joint memorandum of understanding that was executed by both departments back in april 2007, which laid out a protocol for the efficient collaboration of the two departments with respect to when the department of building inspection received complaints that involved housing authority public buildings, not section a. what that did is laid out, when we got to comply within a certain number of days, which transmit them to e-mail, designate the parties would send it to, they needed to respond, depending on whether it was a life safety has alleged, or whether it was a non-hazardous type of complaint. since that time, we have had about 173 complaints received in occupancy -- by occupants in those types of buildings. you have before you the

spreadsheet that lays out the types of complaints they were when they came in and the nature of the complaint. since you received the spread sheet, we had another complaint come in, which i have been told may have been abated shortly, but we will begin information from the housing authority. i have also just passed out a summary of of that table so that it makes it easier to understand. for those in the audience, it is agenda item number five, a fellow summary. as you can see, the bulk of the types of complaints we have gone really have surrounded mold, mildew, hot water, plumbing issues. we have given you some percentages on the total number of complaints that come in on a leak -- yearly basis. of the 173 cases, we only have one active, the one that just

came in. we do have a representative from the housing authority who told me earlier than that actually had been abated, and they will be sending us the information. so the question is, what did the mou do to improve things? it made things more efficient. as soon as we got the template within one to two business days, to send it to the entities within the house and a door that we traditionally worked with but also the general counsel's office. as soon as they got that as well, it meant that everybody of importance at the housing authority had the information we've got. let me separate that out from complaints that may go from the occupants of housing authority buildings directly to the landlord. that is a separate issue that the housing authority should address. i am not familiar with what they do. they used to have a separate #.

i do not know if they use that or 311. that is not something within the purview of the department of building inspection. i also want to make known that we have a housing rights commission, one of our vendors who works with individual that live in housing authority properties with respect to out reach and to assist to make sure items are corrected. unfortunately, sarah was here but she had to leave. she is the director of the organization. it is my understanding that we have some entities that intersect with her and that we do have some things under the con fines of dbi. i understand that he addresses some of these issues as well. this has been a successful program. as you can see, we have been getting very quick response from the housing authority. a lot of times, we are getting complaints from individuals who

tell us one of the reasons for contacting us is that they want to use our documentation for purposes of perhaps getting a section 8 voucher or getting relocated to another location. if they want a copy of the documentation, we're happy to give it to them. we also availed ourselves to any additional service we can provide to the housing authority with respect to identify and housing code violations. they are required to not only deal with the type of infection -- inspections that they have done, but also according to the city attorney's office, the code enforcement must be fought with the housing code. we feel we have been able to work effectively with them on this and we would recommend that this program be continued. >> thank you so much for doing this. i know that we had a hearing last year to get up to speed,

get the numbers on what the issues were. as a tenant representative, i hear from folks in the community. i think that this mou, the partnership we have a housing authority, is one that works really well. when you look at the numbers, from our perspective, it shows that. working together and apart during is important. it would be good, i think, to hear from the housing authority representative to hear what their process is, and if they have members for us about how we can better help and partner in this, but thank you very much for coming. >> good morning, thank you, commissioners. i am the administrator of modernization and development. recently, --

this inspection at mou is actually new to me. since 2007, some of the people who were on your list of contacts are no longer with the housing authority. one thing we want to do is update the contact information. we do appreciate getting information, it is some oversight. perhaps a tenant went directly to your department. we certainly want to know about that right away and correct the situation. maintaining and improving our property is the highest priority for us. they are, however, older, between 50 and 70 years old. we have $240 million of limited capital properties. the capital funding in 1996 that we received from hud -- we are totally dependent on hud

funding. $24 million. three years ago, we were receiving $13 million for capital improvements. this year we're getting $10 million for capital improvements. so we are getting less than half the funding, the properties are older. it is very difficult for us to keep up and make the kinds of improvements want to make on those properties. we have had similar operating budget cuts. the operating fund pays for maintenance and property managers. we have had to cut staff -- i believe about 100 staff people, going from over 400 down to 300 over the past three or four years. our goal is to maintain and improve our properties. we have been able to leverage outside funding. we were successful with hope 6 to rebuild five of our properties. we are starting an energy conservation program.

we are doing about $25 million of energy upgrades. some of which greatly reduces our energy costs. others we were able to squeeze into the program, which are high need improvements that do not have a lot of savings, but over the years, because we're able to finance it, $20 million of boilerplate replacements, showers. some of our sites were built without showers. we have done whiting replacement inside and outside properties -- lighting replacement inside and outside properties. low flow toilets, other things that we have been adding. we were able to address not only energy conservation but get some new fixtures, new equipment.

health, safety, livability, those are high priorities, also improvements that maintain the integrity of the property, the exterior waterproofing, window replacement, and those things which do and of having an impact on residents as well as maintaining the longevity of our property. we tried to be as efficient as possible with our shrinking resources. we are actually improving our work order monitor system. by september we hope to have a better, integrated system that gives us immediate information on not only calls that go to 311, but calls and go directly to property managers. that should help us reduce the number of calls that would go to the department of building inspection. we should be able to prioritize and dispatch workers more

efficiently than we are now. although, again, the workers are more limited than they used to be because we have fewer. we're happy to work with your department. we would like to update the contact information. i would like to have not only the property managers and legal department in your reports, but we have area managers that oversee about half a dozen properties each. they are the ones that really help prioritize between developments. if we have a lot of work orders coming in from six developments, we need to be able to prioritize those and get to the health and safety items as quickly as possible. i talked with james and rosemarie. again, we are happy to work with you. we do work with bay area legal aid, sarah as well from the house and rights committee. we are all working to try to

give the best service we can to our residents with what we have available. >> it is really impressive. the numbers reflect a good relationship. i wonder if you guys keep track of the number of complaints you get, like we do. that would be helpful, too, to see what the complaints are. >> we have work orders coming in in two different systems right now. we are trying to integrate them. we get a lot of them every day. several hundred. we will be able to give you much better reports if you ask me to come after september. i should be able to give you some great information on that. >> great. >> i concur, is great to see figures that reflect the

departments working together. that seems to not be the norm these days, so it is good to see. did you have a question, vice- president are? >> -- mar? >> i wanted to thank you for your work. and the housing authority, when i saw how quickly these things were being updated, that was good. half of the private sector would not move as fast. i know you are under funding restraints and things like that. i do have one question, i do not know if it should be directed more towards our staff. for private-sector complaints, we end up sending a bill to the landlords. we do spend a lot of time on this. i am glad that we are doing this collaboration. it is good. i wonder how it affects our

staff time, how we are reimbursed. is that just something that we do for the good of the federal government? >> that is a point well taken, commissioner. one of the people you have to thank for the fact that our spreadsheet keeps track of our time is, when mou was drafted and we were going back and forth to get something that was acceptable for both parties to sign, our city attorney was very helpful advising me on some of the things that we should consider. that is why you see the amount of time we have spent on the spreadsheet. we have kept that information from day one. unfortunately, this is an unfunded service we provide. we do not get money from the housing authority, as you have heard. they have resource issues. we continue to keep track of that information so that we can report that to you, the board,

or whoever needs the information. it is a matter of public record. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on item 5? seeing nine, item six. discussion and possible action regarding a proposed update to existing the minister the bulletin ab-093, implementation of green building regulations, to incorporate the current san francisco green building regulations, other related ordnances, and dbi procedures. >> good morning, commissioners. i have a couple of slides. >> you should be able to click on the computer and it should work.

you have it on power point? he wanted to show it on> whatev. i just have two slide to clarify the autumn before you. i am with the san francisco department of the environment. i have been working for five years now in partnership with the department of building inspection and other agencies to manage and implement the green building requirement that san francisco has adopted. the item we are talking about -- there can be a bit of confusion -- the green building ordinance. this refers to -- which was adopted in 2008 and has been substantially amended in 2011 to reflect the adoption by the state of california, the california green building standard code, which sets lesser

standards and san francisco had already adopted, but on a state basis. integrating the two into one document was the goal of this bulletin so that an applicant would have query about what was exactly required of them in san francisco. there has been an interim bulletin that has been in use since this went into effect because the building department did not need to implement the policy. the changes between the interim bulletin and the bulletin propose before you at the moment are to an adjustment of the seven middle process, which i will go into detail, and then incorporate further updates made by the state to cal green in the interim cycle that would go to non-cream buildings and alterations. there are no changed -- proposed modifications. since this document is a summary of local requirements, there

also integrated into the state requirements in this update. and the last, minor corrections. the interim version did have some typos and errors. on the point of the submittal process, the question that has been coming up is making sure the applicant knows exactly what is required and that they are on a path to succeed. green building requirements can affect any given part of the building. it is essential if they are to achieve the intent of the ordinance, which is to improve the performance of the building to provide a healthier environment for the occupant, and not to add to the cost of construction, they incorporate these ideas at the outset. however, some applicants have requested some flexibility. when they first technology requirements, after some discussion between dbi and the code advisory committee,

department of the environment, a compromise was suggested. that is what is reflected in this document. the compromise is that there would be a simplified submittal at the time of application. it really boils down to the information -- >> that site to submit all is in c1. this encompasses every different type of project type green buildings apply to in san francisco. it has been reviewed by dbi, a code advisory committee, and we reached out to members of the public expressed concern that last meeting to clarify their concerns and by and large their

concerns related to how and uses of non-potable water are regulated in san francisco and relate to other ordinances administered by the public utilities commission. it is not part of chapter 13. i'm happy to answeri think we a thank you for your patience. i know some stakeholders' had concerns and there was a meeting and implementation issues were discussed. we appreciate your patience. i know you wanted to do this a couple of months ago. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? is there a motion?

move to approve? >> second. >> are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? this item passes unanimously. item no. 7 -- discussion on outstanding notices of violation. >> midmorning. and the deputy director. this is meant to be an update on our earlier discussion two or three months ago where we were talking about a large number of complaints and notices of violations that are in the system and do not seem to be resolved. what the staff did, myself and

some management, we looked at everything and there are probably about 12,000 outstanding notices of violations. you can pretty much slice that down the middle. half of it belongs to house and half of that belongs to inspection services. i will only speak on inspection service. rosemary is the chief of the housing and will speak on housing matters and we will bring in the expediter for that. we went after the low hanging fruit because we can do a drop in numbers and a more dramatic change in numbers. that was the complaint.

what we found was a great permit. also a notice of violation. we were looking into their particular piece of property and they ran down and got permits. those permits got signed off. some of them had no merit and they were so vague, along with their date, like i hear noises in the basement or icy pickup trucks outside. we did abate a small number of them. the vast majority did have permits against their property at or around the same time nasa

complaint. it is still on going. we are working on noe valley- castro and the glen park, they're all single-family homes and small apartment buildings, overwhelmingly wood frame. plumbing and electrical is pared back. we did not look only at complaints, we to have somebody working at the code enforcement division that went into their files and they came across a good number and they should be updated.

we have identified them all. it will take a longer process. we try to work with people. i would say the last time i was up here, we had a change in a few -- two or three months since we discussed this. if you give inspection service another five or six months, the numbers should be quite low. we are not going to get all of them. you have the inlaws. they're not going to open the door. why when i open the door for you if i know my kitchen is only 2 years old. i can't get an inspection

because we can't see it with our eyes. it's a small number. the number to keep in mind is there was 151,000 complaints and 66,000 notices of violation from the same list that there was the 6000 outstanding complaints. i think you got between 40% to 50% done. we can certainly get that number is down. not quite as dramatically. probably 1000 are still in play. we're still actively looking at them. we took from 1999 to 2009. once in awhile we looked at 2010 stuff at what we put in place,

like right around thanksgiving, we as directly slowdown. you should work on the 2010 numbers and parent down. the place where most of these complaints reside are doing updates every three or four months asking people what happened to these complaints, it is either abate or tell us why you can't get in here. we've had some discussions getting some warrants to get in. is there any questions?

>> thank you. deputy director? >> thank you members of the commission. the housing inspection division has been at the since january of this year ever since there was any discussion at this commission. because we were facing significant shortages, we needed to look at our caseload and figure out a way to keep our standards, but to be able to go through everything else. the way we did this is to slow down the number of new routine inspections we were performing in dealing with the ones where we had no-shows'. we sent the package out and focused on that and what happens this when you are dealing with a complaint generated system and

systematic enforcement of which you are required to do, you build up more and more cases and periodically, you need to do what i indicated to my staff, at steep exfoliation. you have to go through those cases but it's difficult for the inspector to go back through those. the senior staff and myself met every two or three weeks, looked at the numbers and created a system where the inspectors could go through. if we did some other things. we were before you and we did some shortens the time frames on heat violations. we also doubled up on the amount of cases we can send for the same amount of efforts. instinet sharing it with code enforcement, we have two separate hearings weekly so we can get double the amount of

cases for the same amount of effort. we have also done things like i have indicated before, the assessment of cost poses much more in the process. when i showed you before we have notices that say that as soon as the notice of violation goes out, that is shortening the time frame to get compliance. the most recent thing we have done is rework the form we use for city referral. especially with staffing shortages, the staff have less time to put the summary of information together. we still need core information. we are working with that but it's something that will take shorter to identify those cases tt