the bid, building inspection division, notice of violation status. the number, first notice of violations for 2012, this is notice of violations. these aren't complaints. this 332 notices. the number of second notice of violation code enforcement is 181. that's for the year 2012. the number of first notice of violations between january this year and march is 195 and the number of second notice of violations refer to code enforcement as 19. these are the actual notice of violations. what happens on some of these violations here is that permits required. so, if there is a first notice of violation which requires marked time trying to obtain a permit or obtain an architect line, you usually work with the code -- individual to give it more time. if compliance is not responded to in a reasonable amount of time, a second notice of violation is issued. a lot of these cases that we have for open of notice of

violation, there are plans that follow the planning [speaker not understood] still aren't approved yet. and there are permits that are issued with these to obtain compliance that aren't final yet. we keep the notice of violations open until we get full compliance before we abate them. >> i have a question. so, we got some information about the backlog from the housing division and i wonder if you have a concept of how many open notices of violation are backlogged through code enforcement or the building. >> we have -- >> you know what i'm saying? oftentimes when we do -- when we hear -- >> those backlog, notice of violation, second notice of violation are in code enforcement [speaker not

understood] director's hearing. >> do you know what the number is? >> i don't have that figure. >> that would be helpful because we're trying to -- what we're trying to do is help with the system to get rid of the backlog both through housing and building. >> we have increased the number of inspectors, we add more inspector to the code enforcement division to work on the backlog. >> great. >> thank you. commissioner lee. >> back to my original question that i asked, rosemary, on these numbers, 195 first novs were issued from january to march. then 19 second novs were issued. does that mean 176 responses were received from the first nov? >> [speaker not understood]. out of those 195, we've had 103 or just open cases from b-i-d. 62 were heard from the planning department for [speaker not understood]. 30 of them are atm machines that we have first notices of.

we're working with a power stream in some of these cases, work working with them right now to get compliance, to work with plans, the planning department. but as long as they're showing compliance ~ going forward, we hold the nov. we don't see any corrective action being taken is when we second the notice of violation. >> so 176 didn't get a second nov are doing something? >> i would say the majority of them are trying to seek com plitionv. -- compliance. it's hard to come up with a number what novs are compliant and what aren't. we'd have to go to every individual inspector and find out what's going on. >> okay. >> as of this point we think 19 of them did not have compliance [speaker not understood], and that's out of the 103 that the b-i-d or the 181, i would say roughly 67% are trying to comply. >> so what happens to the other

30 -- >> the other ones? we could allow more time. i myself extend time if they come to the office. >> do you allow more time, does that mean a response was received, then? >> we have more time to allow the notice of violations. the architect needs more time to draw the plans. [multiple voices] >> a unit or building and a lot more time on the violations. it stays open as a first notice of violation. >> okay. commissioner walker. >> i think one of the things that we struggle with here is when we have our abatement appeals and we have a case that's had a open violation for seven years. so, i wonder if there is anything -- i know our system is being updated, the computer system that will help keep track of this kind of thing. is there anything in the building code that really forces us in a more -- gives us the authority to move on these so that we don't have old

violations around, seven years, four years, that kind of thing? >> yeah, we've been very proactive on our complaints and notice of violations. we're looking up the older violations, we're looking at the older complaints and trying to move them forward. either close the complaint or issue the second notice. there is some notice of violations that are out there, but we have to relook at and start going -- proceed with the process. that number, i wouldn't know. i'd have to go to code enforce many and see if we can get some type of number. >> i think it would be helpful, but also i think that we've been talking a little bit about making, you know, to allow for more abatement appeals process and encourage more frequent director's hearing to really support the staff in helping resolve these issues that, you know, provide a hammer for the staff to make sure that we lessen that number. >> and last year we had doubled

the code enforcement director's hearing and added a second date for code enforcement director's hearing on these cases. >> i think these reports help. i think the time question is really important to us because when we do finally get a hearing abatement appeal, it seems like an awfully long time in some cases. [speaker not understood]. so, that is a good point if we could -- >> one of the things we are trying to monitor now is we're trying to get the senior inspectors to monitor the time that the individual inspectors -- to watch the timeline of these notices of violation so they don't just sit there either. so, there is direction going forward. >> perfect. >> i think that's a good way to do it, have the seniors monitor it and now we're getting access to get printouts on this, too, so we can print a monthly notice of violation printout and then track them better. >> i had another question. part of the data we were trying to get was the question of are

there bad actor out there that are serial novs? i think one of the anecdotal responses we got was it's hard to track serial novs. especially from housing, for example. i feel like there are some apartment buildings maybe or some s-r-os, for example, that might be worse than others. so, that to me would seem like the easy place to track, a serial violator, because it seems like one big s-r-o or one big apartment building has continuously the same address shows up on your desk over and over again, it seems like that's a big problem there. >> thank you, commissioner. on that issue, keep in mind that when you are going through the code enforcement process, you can have -- let's pick on a residential hotel. you can have a residential hotel that has a history of violations. you're always in the building,

you're also always writing notices of violation. we will look at the number of the notices of violation. we will also look at the content of that. and that is usually a prime candidate for referral to the city attorney. we've had that happen in a situation where there's been a history of where things get fixed and they break. i'm going to give you an excellent example. one of the cases was the grand sutter. we had that situation happen. commissioner walker is nodding her head because she sits on the litigation committee. we had a situation we recommended that case go to the city attorney because we would be out there, we wrote notices of violation. they would fix the items. they would break again. and we had a revolving situation going on. that case -- if that's what you mean by serial situation, that was a case that was referred to the city attorney. now, let me just say that you have to be able to identify and document the violations and you

have to give the property owner a chance to fix them because there could be different reasons why things break. and, so, from that standpoint we do that. we document that. and that's why i mentioned earlier that we have a report that tells us on a property, whether there are more than three, three or more open housing cases -- not even department wide -- housing cases. then we look at that, find out what's going on there. are the permits that need to be taken out? what is the property owner doing, what's happening with the property, and those are some of the ways by which we identify properties that we make the recommendation for a referral. but i also want -- i've heard the term backlog of cases and i think there should be some clarification of this. to me a case that is in our backlog isn't merely an open code enforcement case because we may have taken all the actions and maybe completely up to date with every action we can take on that case short of making a referral. and that's not a backlog. that's just an open case and it

may not be ripe for city attorney referral. so, there we'd have to also look at the assessment of costs and those tools doing its job over a period of time making it more expensive for the property owner to have a property sitting out there where there aren't repair. and obviously we do more inspections. we put pressure on a property owner where we have that situation where it may not be perfect -- ripe for referral or where we may recommend a limited referral given the circumstance of the case. if their capacity or whatever, we may want to refer that. but just because a case is open doesn't necessarily mean to me that it's a backlog. it's an open case. now, what i believe the deputy director and i are looking towards is analyzing what's open to be able to come back and make some recommendations of some things that we need assistance on, such as that anonymous uncorroborated complaint where we've never been able to get in to determine whether or not there

is a violation and there's no exterior evidence of it. how long do we keep that case open? if we cannot corroborate that it exists and we don't have sufficient information [speaker not understood] under the law to get an inspection? so, we're probably going to come back with some recommendations to the director and to you about those types of things when we can -- at least when we finish our tally, i definitely am going to have some recommendations for the deputy director and the director on that. we are definitely looking at that to be able to get input from all of you and the director on those issues. did i characterize that correctly? >> great. >> okay. commissioner lee. >> let's see. i'm not sure if i heard everything correctly, but i'd like to talk about how much time is allowed for property owners to clear that first nov. how do we determine those? because i know some of these novs have multiple item on it. is there a formula for --

>> there is not a formula. the district inspector is the one that normally issues a notice of violations. they'll look at the scope of the work and issue -- say we want a plan and a permit within 30 days or 60 days. if it's too tight of a time restraint, a lot of times they'll come in and say, [speaker not understood], it's held up in planning. they probably have a lot of these compliance notice of violations. there are plans but they're held up in planning and they can be held up there a long time. >> i see. >> the vertical/horizontal addition, [speaker not understood]. but it's held up for a long time. and, so, as long as the individual is compliant and -- we try to keep the notice of va i laytion open. if we don't see codes of compliance, we issue a second -- >> i see. >> what happens if the permit expires? do you immediately do something if it's attached to an nov? >> when a permit expires we

don't necessarily cite it right away. but we have issued notice of violations for expired permits. >> so, if there is a permit taken out to cure an nov and the permit expires because nobody did anything, is there an automatic alarm that goes off? so to speak? >> yes. there are alarms that go off. not for notice of violation -- the first notice of violation. you can also issue another notice of violation for the expired notice of that. >> okay. >> thank you. any other questions, commissioners, comments? i think this report was helpful. i think we're going to keep it on, revisit it. i think we do look forward to your recommendations. and i think categorizing it, like if it's in planning, that's fine. we should know about it. what we want is the homeowner to move, you know. i think that's what we all want. we want them to move. and as long as they're moving,

you know, we're going to get them time. >> this is a point. i will tell you that if we requested or required a building permit and the permit is in planning,ly send the [speaker not understood] over there to find out if they issued a notice of complete permit submittal to see if the property owner hasn't responded. but all that takes time. that's the problem. it takes time. >> and it sounds like we may want to have a communication with the planning about their process once they get involved. -- in this in so many cases. ~ >> is there any public comment on item 6? good morning, robert davis. i'd like to thank the commission for bringing this up on the agenda. and i'd like to find out if

maybe there was some way to get some suggestions from ms. boske and larry about what to do to make the system better. for example, eliminating the second notice of violation, just skipping that step completely. and for closing a notice of violation when the permit has been closeded, let's say you had an nov and you came down and got a permit for something. ~ from the data that i've seen, there are many novs that are simply not closed even though there was a permit taken out and the permit was closed. that's just sloppy paperwork. and as far as consolidating the novs, you're asking s-r-os and addresses commonality. in truth that's the way to do it. if you look at the james landing case, james glanding ~ had a decision against him by -- from the city attorney's office. i don't know what the details were exactly, but it resulted in $800,000 going to the city

for i think over 100 novs. that's the way to do this. you look at repeat offenders. and then just as sort of a common sense idea that i've put forward before about novs and permits, and that is like if you go to the dmv and you have a parking ticket, they don't renew your license or your registration or your paperwork. why not have the same process here? but, for example, if you have an open nov within reason, et cetera, et cetera, that you can't pull a permit unless the permit is for the nov. for example, the metro pcs building [speaker not understood] in the bayview. so, they had a whole series of novs. they came out and got a permit to put a sign up. the permit came and went, it was approved, it was whatevered, but they had all these other issues that were long lingering. why not do something like that? i'm sure -- just kind of a common sense idea. as far as the numbers go, inspector lowery was very nice

and he showed you this year's numbers. but indeed there are over 6,000 open notices of violation since the year 2000. that is for housing and code enforcement and for building inspection. that's the number. these have gone on since the year 1994, which is the year that you became computerized, is shocking. so, what the dbi did last year or in the last 12 months is it closed out many of the novs from the year 1994 to the year 2000. but the truth is these are lingering. you can't make any more excuses about plans and permits. there is just not enough emphasize on this problem. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? nan tucker, civil grand jury. again, bring up an issue that could affect the building department in big time and find

out -- as you know, the board of supervisors is planning legislation that will require homeowners of soft story residences to retrofit those for earthquake with a particular emphasis on residential units of, i think it's like five or more. it strikes me that there are some pretty serious implicationses ~ for the folk of building inspection for the folk that aren't going to do it. has there been any planning in that regard? are you going to issue notice of violations if people don't? has there been any thought for how the department is going to handle large number of what i expect will be noncompliers? >> thank you. >> is there any further public comment?

seeing none, item 7, discussion and possible action to consider a proposed revision to administrative bulletin ab-028, pre-application and pre-addendum plan review procedures. >> hello, kirk mains, technical services division, here to talk about ab-028, -- >> kirk, can you move the mic up a little? >> and this is an existing program that's been around at least a decade that i know of. and what it allows, it's very successful and widely used by the public. but it allows a design professional to do is ~ ha a conceptual idea of the project, but not sure how it -- whether it is really feasible or not. set up a meeting, cup --

couple hour, supervisor or manager's time and discuss a list of options head to like to do before they settle on the design process. [speaker not understood], they present a list of a couple question, sketch he that maybe relate to the project, and they sit down with the manager and supervisor and go through these item one by one. the outcome of the meeting is a letter that, from the manager that applicant attaches to the plans or reproduces on the plans with the decisions made out of that meeting. so, when the plans are further developed and they go through the regular plan review process, it's already made decisions on these specific thing and those item need to be reviewed by the plan checker. san francisco, since the codes are kind of generally designed for just california in general, san francisco has a lot of very

unique challenges in staying with the code, but still making thing happen here. so, it's very frequently used, but minor changes that have been proposed are things that have been brought up over the years and we want to just get them down on this piece of paper so that people will know about them in the future. one of the problems initially in developing this thing was that they would have these meetings. the letter would come out, it would go on the plan. then it would be reviewed by the plan reviewer. the plan reviewer -- i don't know, that doesn't really make -- doesn't really agree with that outcome. that causes a major problem because it's already -- the client is commit today that design at that point and based on the letter, and then to have it re-looked at causes a lot of problems. so, we put some wording in here

that the plan reviewer should honor that letter because it's already -- supervisors has gone through it and that's been in there for awhile. what we added is the additional time the field inspector goes out, closes the job, looks at the job, and he may not agree with the letter. that is even a bigger problem because the project is already designed, already being built. but language this there was that a field inspector should submit to the decisions that have already been made to the pre-application meeting. the second thing was there has been a question -- a question on that part? >> yeah, i'll wait till the very end. >> the second thing is that there's been a question of how long these pre-application meetings -- how long do they last. are they forever, good for a code change, good for a month? we put some language in there

that the state thought as long a the code provisions affecting that, the application letter haven't changed, then the pre-app remains valid. so, just because it goes through a code cycle doesn't mean we necessarily have to throw that away. both stay the same [speaker not understood] the work over again. then the last item is relating to fees. there are two types of meetings, a pre-application immediating and pre-addendum meeting. pre-application meeting [speaker not understood] board submitted a pre-application so there are no fees have been paid for -- except for through this process in order for us to support that meeting. pre-he addendum meeting is similar, but they submitted for a site permit and it's been through planning and before they submit their addendum all the structural detail, they want to have -- sit down and

have a meeting. that meeting we haven't been charging for -- we actually have been charging for it, but not according to this administrative bulletin. we thought that the time spent in those pre-application meetings could be paid for by the plan review fees that are paid in the beginning, the 25% of the total plan review fees that are paid on submittal of the site permit. it's kind of turned out that these meetings, instead of answering a small list of [inaudible] these are highly technical meetings where concepts are discussed, solutions are discussed, equivalencies to the code are discussed. it takes a senior staff member, manager, someone with a lot of

expertise to be able to attend these meetings to come up with solutions to make these projects work. it's way beyond what the normal plan checker would do in just denying or, you know, rejecting or accepting proposals. and we've currently got a couple of senior staff full time, but their entire job is to go to these meetings another after another after another generating these letters. so, they really need to be paid for just like they're paid for in the pre-application meeting, they need to also be paid for the same type of meeting. takes the same resources. and that's the last item. >> commissioner walker. >> i'll go first. i just want to get a little clarification on the entire process. so, say if i'm an architect -- and i am -- i'm designing a supermarket and i have some questions regarding the plumbing system and how it relates to that. i want to file a

pre-application, pre-addendum plan review request. i pay my fee. i submit my plans and a list of questions to the department, right. and the department in 10 days will tell me when a meeting will be scheduled. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> is there a time limit on when the meeting will take place or when it will take place? >> it's just set within that 10 days. >> pardon? >> it's usually set within those 10 days. >> it's usually -- >> set within the 10 days. >> sorry, tom. generally you submit the package to second floor and then they will give you choose the future days, they will send you a notice -- >> what i'm getting at is how quickly are those meetings -- >> within a week. >> okay. >> actually, you submit the specific question. you cannot just say, okay, my plan is complying to the code. you cannot answer that way.

you need to be specific question with the drawings, of course, with your check. generally most -- the project is communicated. then you more find department will be joined together to have that meeting. especially nowadays, lots of big, major project coming in, high-rise, that's more and more question because the code is not well defined. need to be ironed out before we can, you know, design the job. the difference between this is purification and addendum, you ask the question before you submit. most of the time now, we find out after we receive the planning approval, then they have some bigger issue, maybe fire safety and all those. then they want to ask those question. that's why we add the language to the addendum.

then they can ask the question when they want to submit addendum drawings because more time involved. >> the reason i ask, some time the timeliness of our response is very critical to these projects. i mean, i can see where something like with the supermarket example, it could go to plumbing, it could go to help. i don't know, maybe even go to fire if it involves stoves and things like that. but do they then -- do you collect all these people into one room and meet with the applicant, or they just kind of answer the question and then we can tell the applicant, here are the answers? >> no, there is an actual meeting. we sit down at the meeting with the people involved. >> generally the meeting is, majority of them, is 99% is fire and building. usually they go to health department to ask every question, like [speaker not understood] we can answer it.

waiting for the department inspector to come n. mostly they will ask those questions. specific help questions they generally go to help itself. like planning, this kind of meeting, planning have the pre-application meeting also to iron out all this stuff before you submit it. this is a good tool to help the architect designer to understand a bit more before they submit it. >> i understand that. so, the response time is fairly quick. >> yes. usually we need a week or so because -- not necessarily the time, we need research all the code issues involved before we go into the meeting. some time it's needed for that and sometimes needed for schedule. [speaker not understood] everyone seems to be -- [speaker not understood] >> also, thank you for all your help in order to get those people coming back. hopefully by they coming back, we change some -- that's t