down the road -- you would be able to tell us -- >> i think one of the things we could do as we go to events we participate in, whether it is a neighborhood community fair or other events, we did have a presence where we hand out educational information. the disaster coordination unit would benefit from being a part of that. whether it is even visually in the building, more notice on a regular basis to try to publish this and get people involved. i mentioned in an e-mail that the eoc has the open house every month. public and city employees are invited to attend. it is a brief tour, but it is important to become familiar

with those functions. the other benefit is i don't want to waste any resources in terms of what our mission is at the department of building inspection. they have to be used wisely, but a big part of our presence and active participation is that is the of recognition, you're getting to know people on a first name basis from other departments. there has been a lot of transition, whether it's retirement for other organizations, there are a lot of the -- there are a lot of new people. at different meetings, i see different representatives, so we're trying to get more familiar with each other and that will help us know who to contact. >> i have one question. have we given any thought to enlist the public's help?

>if we have a big disaster and we need inspectors and engineers out there -- i don't know if all inspectors and engineers -- i know if there sufficient to do job. do we have any method of seeking other professions to come in and help or even former employees? >> absolutely. there is in place the mutual aid which is exactly what is going to occur when we are overwhelmed. this is the scenario every jurisdiction 1 lead in regional meetings, we know if it happens in san francisco it will help. if that happens to us all, it's a race to who gets to the resource list first. who gets the helicopter first? how do those resources get deployed?

we have mutual aid called out. we have a list that is activated. there'll be inspectors to come from within the state and we have more safety assessment inspectors in california than anywhere else in the country. another resource you touched on is the volunteers. sometimes we call them convergent volunteers. they will just show up with no training and they just want to help. you need to have a place for them to go. but whether you are looking at ham radio operators or former city employees familiar with the instructor, that's the kind of staff that is a valuable resource we want to develop. there is an element for that and you should identify those people. >> which is thank you for your presentation. it's very comprehensive.

we have a category where we are pro-active for preventive and then the next category is responsiveness. the third is the post-incident or other resources to resolve those categories. there seems to be a commonality across the board both in this and resources, especially on the communications side. are there times when homeland's security communications and other sources are basically connecting the dots, the same that are across the board and from where we are preventive to than responsive to later on a deposed incident -- deposed incident category, something that makes the grant money and all of the funding sources to be consistently available because

it has this sort of sequence that always comes into play. >> in general, yes. the fema guidelines, that is a federal list. it is the same area of response this city has. in the area of preparedness, you have prepared us, mitigation, response and then recovery. the areas you touched upon are broken down and there are different functions associated with them. there is much overlap, but there are target capabilities derived from those specific areas. if we look at a recovery, that is our big role. if you look at -- if you look at an immediate response, that is the first responders. but as far as damage assessment, that's a response. the mitigation is the caps were you retrofit a water heater and

mitigate those hazards. our end as the recovery and. we wind up as recovery even though we are seen as more of a response. this is not only getting dollar amounts for how much there is. how can we get everybody back in their building? that is the recovery that could be long term or could be years. building occupancy you program -- was at a meeting yesterday and this city is pushing more than ever with real estate to get off city buildings. they already have a pre designed team. your pre deputized and you don't have to wait for us to come. this is critical to recovery. part of the department of emergency management is supposed to be tying all of this together. that is their key role, so don't waste resources and there's not an overlap and three departments are not asking for the same thing. they are trying to coordinate with us.

>> is there also an approach to shelter in place? there are times when there is not going to be enough time for people to stay and move elsewhere. >> when we talk about shelter in place, that's probably going to be the condition. but depending on the event and the damage, the ideal scenario is we have the event, the earthquake, the facility, public or private, will look at their facility. if there is no visible damage, if it is 3.2, it shakes and everyone goes back to work. there needs to be the determination we have had damaging and we get the activation. pursuant to that, we will respond. that is a critical element in how that is going to occur. >> talking about the concept of shelter in place as a branching

of the mitigation and the event, there is a group of us who are actually looking at the policies and procedures around shelter in place, which would mean after the building official determines there is an emergency, the standards for occupancy can relax a bit. calling it an emergency is what allows the building official to do that. you look at things like what are required like heat and energy and power, all that stuff not being available because of the event. but the building is still structurally sound. that will allow people to stay in their building, even if it was not up to the building code. we're looking at recommending

the standard. we have also been talking about, in this group, through an initial inspection -- it is true, we are out there to determine if buildings can be returned to or need repair, all of that. but they are talking about a small training even for the team's going out to look at saving lives and determining what those things are able to go into. so that the nert person knows whether or not to go into a building. somehow, i think that our department can be really involved in handing over that responsibility in determining that process. it is important. we have an event right now where

tens of thousands of people do not have homes. we might, if they have shelter and place policies. >> we have been attending meetings with that of the housing element. a critical issue. there was a meeting last week. it was regarding that particular feature. that discussion is ongoing. with respect to what the minimum standards are, that is precisely right. where did everyone go? many of our critical facilities, schools on our lists, we are establishing relationships to the school districts.

there is that capacity. this particular one, if the building is adequate, structurally sound and has not been impaired, can you sift through without? there is a limited period of time for the existing maintenance issues that we are participating with. >> right now we are still in the process? >> we expressed at the department of abatement inspection, these are our standards. if it seems safe, that is perfectly appropriate. thank you. good job. >> is there any public comment on item number six? item number 7, the report on key

complaint compliance time frames, statistics on repeat offenders, and recommendations for resolution. >> members of the commission, the last time i was before you, we spoke about complaint actions regarding those complaints in the department. at the time, we spoke of the department's initial response. there are approximately 289 heat complaints in 2010.

since that time, the commission asked us to look more into detail but i came to code enforcement response issues. that universe has dropped down. with that, i would like to discuss the rose -- revised figure that was submitted to you for the purpose of this presentation and subsequently to its of it be, giving you recommendations on the revised exhibit day. with that, i will go ahead and start, from left to right. so, as i indicated, we have been talking about for 2010 was 285 complaints in the department. obviously, not all of those were

determined to be verified complaints. typically, once they received complaints from the department of building inspection, there are usually other items as well, which take up the attention of the inspector. one of the things that we were asked to do was to look at and identify for you the number of repeated properties that have a heat complaint within the timeframe. within the 285 alleging heat complaints, 38 were approximately 13% of repeated properties. not necessarily property owners, but properties. what i have done for you is not only give you a percentage of what that is overall, but also of what it is in terms of

notices of violation. as you can see, there were 126 of the 285 cases that had notices of violation issues. about 44%. that means that the remainder of the 159 complaints were about 55 or 56%. they did not have notice of violation issued, for a variety of reasons. one of those reasons was because of the time of initial inspection, but he was restored. or there was not heat complaints to identify. or there were a variety of things in which a notice of violation was not necessary. typically it would have been because there was a central heating system involved. it had to do with a time clock

not being set properly within the presence of the inspector. generally, with minimal follow- up, those types of cases can be abated if corrected at the time of inspection. >> what if those cases are done repeatedly? if there is a complaint and a time clock that is fixed, what if it happens again one week later, then one week later, if there are repeat violators? >> an excellent question. if we can document the history with that is the issue, constantly setting that time clock, contrary to what is required, that may be a case that we can send to the

directors hearing to get an order of abatement. it may not be sufficient to be relegated to the city attorney, but as you will see, when i get to the recommendations upon this analysis, there are some recommendations that i have. moving to the next category of analysis in the notice of violation issues. required by those that were distributed within the timeframe, with respect to the commissioners' recommendation at the office meeting. we had to do what was on the notice of violation. first, we wanted to review the breakdown percentages this

month. as you can see, the majority were in a time frame between 50 and 40. when we get to the recommendations, i will be recommending a shared policy on that. usually in situations where do need more time, you will see that i want to tighten those time frames with key scenarios to follow specific policy. nevertheless, i wanted to identify that analysis for you. it was held for for us to see this with respect to the recommendations. the mixed category is a breakdown of actual compliance time frames. we had to go through these individually, looking at

complaint data sheets to determine what happened in each case. as you can see, when you look at the fact that we are over 50% in an alleged violations, i wanted to also note for you that within this category of the breakdown, this includes cases that had notices of violation issued, and those that did not. we wanted to make sure that you saw it breaks down across the spectrum time frame as required in the notice of violation so that you could compare apples to apples, so to speak. the last one that you see are those cases that did not have a notice of violation issued. in looking at this information, of one of the things that i should say is that when you have

inspectors dealing with a heat complaint, there are a lot of other issues taking up their attention. because a heat complaint can initially have various other items in the complaint as well, which can be an assortment of other types of things, others of which could be safety hazards as well. one thing that we saw when we look at the notice of violation, as issued by the housing division, there is one time frame to comply with that is currently on the form, to comply with all other items on the notice of violation. and if there is a specific time frame for compliance, it is generally in the actual item in the notice of violation.

we are looking at two possible time frames. one for the remaining items and the other for a possible life safety hazards. what i would like to do now is moved to specific b. just to show you that, on the basis of this analysis, i would like to commend the commission for asking for this information. it gave them the opportunity to have the time to do this particular analysis that i would not otherwise have been able to do. what we tried to provide for you are the, first of all, the type of systems that we might have in the building. essential systems or individual heat sources. second is the need for the violation. there are other scenarios that exist, but these of the most prevalent.

it could be a time clock, a missing thermostat, but it has to be located outside of an owner manager unit. in an apartment building, in a locked box that is in a habitable room, typically it is an area that holds some light. other types of violations or radiators that may have problems, radiator valves, the boiler -- usually those types of scenarios are going to take longer with respect to repair. a single unit that is operable, perhaps needing maintenance. the use of the typical scenario is that we see. what i have suggested and recommended is tighten the frames for compliance. something new that we do not currently do, initiating, as

part of the instruction to the property owner, a time frame that they must but only complete the work, but initiate the work. that allowed the eighth part of the notice of violation. if you have to repair a single heat source within a unit and you have 70 days to do it, to complete that work, we are also saying that the notice of violation must now specify that you must initiate that work within a period of time that would also include not only the work, but filing permits to that process started sooner rather than later. the last part of that would be if the time frames specified in the notice of violation, based on his recommended policies, if they are not met, we must make sure that we have a case within the administrative hearing within 70 days. having said that, there are

advantages to be had with the addressing heat complaints. first, there are only required in apartments of 16 units, or hotels of 12 units or more, when we go in to do the inspection, we will ask the complainant if they have information to the point where they are able to make contact with the property owner. we do not always have that information. unfortunately, that means that the first time the property owner might know about the complaint and will be when they get the required note -- required notice. the timeframe for compliance does not start until the notice is issued through the process. we may hand at the property owner a handwritten copy in the

field, but it does not mean that the time clock starts until they get the notice that is generated when the inspector has to come back from the field. so that the property owner is been dealing with data entry. generally we saw that notices are issued very close to the time of inspection. but then it has to go through the mail and get to the property owner. currently the jurisdiction has no requirement for rental properties on multi-family dwellings having a contract for some or phone number on fire with -- on file with us. that is something we would like to see in the future in terms of the field, helping us to keep these time frames firm in short. >> what do we have right now that is in character? >> as far as what happens when we go to the code enforcement

process, if they do not respond, they will have a itemized billing that, as of the amendments last november, we no longer have to wait for a director's hearing, and that goes back to the beginning of the initiation of a complaint. they are paying a license fee and they do get the first inspection as a result of that. if they get this work done within the time frame specified, the carrot is that they will not be assessed for cost, which is $170 per inspector and administrator. that adds up. it used to be that the typical code enforcement cases were $500 to $600, but now it can get to $6,000 very quickly. there is now, in bold print,

associated with that saying, that if you do not provide within the time frame specified, fees will be imposed within the time period. letting them know that it is going to start, there is a carrying fee. >> so, the short-term recommendations here with basically denbigh, at some point, activated? >> absolutely. they would have been activated today. my staff is going to the fact that, since we are at september, we are starting heat sweep now. this particular policy, i wanted to bring it to you to get input from the technician. if you like it, it will be implemented immediately. >> michele, i think that these are great. they will go a long way toward

addressing the issues that come up. what do we need to do to facilitate inspectors being able to issue the notice in the field? more equipment? >> the thing about #11 here in the managers' meeting, and i would like to commend the director for the frequent meetings, it will be signed presumably soon. i would assume that that is something that will ultimately be implemented as a part of that process. we are very excited to be able to do that. it will relieve lesson the amount of time and give the inspector more information in the field where they can print that, post that, come back to put that in the system. this will them relief shorten that the initial time. . >> i like the recommendations.

i have a question about these statistics. it appears to me, and it looks like the actual resolutions to these cases, that the number of cases resolved after 30 days is 87. is that correct? >> for that particular calendar year. because of the amount of time. >> if you look back, there were actually 126 fees issued. is it safe to assume that most of those penalties become the 87? >> i could not necessarily say, some of them could be carried over from the year before. well, actually, no. we are