of environment, and the community to actually come forward with a recommendation that addresses the issue. i think it makes more sense in existing buildings and new construction -- a van in new construction, but -- it makes more sense in existing buildings than in new construction. but at this point i do not think we need to vote on it. >> since 2002, we have been working with the 2002 udc code. this has been effective since 2002. and everything that has applied for a permit since 2002 can use this section. it is only those who apply after 2011 that cannot. it has to have windows. gregg's i hear you. brecht's thank you, mr. conner. -- >> i hear you. >> thank you mr. connor. commissioners, do you feel that we need to continue?

>> if you like. >> at this point, based on what commissioner walker said, there needs to be more discussion on this. i want to be clear on this. this would go back to the code advisory, is that correct? >> maybe we could get some staff in place and then make a recommendation through the code advisory and then us. gregg's we could have staff and the code advisory committee -- >> we could have staff and the code advisory committee present at the next meeting. and may be resolved it because they voted against it. >> i also like to ask how many projects that want to get this rule deleted? other projects are designed

without this exemption. information on that. -- >> i would have to get you information on that. >> i would think we ought to have more input from coded by three. when i first -- code advisory. when i first read this, i thought it was old warehouses that were converted into live and work spaces. a lot of those places became more live band work. -- live than work. i think one of the issues is zoning. i would like to get something put in planning, how they looked at it, too. >> for the next meeting and if the staff could give us a report

on that then, that we will have a discussion. is it just staff? bourdy want someone from the planning department as well? brecht's -- or do you want someone from the planning department as well? >> yes. >> i can help a little bit with the process. the san francisco building code provides that all code amendments are initiated by the director based on input from various sources rather than the code advisory committee, the board of examiners. it is fairly open in its process. it has been established that the code changes that the director puts forward go through a particular process with the structure advisory committee and the code advisory committee, and there are other steps. and eventually, it goes back to the building inspection commission for a hearing under the charter that is all that is

required. -- for a hearing. under the charter that is all that is required. you're not required to take action. and did you do take action or not, that will depend on if it goes forward to the board of supervisors. cracks the director is responsible for implementing -- >> the director is responsible for implementing a code change. >> that is correct. gregg's -- >> has there been a proposal from you to change it? >> no, but i can take direction from the commission to take it to the code advisory committee. >> that is correct. if they want to in cent or initiate something, they can make a request that the director consider code amendments. then it would go through the process. >> my preference would be to address this when and if the

director feels is appropriate and if you get more information from the relevant departments as to this particular issue. i would like to see an answer to the question of how often it happens, when is it needed, what are the consequences, what is the downside to doing this? i am concerned about people in high density situations having access to help the air. i have been in residential areas and hotels downtown that have -- that do not have it and it affects people's lives. you've got to create habitation that makes people healthy and keep people healthy. i'm not sure i even want it done. i'm not sure i would vote to direct youtube. >> i can certainly find out the background on this particular

code change because every code change has to have some kind of comment through the code advisory committee and testimony through the code advisory committee, even the subcommittees. i can find out the background before this denial letter. i can bring that to you. >> great. >> that is discussed and we will take this on at the next meeting then. next item. >> are we going back to no. 5? >> yes. correct item number five, a general update from the litigation committee on the process of dealing with outstanding cases. >> i believe i'm going to be doing -- as a member of the litigation committee, just a brief overview of what we do as the litigation committee. and then an update on where we are standing with a response to

the submission of the request from commissioner melgarde. the litigation commission consists of three commissioners. is president lynch, myself, and mccarthy. we have code enforcement effort through our building department where we try to ensure that all folks doing work and providing housing for tenants in san francisco are applying the building code. when it happens that people are not, either in the case of blighted properties, complaints from neighbors about apparent code violations on the exterior of the building, or tenants within the building, we actually issue notice of violation and we, as a department, go out and

say that you have to resolve the issue. there is an extensive process within the department that allows our staff to work with these folks with these violations to fix them and resolve them, which is our goal. it goes through a process that would be the directors hearing where the director determines to support staff decision or make alteration and ultimately, it gives the opportunity for the project sponsor to resolve the issues. if they are not happy with that, they can appeal to our abatement appeals body, which is our commission, to ask us to resolve some of those issues. the litigation committee deals directly with those problems

that do not get resolved through our process. when the director has asked a project to chair the notice of violation, when we have gone to the staff and said you must resolve this situation, if that person still does not resolve the situation, then the staff will bring a project to the committee to assess and to agree on whether or not we take legal action. by the time it gets to litigation, there may already be a lean on the property through our process of the directors hearing, or not. but this gives us the ability to file a lawsuit to help resolve the situation, resolving the violation on the property. the goal of which is to create health and safety, safe housing for people living in housing and the tenants.

the litigation meets every couple of months to look at the cases brought forward by either the housing position to look at the various issues in there, mechanical, electrical, plumbing. we discuss whether or not to refer the cases over to the city attorney. and then when we do that, the city attorney and as a letter saying, we will see you if you do not -- does send a letter saying, we will sue you if you do not handle the violation. this starts the case moving forward. or we can say that as a mitigation committee we would like to see more actions before

we do that. we also have a pretty extensive coding forsman partner with some nonprofits in the area that -- code enforcement partner with some nonprofits in the area that go in and communicate with the landlord or the tenant to help us resolve these issues without having to litigate. nonetheless, we still have cases that are referred and are ongoing and that our department is trying to resolve the outstanding notice of violation. we meet every couple of months. we get an update on all of our open cases for the city attorney.

we also review potential renewed actions from the various staff members. we have been going over briefly our report. we meet in closed session, as we are allowed to do and required to do when the city is considering any action against somebody. back remains a private, closed- session item -- that remains a private, closed-session item. therefore is that i went over, just to give a ballpark number in a number of cases, we have roughly 80 cases that are open and outstanding. we have a settlement. we have a court decision. there might actually be an actual dollar amount attached to those, or we may be in the process of getting that. and we have roughly 80 cases open, like i said. as much as we know, these

reflect about $6 million in actual dollar amounts that have been determined by the courts already that's -- that are owed to us. that is not to say that we always get that, because in some of these cases, the bank owns it or we do not know who owns it, or somebody may be in bankruptcy and we have to reduce the amount we are given. but as to the dollar amounts settlements that we know of out of these eight cases, it is of little over $6 million. -- 80 cases, it is a little over $6 million. 40 cases have yet to be determined as to the amount owed. what we did it this last meeting in order to respond to the request from the commissioner is to ask the city attorney to present to us in a form that we

can share with the commission to list a brief description of what it is, and the status of these cases. and of the $6 million, let me also say that it is split between the different departments that are included in the action. for instance, it is not necessarily just a building code violation that we are litigating about. it may be a planning issue. and it may be something that

they are adding to us. do you want to come talk about anything that i may have lost over? >> we have been keeping track on a yearly basis how much we have put out per case and how much we have received per case. i have to tell you, as commissioner walker mentioned, there is a provision in the business professionals code that requires a certain amount to be retained by the city attorney's office to prosecute or a dress code violation issues. -- to address code violation issues. that is not something we can change. i think it is state law. i do not think it can be changed by the city itself. the second issue is that we do

not -- the chances of us receiving a judgment on any case -- you know, on a specific case. the chance of it is an exception to the case. the springs are very problematic -- these things are very problematic. to whatever extent the money we finally get this posted to our account, there is a lot between the expenses and the revenue. in addition to that, even though you think the city attorney's office is huge, they have a small finance group. i have asked in the past -- the

managing attorney who takes care of the office, if we could get a better idea of what is out there per case. i have not received that. there are probably various reasons. the size of their finance area. i do have some statistics that i can share. in the meeting that can be attached to its -- in the meeting that can be attached to it is a suspect. what this shows -- the other thing is a lot of the

information regarding the case is confidential. based on the city attorney. i could not get to the hall commission -- i could provided to the litigation committee -- what we are getting build on each of these cases. the spreadsheet is bigger than me. the effort that is going into the case -- you know how much the assistant and the city attorney and if they have some miscellaneous expenses, is posted at any given year. but you do not really know -- it does not tell you whether we are close to resolution or not. that is information provided to the city attorney's office.

we looked at 2006-2007 to 2010- 200011. all the revenues we received is that the end of the year now. it is usually july or august of the next year. this includes all the cost to the city attorney's office. phone calls that may be related to getting general advice or specific advice on a case -- >> even if we called john to ask a question about our job as a commission, that is included in the building? it is not just related --

>> they are an outside entity or even an insight into the cause the city attorney's office based on our case. -- or even an inside entity called the city attorney's office based on our case. they basically -- part of it was the budget situation. we are starting to get to revenues coming in, which are greater than the expenses. some cases are ramping up. the money has been received. i do receive information on a

monthly basis. it is usually at the end of the year. how much money we are getting. in some cases, i know how much is going to each of the entities. i do not know what they do with it, but i have to trust that other departments are doing their job. the money is not supposed to be used for a general fund the issue. again, that is another department, other than me. the second thing is that we do, you know, remain at a vigil on

-- in terms of making sure that something is being done on these cases. that is being ramped up. i had to miss a couple of meetings. not only is the pressure on to start certain cases, but it is to resolve and pushe. in many cases, these people are bankrupt. they do not have anything. there are all sorts of reasons that their property -- it is not being handled early on in the process. i think there is always an amount that you put out to take care of these, and never get anything back. commissioner walker, you have been on the litigation committee. i think we are putting more pressure to have things

resolved. >> on the number of cases, many of these have multiple property units. you have a situation where there is a landlord that has continuous problems in all their different properties. what we do is take the time to package them. there are a couple of instances where they are big cases because they include a lot of different properties with all the same problems. i have asked, too, over and over again if we could get a more sustained listing of the moneys we are spending versus the work that is being done in a more comprehensive way. i have gotten a commitment from the city attorney's office to provide that. hopefully, it will be able to address the commissioner's

questions and advice the commissioners on a regular basis better not on the litigation committee as to what we are doing. -- that are not on the litigation committee as to what we are doing. >> i have a quick question. those 80 cases, what is the split between the violations in housing, building it? >> they are usually mixed. sometimes they're brought forward by housing, but they include building code violations. especially in the residential, the big buildings, it is the housing inspectors that find it. decaying stairwells, when does the need to be replaced -- when

does that need to be replaced. in one case, there was a foundation that needed to be removed. it is usually amax. >> thank you. -- it is usually a mix. >> thank you. i really appreciate the overview of for the litigation committee is. and its relationship with the city attorney. this was 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 before it gets to the litigation committee, how many of been --