not -- i am afraid something got lost in the translation because this is not quite what i requested. my request was one of general data and a little bit of analysis by staff. not so much of where the cases are, but what the nature is, and how we deal with them. i wanted to know, you know, at the process by which staffed sense stuff to litigation committee and on to the city attorney -- staffed since stopped to litigation committee and on to the city attorney. -- staff sends stuff to litigation committee and to the city attorney. i do appreciate the cost

analysis that pam presented. i wanted to see more of that from the city attorney. not just the cost per case, but how long it takes. and if there are some types of cases that cost us more than others. i wanted to get all this so we could consider the cost of litigation. litigation is not the only way to resolve issues. amnesty for code violations, or any other type of ways we could resolve some of these issues. being cognizant that there are some neighborhoods that. the brunt of this more than others. it costs us as a department. i really appreciate the overview and the work that the staff has put into this.

i would still like to request that we work on getting some data together and a little bit of analysis of about what these cases are, how much they cost us, and how we can do things a little differently. >> i concur. if it becomes an issue with the information might be sent -- i recommend that we do this in the closed session. i would like to add that to the record. >> that is along the lines of what i would suggest. i thought maybe initially, we could set up a meeting with the head of our code enforcement team where we would meet to explore the kinds of questions you want answers to. and then we could make an assessment as to whether we would need to meet in closed session or there are other things that could be part of the public agenda. >> maybe before our next -- i do

not know if it will happen before our next meeting -- the city attorney gives us what we requested, which is more of a sustained drop -- -- succinct reports that can be disseminated. >> sounds good. >> ok. >> any further commissioner comment? is there any public comment on this item? >> my name is robert davis. i was wondering about something. i did not come to speak about this, but i have paperwork from the website about a building near my house.

it looks like it was a complaint from 2000 to about illegal conversion and a building used this building when it -- about illegal conversion and a building used. before it gets to the litigation committee, how many of been -- how many open directors hearings notices are there? where are they? here is a case, this came right off your website, 2009, it takes seven years for this building to go to the directors hearing. what happened after that? >> any further public comment?

item #7. >> can i say something? just to add to what we are trying to get for a response back to the commission that this issue of open director's decision -- i know we are trying to clean up all this stuff. how many open notices of violation with no resolution are there? how do we get them resolved? >> item #7, discussion of possible action regarding a proposed updates to existing administrative bulletin ab-093, implementation of green building

regulations, to incorporate the current san francisco green building regulations, and other related local ordinances. >> good afternoon. i am with the green building team. one of my responsibilities is to assist the department of building inspection in the maintenance of chapter 13-c of the building code and the bulletin itself. i do not have an extensive presentation for you. this is the completion of the process that the adviser -- advisory committee detailing how updates to the green building ordinance that were adopted back in 2010 would be implemented on an ongoing basis. i am happy to answer any questions, but i'm not sure what level of detail you are interested in. i appreciate your time.

>> questions on the commission? >> director day, did you have anything to say about this? >> this -- these are regulations are reported in to our code. they need to be put into our code. this is something that is needed. >> do we need a motion on this? >> we will take public comment. >> is there public comment on this item? >> i am here to express some concerns about two components of this. the water contention program -- retention program. all things will change

eventually. we are not afraid of change. it is unfair to the industry and it's unfair to the department to be asked to enforce something or implement something when nobody knows how do it. when we go down to the department of building inspection and we ask someone, whether we supposed to do, nobody can show us. -- what are we supposed to do, nobody can show us. they sent this over to the puc. they tell us, read the criteria. we can read it, but there is interpretation. the department has some obligation. it is not necessarily this department. obligation to give examples, how do you want to see this implemented? i could go down to the plumbing department tomorrow and i can ask them, if there are 40 inspectors, 39 of the 40 would draw it on a piece of paper and a book the exact same way. if i asked a similar question,

how do i do my water retention program? i will get a blank stare. when i go to the puc and i ask them, they tell me to go figure it out. it is not acceptable to hear from the puc to go figure it out. there were started under one set of rules and now the rules are being forced upon us in the middle of the game. it is going to happen. it is not a question of if it's gone to happen. -- if it is going to happen. how do we make this a smooth transaction? we are stuck in this. we're both getting out of date information from the puc. -- vague information from the puc. i would ask that these two components be delayed until someone can come up with a clear program that is understandable. and then it is reasonable to

seek enforcement and implementation. thank you. >> the matter before you today is limited to 13-seat of the building code. -- 13-c of the building code. the primary source of regulation of gray water and is the building department interpretation of the green building -- i am willing not here to be a technical -- i am not here to be a technical comment on that. when the gentleman was referring to the water retention, it was a reference to storm water management. this code does have some storm

water management requirements that a reference the ratings systems and the state code. the implementation model is consistently referred to the storm water design guidelines. the most -- most products would need to comply with the storm water design guidelines based on the size of the project. it is largely a separate matter and mostly what remains about storm water management is a reference to other coach in place in the city. so that process -- other coach in place in the city. so the process would be another matter for your consideration.

>> if we could have the next speaker. >> again, i of been around here for two months -- i has been around here for two months. go to the planning department, they do not know. go to puc, they did not have a clear and concise process to follow. you are on an island, you do not know what direction, you are told to hire an engineer. section 13-c is part of the building code. i would ask for you to continue this item. explain how we implement the best -- implement this. implementation is a complete breakdown of policy.

thank you. >> there -- we will close public comment. director, with regard to policy and implementation, this is going to have to be approved at some stage. as somebody -- it is very important we have that clear direction so we can do it right. where do you stand in regard -- is there somebody could bring here? >> we have had several presentations on storm water. we can bring our chief plumbing inspector back to talk about it. puc has been here and explained it. we had presentations before. >> where they both here at the same time? >> yes. >> this is important and it has to be implemented.

it is causing a lot of confusion. what i would like to see -- they can go one testimony and say they are all on the same page. >> certainly. >> commissioner comments? >> i appreciate there are new commissioners. we have been working on this for many years. i am prepared to go ahead with it, but out of deference to new commissioners, i am happy to do that. a lot of these issues should be dealt with at the code advisory committee. they have expertise on this

issue. we do not. i rely heavily on code advisory committees at -- recommendation. i am not a professional builder. they have asked us to approve this. assuming they have heard the same concerns from the public. like i said, i will be happy to continue this for next month to get -- when we have come back to the commission and made a presentation, please also take into consideration whether the code asks for a specific item explaining how things are supposed to be built or the code reference a performance measure. the building needs to perform to this standard. obviously, a performance

measures is gun to be up for interpretation about how the building -- is going to be up for interpretation. i would like to know how our inspector interprets these things. what do we tell the builders or the designers? do we tell them, you need to figure it out? or do we give them examples to make their building perform at that level? those are two different things. whether it is a performance measure or an actual physical requirement that you need to provide, this material or this item. i think we're going to run into the same program when it comes to the ada issue as well. how do you interpret it? how do you advise people to get to that point -- to the performance level?

>> if there is no objection, we will continue this to the call of the chair. one or the other. the next meeting. >> ok. >> started the that. -- sorry about that. >> this item will be continued to the next meeting. >> thank you. item number nine, discussion and possible action regarding the proposed update to existing administrative bullet -- administrative bulletin ab-032. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

this is a long overdue bulletin. i highly recommend we can improve it and the staff can use it. i am the deputy director. any questions you want to ask? >> can you tell us how it differs from what we have been doing? is this legitimizing -- >> we are combining -- before, we had a site permit. we tried to streamline to go through the process. >> that is great.

people expressed a concern about confusion about this. this is to resolve that confusion. thank you. >> what you have done is to have taken the site permit process and you lay it out exactly what you need to undo for the different addendums. there is nothing new -- what you need to do for the different addendums. there is nothing new or different. there is nothing different here, tom, from before? >> it is a lot better because we have more explanation, what you can do, what you cannot do. >> i did not find anything different. it is good to have it in black and white. how do you feel about all these

addendums? >> you approved a site permit first before we accept it. when we ask them to submit the schedule, we review it and approve it. >> good, thank you for that. commissioners? cops on the cover sheet of the bulletin, it said the purpose -- >> on the cover sheet of the bulletin. does that affect that no construction can be again until plans are approved? >> cites permit is only a conceptual drawn. and then you can -- site permit

is only a conceptual drawing. of course, there is an option. you can do a separate permit. it takes the time to get the foundation. they want to speed up the process. >> after construction? >> if somebody wants to start the product, it could be five months. that is a long time. a lot of the project can be going forward. it is good policy at it works well.

ok, thank you. in more questions? -- any more questions? do we have public comment? >> public comment on this item? do we have a motion to approve? is there a second? all in favor? the motion passes. item number 10, report on status of operations to include management by objective reports from different divisions of dbi. >> a department of building inspection, one of my divisions under mae is the customer

service's management division. what they'd do is collect data on a monthly basis from each of the areas. they compile it into a report and we have monthly reports, quarterly reports. we also have this report that i provided to you it is what we provide to the controllers office. it gives explanations of how we measure it, what the concept is, and if we have not been meeting targets. there was a study done last fiscal year that did a sample bars to make sure we had all of

the back of information and everything was provided to make these things reflect reality. we were able to have the majority of the issues addressed. these measures are also used by the mayor's office in preparing the budget submission. that will come out in june. we feel pretty confident that these accurately reflect our operations. what i thought we would do, if it is acceptable to you, leave it up to you to ask questions. we have the other deputy directors here. address your concerns and if we need to come back and respond, we would be glad to. whatever your pleasure is. >> thank you. i requested this because in

light of the last few commissions, i feel -- thank you for putting this together. in light of the constant involvement of the department, these performances gives us insight down the road as to what we need to be focused on. if things are going well, if they're scoring 100%, making their goals, great. the ultimate goal is to look at each department and see if they are meeting what they are required to do based on what they should be doing. the question i have for the commissioners, how often would you like to see this? my thought, and i open this up, is this something we could do on a monthly basis? how do feel a monthly basis? is that doable?

it tells us everything that is going on, so we could keep track of what is changing. >> doing this type of report on a monthly basis takes a lot of time. it is not just on the person who does the aggregation and she is also involved in trying to get those reports down and the records request done. it also requires a significant amount of time on tom's staff and ed's staff. if you would cycled through these, a figure out some areas that you would like more information on, and we could provide them. as they get through the next

several months, you've got an idea from each of the areas. one thing i forgot to tell you is during -- nine -- 2007, they did look at this performance measures and did work with a very large group on are these meaningful? did these make sense? one of the things we've said before it is a lot of this depends on how much stock you have. to the extent we are getting things filled, we will be able to improve several of these measures. i am trying to be cognizant of the fact that you do need information and we know unwelcome discussion -- and welcome discussion on this, but try to make it something that we can do without adversely affecting everything else. this report is done on -- is

based on six months of data. their art -- all lot of these, we do collect on a monthly basis. sometimes is like extracting teeth to get the information because everybody is very busy trying to get out and do the inspections. commissioner walker: i think the concept of looking at this, discussing what is important, my hope is that we can, as we are putting our new computer system together, we design these kinds of reports into the system so that you can push a button and get a report. a lot of this is. we would be able to know timing, if we designed a system to capture it. maybe we could be looking at

these and get them on and every other month kind of thing, or quarterly, something like that. think about how to get the information out of a new system. and maybe we can determine what is relevant and important. >> i believe is the citizen portal part of the system has the ability for us to collect statistics and put something together. we have not -- we are not there yet for that discussion. we want to make sure we get the right people in the room.