole. >> that's a difficult one to answer because every -- the adu's that i've looked at personally that come up to my level, they're all different. i cannot produce a document that's going to cover the four or five that i've looked at. they're all unique in themselves and different challenges, depending on the configuration of the building and where it's located, etcetera. again, our goid uide is what's
the code, and if we're going to did he have yat from that, there is an open equivalency. >> if you had a preapp meeting it, you would say here's our site plan, my fire department access and myegress. at that point, on just a site plan, we could look at that and say okay, give your occupant load, given the number of units, given your building, you need a second exit, or we could talk about the options that you have. that would be the way you do it. >> so you would have fire, dbi, planning. >> it would be the big picture stuff. whether it's feasible to move forward with the project. that could be addressed at the preapp phase, the first -- yes. >> and fire would be comfortable enough saying if what i'm saying here, and if this doesn't deviate from what i'm seeing, based on what i'm seeing here, these would meet
your fire requirements based on a, b, and c. >> so the way we do our detail, we agree on all the design element details on that project. we sign off on the preapp. unless information wasn't presented to us that comes to our -- later, that changes everything, we standby that document. we do. >> yeah. okay. 'cause that -- that would be in anticipation of all these permits coming at you. i think eventually we'll be able to identify pretty much the kind of projects that aren't going to work. >> great. >> great. and we could save ourselves a lot of e-mails later ongoing around, trying to put a square into a round hole, right? >> and just information for this group here, for this commission here, we're already taking steps towards gathering a team that is dedicated towards these adu's, where the process is consistent. we want to give a consistent message, and and consistent
interpretation, so when we do make a decision, that whole group knows, and there's a path that follows. >> and that would be in the plan checking process. >> so that's in the plan checking process, agreed. >> okay. >> and we are tracking adu's separately independently where we didn't before. they were kind of thrown in a spreadsheet with everything else, so we understand this is kind of sensitive, and it's difficult -- at times can be difficult. >> thank you, fire marshal. few more questions, if you don't mind. >> sure. >> commissioner lee, please. >> i'm just wondering, does the city ever tell an applicant that the project is not feasible. >> that's for the owner to decide that. we just -- we would just explain what are the code requirements as far as we see them. here's the thing: the fire department doesn't standup there and say you shall do a, y, and z. our job is to enforce the code. here is the code, and this is what it is.
if the applicant disputes, that we welcome that. we do not have a problem with that at all. you put it in writing, you go up the chain. so with the understanding of that, the onus is now on the applicant, hey, is this feasible and worth moving forward? we don't get into the dollars of things. we just focus on what is required in the code. >> questions? yeah? anymore. thank you, fire marshal, for that. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on item eight? mr. boskovich, surprise, surprise. >> pat boskovich. i'm a san francisco native. we called these garden apartments when i was growing up. i lived in the stone center apartments, and there were lots of world war ii garden apartments. they were a couple hundred
feet, square feet, and i viewed these as critically important to the housing needs of the city. we're building lots of super rich housing. my kids can't afford the super rich housing. i can't afford that. we need to be building affordable units, and by the very nature, these garden apartments are affordable. if you can building a unit for about $100,000, that's amazing to build housing in existing housing. when we look at the seismic, though, seismic retrofit, we're just not seismically retrofitting the ground floor, we're upgrading the entire, and when you upgrade the exiting, you're upgrading the exiting to the entire building. [ please stand by ]
. >> i view it as a win-win for everybody, and the adu pays for all this work, so the owners are, like, getting a building seismic, and they're adding units. the tenants are safer, they're more seismic upgrade, they are more fire resistant, but there are issues, and the exit is a big issue. everyone talks about this preapp, but we're missing one concept. you've gt to ot to do a preapp every one of these, and it's got to do a three group planning. planning's got issues here. building and fire does their preapp, and if they're not talking, then the fire department is doing one thing and the planning department is saying something else. so my suggestion to the preapp is it's a joint preapp on any intake permit that someone senior from planning, someone senior from building, someone senior from fire, they look at the drawings, they know if you
can build it or not, and instead of going all the you way down, spending six months with planning, you get to building, you get to fire, and they say no, that's where the anger comes out. if certain buildings don't work out, then, you do this preapp with three departments, and they tell you what you can do. they give you the directions on exiting, and you move forward. and i think that's the solution to this is a mandatory preapp with planning in the room, with building, and fire. thank you. >> mr. boskovich, if you may, we all -- we're all sirnging out of the same choir book here. we're all trying to make this work, but as a professional -- you're a seasoned professional with this. you can look at a set of plans -- you can turn your phones off, too. >> i know. >> that's what everybody else
has to do. so they talk about the professionals not really guiding the process here and trying to, you know, go down that rabbit hole here, hoping that they might get a favorable decision, and unfortunately, what's happening is with we got staff getting blamed, we've got everybody going pointing different fingers, so i mean, you talked about the preapp meeting, and you say that's it. but if a homeowner has been told that they can't get exiting and so on, are you -- you know, that's -- and the fire is saying we're telling you right here and now, we would not approve that project, even though you might feel, as somebody who's done this for a long time, that they're incorrect with that decision, how do you advice going forward then? >> if fire department says no, it's over. there's no debate. you can go to the state fire marshal. i'm very aware of it because i
was on the commission. that's not an issue. if a local says no, that's no, and that's having them right in the room ends up going down that path. i think having fire in this room, in this discussion -- and it's generally not one to two units, it's two to three. once you cross the line from r-3 to r-2, it gets more complicated. >> and how would you advice yo -- advise your clients on the gas meters. >> well, if you have a gas meter in the room, and there's nowhere else to put it, that ends the job. now, there are certain types of equivalencies. if you have a huge back yard, maybe you can discuss that, but fund amountally exiting past a trades man, past the gas, when you don't have a refuge, i
think it a nonstarter. >> okay. thank you. thank you for your comments, sir. >> do you have any additional -- >> yes. just before you go, planning would like to say a few words. >> i would just like to add a comment about the combined application meetings. planning department is supportive of combined application. currently planning department offers a separate project review process and then applicants do go to a separate application meeting with building and fire? in our response to the mayor directive 17-02, one of the items that we did outline was a combined preapplication meeting, so we are supportive of something of that nature for applications and adu permits. >> so because it involves i'm going to say three or four departments, who would coordinate that? would wou wh who would be the front pirn. >> we being the dbi staff person who's coordinating we believe would be the more appropriate. we're open to whatever the best
and most appropriate coordination for that type of meeting would be. >> yeah. >> we're open to developing a process that would, you know, be the most efficient and effective customer service. >> i imagine it would be planning because that would be the initial outreach first, right? >> no, this would be a new process and have no customer facing information, so i think we could work together to develop whatever process would be most appropriate. >> okay. i think that's something that we should consider, and i'm sure it would be -- i don't know how you would do this. i'm sure there would be fees attached to this because preapp meeting cost whatever staff time and so on, and department's time and so on, and fire department's. is this something that's done, administrator, to the different departments? >> yeah. we can have something that's done through so many departments and planning. >> we could potentially
investigate a process to have one fee submitted where the applicant could -- the fees could be, you know, bulk transferred between departments in. >> no, actually, when we have fire, we have a separate check, we give it to fire, they handle it, and then, we have db i, and we all feed into it. >> so you have three or four different checks, and everybody shows up. >> yeah, and then, you can do the combination. but i want to remind commissioner mccarthy, preapplication is one good idea, but we should have a check list from each department to outline what are the requirements. i want to be -- make sure they -- you know, the public know because in the preapplication meeting, they need to specify the specific question. they cannot just say, is this permit or this application is code compliant. we cannot go through every
item, look at the drawings, you know, half an hour, one hour. each department needs to have a check list to what are the basic requirements. there are certain specific questions they can ask. >> okay. so maybe what i think would be good, maybe if we just kind of itemize what those -- what really it's going to take for this preapp meeting. are you talking about the fire side? are you talking about everybody? >> yeah. each department should have their own check list, and then we can give it to the public, publish it on the website. here, the stack pipe business for some of the buildings and sprinkleer, you ask them to comply with the stand pipe requirement, that's a different thing, that's expensive. depend on the situation. that's why we need to spell out all those items.
>> so i'm presuming everybody would be on board on this, trying to put that check list together, which is a precheck list before the preapp meeting, is that it? >> yeah. >> and if it ticks -- if you have all that, then, you can have the meeting. >> those are the minimum requirements in the building code because the dbi only enforce cbc. >> so why don't we do this: why don't -- go ahead, commissioner gilman. >> so the preapp meeting, though, is still optional for applicants. >> yeah. >> so i'm wondering if there's a way to avoid some of the issues that -- i'm so sorry, that the fire marshal -- thank you -- raised. is there a way to incentivize it by maybe even saying that, you know, the various agencies would do a 10% reduction of fees to incentivize, almost make it mandatory for individuals to attend the
preapp meetings. it seems like it would cut away all this red tape that they go down the staff with a project, that they know is not going to be feasible. >> yeah, commissioner. first of you will all, we cann the fee but we can ask them to attend the project. preapplication meeting is only on the specific question. we should have some basis to have a check list for the base requirement because we want to have those requirements first. for example, like deputy director mentioned, you cannot have minimum height, you cannot have less than 7'6" for the
living room. how is the egress window, you know, you have sprinkleer for the ground floor, you don't need to have a separate exit -- one separate service exit, the program, you know, we go on. >> deputy director, please. >> i know that you've been very involved through the director as sitting in on these are the fire department and so on, and planning. so, i mean, obviously, i'm presuming that the design professional would cover a lot of the check list, automatically knowing the code that's in place. where we're getting into trouble is of the 6 more hundred plus of coming at you, is there a certain population of those 600 will not -- will never meet the fire code or will never meet some other parts of our code, and i'm trying to figure out how do we identify those ones, so that we don't have this -- after a lot of money being spent and a lot of disappointed people at the
end of the store. but i'm presuming the design professionals are not going to come in with a project -- it's going to meet the design. it's those unforeseen conditions that we have, particularly having to do with exiting and life safety. sometimes, we just have to face our demons here. tlts ae things that don't meet the requirement and never will. how do we pull them out of that bunch. >> we have discussions with the fire and ourselves. where there's two exits involves, there's plenty of issues. where you commingle an exit is where you have an issue here. >> so i'm just trying to -- this preapp meeting, i'm just presuming a lot of the boxes would be ticked by the ziep professional. it's just those really hard questions when we get to the finish line, will this make it over the finish line, and we don't have to take less restrictive life safety issues into consideration, you know?
so that's all we're looking for is that would come out in that preapp meeting. >> we could go by the director's suggestion. we could make a small check list or a check list, as the obvious -- just so those questions are being asked at the preapp. >> so why don't we do this: as a part of due diligence and going forward, trying to get to the bottom of this, maybe you could get with the different departments and come up with what would be most appropriate for these preapp meetings to kind of deal with that. >> we did have this conversation early on with planning, and with fire. we're going to try to put all of these agencies on it, but the time it takes for the preapp was a consideration here, too. >> yeah, i know. but what i'm trying to avoid is the 05's and the g-23's. when we're at that stage, the project is not being approve zbld and deputy director l 0
wry, if we can't waive fees, is there something we can do shall -- i want to ask you, and fire, is there something we can do to incentivize individuals to do this. if i was a homeowner, i would want that, i would want that clarity, but not everybody thinks the way i do, so i want to ensure we get these folks into the preapp meeting to avoid what commissioner mccarthy is concerned about. we get staff meetings with these people, we waste tax dollars, and then we find they're never going to be able to comply with fire code. so if it could be some sort of expedited service or flagging the file and they get some preferential service, but i would like, for our next meeting, to figure out how they would get into the preapp meeting. >> i think we'll have a
coordination meeting with the groups, and coordinate with the fire marshal and see if it's applicable. >> okay. thank you, deputy. >> thank you. that's acceptable, director? >> yes. and then, i think we will go back and check. a month joert of them have preapplication before. we only respond to the specific question. that's why we need to work on it to have the check list baseline, and then, they have question, we can ask. >> okay. thank you. thank you for everybody's time on this. >> thank you. >> agenda item nine, discussion on the sale and permit of a project tracking system. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm sean bulin.
i work with the department of technology, and we're helping out on this project. we are forally in the build phase, and we've been there since basically throughout 2018 thus far. what we're accomplished thus far is an awful lot of work in interfaces with other city departments and specs for -- for the new sets of programs, and a lot of work on the new sets of report that are needed. and those activities are proceeding actually quite well. we're all still in the green, and everything is proceeded ino plan. it's an extremely busy time for the dbi staff who are helping us out, for the vendors from the contractors from the vendor, and of course from the internal i.t. staff, so everything is going, it's green, and still going -- still
going to plan. one of the big things that you might see here, we have a note about private cloud discussions held. one of the things that we were discussing with excel, excel has annual major releases, and the annual major release was in october of 2018, which is of course right after we go live, so we worked with the vendor, and the vendor proposed putting us in our own environment, so we will not be adversely impacted when they put a whole new version of the software out in october 2018, so we're working with the vendor on that and establishing minimizing risk, and our first few weeks of go live are as smooth as they can possibly be. that's what we're talking about when we say cloud discussions are underway. so development is hot and heavy. it's underway.
there's kind of project team testing that will start in late april, and then, the user acceptance testing starts in earnest at the very end of may, and so that's coming up. until then, we are developing a way, working on data migration, working on reports, working on the next level of fees, scripting, calculations, that type of thing. all that activity is underway, and for the next couple months until that testing starts in april, that's where our focus is, on the reports, on the scripting, and on the data migration to prepare us for the data testing phases coming up. do you have any questions? >> no. thank you for the report. >> is there any public comment on item nine? seeing none, item ten, discussion and update regard joint update and plabing commission meeting. >> just i'm sure commissioner walker would have a few
comments here. we did have a meeting and it went very well as discussed before. we are working towards our agenda item, and as of this point, we're still on for april, correct? do we have a date in april 1234. >> i don't have the date in front of me, but i'll send everyone a reminder. >> as of right now, it's still on, and we had a very productive meeting, as i said. we're looking forward to that, and we should some more solid information on the agenda item as we get closer. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you, is there any public comment on item ten? seeing none, 11, director's report, 11-a, update on dbi's finances. >> before you, is the january 2018 financial report, and it includes revenues and expenditures for the first seven months of fiscal year
'18, and i'll just go over a few of the highlights. revenues, although they continue to belower than prior year, they're still strong, and they're strong and expected to exceed the budget, and they're strong primarily due to our plan checking revenues, so if you look at the first page of the memo, you'd say that $6.5 million surplus and revenues, that's primarily because of collecting more than budgeted plan checking revenues. and also -- also in the preapplication checking revenues. so revenues remove strong, but just to give you an example, we're up to about 17 million now in plan checking revenues. last year at this time we're at 19 million. so we're strong, but it is slowing down a bit. on the expenditure side, we're lower than the same time last year, and that's primarily due to -- we talked about this last month, lower buildings from other city departments. so last year at this time, we
had already received about $5 million in billing from other city departments. this year, we're only at about 940,000, and that just has a lot to do with departments getting used to the new financial management system, so we're working through that, too. it's hard to make projections when we're so low in there. i think we have good projections on the employees, and the fringes on there, but when we go to employees, that's our second largest expenditure, so that has a huge impact on what our end of the year results will actually be. so right now, we're projecting about $2.5 million surplus in expenditures, but i expect that to change once we get better numbers on service of other departments and then possibly on the community-based organizations, too. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> so with regard to, you know, the 19 million versus the 17
million, as a part of your equations, do you talk to planning because let's say this year, they're filing applications. >> so that we would know it'll come down in the next -- >> yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. >> i have spoken to them before about their applications, but sometimes that's a little tricky because it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to get the revenues in the next fiscal year. but we have been talking to them about that, because they have been seeing things slow down, and of course we can see items slow down, too. if you look at the -- actually, if you look at the mepermits, page two, actually, we're issuing fewer permits this year. it's a combination of things. we're issuing fewer permits, but also as things comes down, they're on four few fee schedule. in october 2015, that's when we
implemented the new fee schedule. we have reduced fees, too, so i think it's a combination of a lot of things. but i will be following up with planning just to maybe get a better sense. we already have, at our budget meeting that -- last budget meeting that we discussed, we really did bump up our plan revenues because we're still seeing such a large amount, because we thought the economy would be slower now, and we thought there would be a larger impact to the fee reductions, so we've bumped it up. it's not as high as expected last year, but we did bump it up with the expected budget is. usually around the nine month, in march, that's when the controller's office does its final revenue projections, so they'll know which revenues are available for the budget, and we will probably do the same thing, too. we'll probably get to get better projections, so we'll know exactly, updating those
revenues to see exactly what we really believe will happen. >> okay. perfect. if maybe on the next month, if you had a chat with planning, i do believe there's a big dramatic drop in large projects. >> yeah, right. >> which is in here. >> yeah. >> and so that's something i think i'd be interested to know in what does that mean to you in your real world going forward. i know to your point, it might be effective two to three years down the road. i just want to get my head around it, but i definitely think we should be looking at that hard, which you are. thank you, director. >> any other questions? thank you. >> 11 b, update on proposed or recently unacted state or local legislation. >> good morning, commissioners. bill strong, legislative and public affairs. just hit a few of the highlights from the report that i sent along into your packet. we did get out of land use
recently the cost roofer reitem on the future tall building peer review item project -- [ inaudible ] we expect it to be finalized and take legal effect by the end of march. that will confine side veincid review project, and our engineers are reviewing the total number of submissions that have come in, so by february 28th, we'll be able to post the rfq lit, the prequalified list of these expert groups, and that should go forward very well with any future tall building projects. we've -- you've mentioned several times the accessible business entrance program. we are trying to do a more
aggressive outreach, paid advertising campaign included. we do realize that especially in this may 23rd deadline that is rapidly coming up, you know, that is really for those buildings that our staff estimates may be up to about a third of that 26,000 building total that are already compliant. and essentially, what we're looking for from those owners is a submission of the affidavit that in fact they are already in compliance. so that would mean we -- by may 23rd, will expect to have six or 7,000 of these responses. as of our first notification, which took place in late november , early december, we're about to send out another one, we have about 70 responses. and out of those 70 responses,
about 20 or 25 of them are actually in this kind of exempt compliant category. so like a lot of direct mail types of pieces, we're getting a very slow and low response rate, but that is really what we're after. i have had several conversations with people from the district council of merchants and smaller businesses who are rather concerned and who may actually go back to talk to supervisor tang about whether or not the program needs to be extended out beyond the existing four years that we're currently under. we'll have to wait and see if that in fact does occur. meanwhile, we're doing everything we can to make pima ware of the project, such as the director going out and talking to boma later this
month and the aia later in march. actually, the director is going to take a merchants walk with supervisor tang also toward the end of february , and we expect to do a -- more of those. so it's kind of a combination effort here to make pima ware and responsive, and it's a bigger universe than what we had to experience with soft story, so i think we'll get there. it'll just take a little more time to do so. the only other item i'll mention is we did have a hearing on vacant storefronts where supervisor norman yee and supervisor fewer in particular were anxious to have the department step up code enforcement and particularly to try and identify those vacant storefronts so we know how many there are and where they. director huey has had the
inspection department step that up. they're in the process of having district inspectors go out and look foez ther these properties on literally a weekly basis, so we do believe in the next few weeks, we'll have a better database than we currently have, because as has been mentioned earlier, it's a complaint driven process and we haven't been receiving that many complaints from these various neighborhoods about these vacant storefronts. i think our most recent data, the report is about 90. the post office, according to the budget analyst's report that was done last october has 3448 vacancies that the post office considers vacant because they can't deliver mail after a 90-day period. our efforts to obtain that data from the post office has been met with sorry, but can not
give that to you, and there's a federal law that prevents us. however, the post office does sell that data to a third party company, and we are reaching out to that company to see if it's a reasonable list to buy so that we could augment what we're getting from our district inspectors and at least have the opportunity to go out and verify whether or not listed properties are in fact still vacant. so we will continue to pursue this very aggressively. obviously, members of the board have directed us to do so, and that's what we're going to be doing. happy to take any questions. >> see none. thank you, mr. strong. >> 11-c, update on major projects. >> good morning. thom ohd. as you can see, the major job one -- nearly 1%.
to answer president mccarthy, you know the number of permits coming into planning department, i did have conversation with director john ram, and he did say their permit is slow down for the major project. >> so major would be -- yeah, how big? 100? 50. >> he did not mention the size, but you know, consider maybe -- 100 units. >> and what would the interpretation be of that? >> that means we need to pay ourselves. we are already near the peak now. that's why you can see the amount big project -- right now, the revenue's good because wherever those hill project come in still under construction on the -- you know, the arena and other. >> yeah. >> but still, they are talking about some of the major project in other -- hopefully, treasure
island will come up every few years, and other -- like the candlestick is kicking up. >> have you any inclination of the percentage of the drop-down from large project snz. >> i don't have the number right now for this. 1% is 1% job. >> 1%. okay. commissioner gilman? >> i was going to say on the financial sheet, it said the devaluation of permitting fees based on that valuation. looked at all the categories on the last three. there was almost a 30% drop, and then very much an increase between zero and million, so i think that's a good gauge, too. >> yeah, and that's fine. >> yeah. >> i'm kind of getting to the point, that's kite a substantial jump down, so is anybody saying, well, why is that happening orthopaed, or a
of 30%? other than it's going down, do we kind of ask ourselves why it's going down or is it the economy? what is it? you know, so we have more prepared here. >> yeah, but first of all, the revenue jump, we know is roughly 10% on our permit fee. and also, the -- limited land in san francisco. where can you develop the big one? we know there's a few of the job maybe come up but take long time. candlestick, that's a few project -- candlestick -- >> i think we should be a little more scientific about this. i read the times, and it's the most expensive city in the world to build. is that the reason? >> i don't know. >> well, that's a pretty serious reason because we've got to look to the future, and i sat on this commission when
we had no money, and people were losing jobs, and we were firing inspectors and things, and that was a real problem for me. and i -- you know, so if we've got a problem coming here, and we're getting kind of red flags, i think these are very important things we should have -- other than, you know, it kind of looks like it just fell off the cliff here, and we're not quite sure how it happened. i really want to know what's going on out there, and if we're talking to the director, i'd be interested to know why he thinks that large projects have fallen off the cliff in the space of -- how many months are we talking about? i don't know myself, but it's quite sudden, because we're going year to date. and you know the budget has -- we've approved budgets here and stuff, so this is the type of stuff that we need to be aware of it and keep on top of. >> yeah, we can talk to planning and then, you know, to get more answers from them, see what type of project, and then to compare --
>> okay. commissioner gilman, please. >> so maybe -- i know we already passed an agenda item earlier. maybe at a date to be determined, you could provide us with a list of major project areas, because what we do know is we still have candlestick, we still have parts of hunter view that have not been staged. we still have treasure island. we could look at what's been completed in transbay. there's only certain areas that are going to sustain these types of projects, and if we could get a timeline or pipeline, then i think we could do better planning. i know with 500 units in the development market, it won't be on-line between 2020 and 2027-28, because of the phasing. i think we could ask planning for a list of what they know about, and then, we could try
to get back into that address your concerns. >> yep. thank you. so that's actually what i'm -- so forward planning. >> thank you. item, 11-d, update on code enforcement. >> good afternoon, commissioners, ed sweeney. bid, building inspections performs, 5,151. complaints received, 14, complaints response of 24, 72 hours, 352. complaints with first notice of violation sent, 85. complaints received and abated without nov, 187. abated complaints with notice of violations, 33. second notice of violations referred to code enforcement, 41. his housing inspections performed, 985.
complaints received 485, complaints response within 24 to 72 hours, 467. complaints with notice of violation issued, 164. abated complaints with nov's, 336. number of cases sent to director's hearing, 50. routine inspections, 196. code enforcement. number of cases sent to director's hearing, 81. number of order of abatement issues, 21. number of cases under advisement, 10. number of cases abated, 96. code enforcement inspections performed, 190. number of cases referred to bic litigation committee, one. these are the numbers for january . >> okay. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on the items on the director's report, items 11 a-d? >> mr.