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 that must go up for referral. not all cases, even if they have an open order of abatement, as those of you who sit on the litigation matter know, the only thing that is remaining on that case is an order and not appropriate for referral.

we have to go back, do more inspections and look at the code enforcement tools we have to encourage the property owner to comply. one of those things is the assessment of costs and the revisions you approved. not only are you actuary -- not only are you occurring in hourly rate, but you are occurring more time as well. we have an itemized bill going before the board next weekend we hope the board will approve that. those that have not paid will get put on the tax bill when they have to pay the whole tax bill. the last thing we have been doing is to focus on a property owner with multiple violations on multiple properties. we have at least three of those scenarios referred to the city attorney right now. one of those, you have probably heard because of the recent press conference we had was the

blending case where we got an egregious settlement between that city and county of san francisco between multiple property owner primarily in the day bayview, and $800,000 settlement agreement before trial and before refiling the case. we had to go back and refer the city attorney twice. the housing inspector did a tremendous amount of work on this. his experiences as a line inspector and his experiences in getting these debated. >> could afternoon, commissioners. this case had 12 outstanding notices of violation when i took over the bay view in 2009, including stairs, heat, and central alarm systems.

to me, there is nothing more important as a field house inspector -- there's a person who lives every day with a substandard condition like lack of heat, water, wall damage, faulting -- faulty sinks, doors, windows, electrical receptacles, lighting and stairs. it also means a responsible and lord is at a disadvantage because they're following the law while others are not. getting these violations corrected is extremely difficult work. while most landlords are responsible, some put a tremendous amount of pressure, stress, and abuse on the inspectors were simply trying to get the violation corrected. in order to be successful, the district housing inspector must have sufficient resources to get these violations corrected. when the resources are provided, the san francisco system has proven extremely efficient. there is nothing more important

and many of my colleagues agree. the issue of outstanding notices of violation for have the ability is one of the primary reasons why this commission came to being in the first place. in the last six months, the chief housing inspector has led a dramatic effort to sharply reduce the number of open notices of violation and housing inspection services. thank you. >> thank you. i was remiss in telling you where we are in our open cases. i have been pushing to try to get these done and when we get new inspectors, we want to have as clean a situation as possible. i was remiss in not indicating the -- pam and vivian and others have been wanting to get those positions filled and we are in the process of doing that.

thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon commissioners. i live in the bayview and i have three examples of houses in my neighborhood. one is on oakdale, 1748. this is a picture of that property. i don't know if it's going to come up or not. this property as you can see from the handout has been on the radar since 1997. at that time, there is a task force inspection and the division -- the case was updated at -- the case was

updated and actually this was a success story in no small way because this building has a permit and three permits were polled, one for the roof, one for the foundation -- it looks like the rural south, but it is a success. in another year, it will be a house and someone will be living there. that is what we want. we want these properties to be fixed. that's all we are asking. these houses, these properties, just fix them. if we could use the power of the commission to do that, that is what we are asking. why is the -- why are they inspecting a house that is abandoned? under what circumstances with the housing inspection people go out? if you see all of the

abatements, it seems to be a waste. my second example is just down the street -- all of these houses are within three blocks of each other. if you look here, the first complaint was in the year 2000. there was a second notice cent in 2005. where was anybody in that five- year time frame between 2000 and 2005? how can that be? the second thing, the inspector went out and found the address was incorrect. it was actually the house next door and just said case admitted. it was a different division. the third case -- i hope you don't mind if i go on a couple of extra minutes. the third case is 1963 and

oakdale. same idea. all of these people, all these different apartments. this house is next to another house surrounded by one fence and in one case, in may of 2012, the case was opened and inspected and updated in the same day when in fact -- if you live around the corner, there's a huge dog in the yard. i think part of the problem -- there are two problems. when the cases are assigned, there is no looking back to see what the original complaints were. the second problem is the specialization of the inspectors in a way that takes away from the power of the department. housing has their own inspectors -- >> i'm sorry. i have to a lot of time evenly. >> in one case, the house was inspected by a housing inspector when it was an empty house. >> thank you. is there any more public

comment? >> i have a question -- i think it question and in the case of a single-family house, why is housing inspection out there instead of building a vacant house or abandoned house? >> it depends on the language in that complaint. i had a conversation with the gentleman earlier and if the complaint is that it is a vacant building, i think the time when that came in, the building legislation may not have been in existence. we may go out to see if there is dilapidated conditions and we would look to see whether we can determine whether the building is indeed vacant. sometimes somebody may be occupying it. if we could determine it wasuilt building a deflation was in

effect, we would update the complaint and it would go to code enforcement because they address that particular ordinance. that is some of the reasons why that would occur. >> let me ask a follow-up question on that. how are these complaints assigned? who makes the decision that goes to housing or code enforcement? >> i will answer that portion -- it depends on how the complaint comes in. a lot of times, the planes that come directly to the division and they will make simultaneously complaints to various divisions because they can't go to the individual counter will be put in to the tracking system and once it is put in, we can see that duplication.

if the complaint comes through the internet, there has to be an assignment so there is a system for that depending on the checks and it will go to a different division. if a complaint comes in to the general number, we will get more information and make a determination which division to send them. they may need to make a complaint elsewhere. it depends because we have so many calls, there -- with some make coats, they are complex and we have to make referrals of side depending on what happens. depending on what the actual concern is, we try to do a good job to find out what the real issues are. >> a large portion of the

housing code is based on the building code and there is overlap. it really depends on the last phone number you use. if you are right tenant complained, you don't call. you call housing. there's a comfort level to call housing and set a house across the street needs paint or is a blight condition. blight for the third floor is relatively new. it was always handled by housing. vacant buildings is two and a half years or more. it is a relatively new program and we're still trying to get some of the bugs out and be more responsive. but it is fairly subjective. things are improving in bayview hunters point and a lot of it is market driven.

i know there is a big shortage for anything going on the market now. a lot of flipping of houses, that is how good it does, that is not the case three or four years ago. the shining light here is that the market is correcting itself. we will certainly do our job. we have a cluster of buildings on third street and owned by two elderly brothers that are vacant. there are squatters living there and we are looking at the -- we're not looking at the possibility, we plan to issue an order of abatement. this is uncharted ground. it's the first time we've issued an emergency order for blight.

we will give them an emergency order and give them so many days to do it and then they are on the puck to do something about it. the last time we did this was on 23 would street and we're still waiting to be paid. that asseverate years ago when it was $148,000. the commission should be prepared -- should be prepared, and this is that the city attorney for litigation. the city attorney came back with the idea of an emergency order and make them knocked down and if they don't, d b i can go ahead and foot the bill. sending everything to the city attorney is not that and all. sometimes it creates more problems. anyone who sits on the litigation committee will tell you there are cases that have been there for years and years with no results. >> our policy is to have

gentrification and flipping of properties be the answer to blighted communities -- i don't think that's consistent with our values as a city. i do want to ask a strategy question, which is its great you got that settlement with the landlord who had multiple properties i commend you for being so dogged but it makes me wonder if it isn't a particular landlord but a geographic area? if we have any kind of strategy to pursue it in terms of the geographic concentration of properties in that respect, and has a profound impact on the community and the folks who live there to have a great

concentration of properties that are blighted or abandoned or have caught fire or whatever. our system allows us to track geographically in that way. the answer is yes and there are more blighted buildings in the southeast portion along with the mission district and that is strictly economic gentrification. it is not our policy but it's a reality and we're part of it when contractors and developers go in to hunter's point, they do buy these blighted properties that have been sitting there for years. it is not a system because, but we see where the permits are going. most of the blight is in the southeast portion of san francisco and the people who own these houses are