short also for giving us insights. and, again, chief housing inspector boske, this report is also very helpful to us. i think one of the points raised again was the complaints are coming from a lot of different places. so, we could raise to the hoisting authority or to the city just to centralize 311, who are the complaints going to. that way we have a really -- a more global picture of how many complaints we are actually getting and then the housing authority will know themselves how much they need to do, you know, whether things are getting abated. it shows on our part of the report they are getting abated. it seems like when it comes to us, there's probably a better chance that it will get abated maybe because we do go out there and issue or talk to them or issue an nov, whatever it is we do. but when it goes somewhere else, then we don't know what happens. so, that's one of the things. i think the only other thing we

could do, while we want to give the housing authority time to get their commission -- their new commission together, the other thing is we should revisit the agenda. that's what we could do because we do have an m-o-u. we could keep on top of this. >> could you give us a copy of the m-o-u, the current m-o-u, and maybe we can, you know, look at it and make recommendations to them or -- >> absolutely. >> good. >> and if i can address just some of the comments. the current m-o-u took about two years to get them to agree to -- it's a two-sided situation. so, took me two years to get them to sign what we have. and what did it really get us? well, it got us a process by which within a few days of the complaint coming to us, their general counsel was made aware of the complaint. so, that got a much faster response than we traditionally got. and as i said, it's a snapshot. it doesn't tell you all the complaints that are involved with the housing authority because, indeed, that's not

dbi's mandate. but on those it came to us, we would help and try and track through and push through as quickly as possible. ~ and i have to say i can't commend the mayor enough for the leadership in reenvisioning the housing authority. so, this is the time to make the recommendations to. the director talked about the kickoff meeting he was at, myself, deputy director dan, sara short was there. a whole host of stakeholders were at that -- invited to that meeting to give recommendations to the mayor by -- in a report for july so that he can move forward. so, now is the time to make the recommendations. and i can assure you, one of the recommendations i'm going to make is that the present housing authority under the leadership of barbara smith who was actually here before you, she is now the interim director, that she was here sara said at a previous presentation on the m-o-u before the bic previously. one of the recommendations is they look at our m. out.

-o-u model and make sure there is a -- one point of entry. or if there is more than one point of entry, then everyone who takes in a complaint having to do with the housing authority does so with the same information and tracks it through in similar or parallel step. ~ so, that would be one thing, off the bat, that would be a recommendation i make so that they can track these so there is not confusion on the part of the occupants either in section 8 or in the public housing of how they make a complaint, and how they can then retrieve information about that complaint. >> it also gives you a fuller picture of really what's going on. we see what we see and, you know, each one of these could be surrounded by similar problems which may have a different solution. >> the other recommendation that will be made a they ask for our expertise will be that better information -- and updated information be given to 311. if they become the point of contact other than dbi, on

letting the tenants know and the tracking, what the process is and what the tracking will be, and that they take the appropriate information and maybe updated information and become more sophisticated [speaker not understood] the complaint. >> it's also really important to keep the tenant organizing, organizations involved because i think that that information about what will work better. so, i just want to reinforce that. thank you. >> is it the sense that these 15 come to dbi after they have not been resolved within the existing housing authority system? >> it may or may not be. we don't always know. they can call us immediately. sometimes it's because of frustration and not having that situation clarified if we look at the whole housing authority. that's easy to understand. so, from that standpoint -- but they don't always tell us that. but as soon as we get it, we track it through.

there is a very he specific time frame of us getting the information over to the housing authority. and like i say, because it was notified at a higher level at one time, that got a quicker response. the responses were more documented. so, that really is what we achieved with the m-o-u. it was experimental, as sara said. it took awhile to get them to agree to it because they were sensitive to a whole plethora of issues that were on their plate at the time that i won't go into. so, in the future i would be more than happy to revisit that. obviously we're going to be looking to this department and other stakeholders to make recommendation and we will not be shy about that. the when we hear from you, we will pass that on. >> thank you. >> are there comments, commissioners? thanks again for that presentation. >> is there any public comment on item 5? no?

good afternoon. i'm suzanne tucker with the civil grand jury. i actually just have three questions -- >> at the mic. thank you. three questions. i'll rattle them off and you can decide who will answer them. how is a life safety issue determined? and, for example, if a toilet didn't work for a month, maybe that hits a life safety issue. my second is whether or not -- i know that rosemary's group is responsible for inspections of, you know, large housing, the housing. there is some kind of annual inspection, whether or not that applies to the san francisco housing authority, which might be a good idea because she's set up to do that. and lastly, i remember that the memorandum of understanding calls for the director of dbi

and the director of the housing authority to have a meeting once a year. and i'd be really interested to find out what happened at the last meeting of what i assume would have been director alvarez, and whether it was tom or vivian bay or whoever because presumably they needed help then [speaker not understood] i'd be interested to know what happened at that meeting. thank you. >> staff can get back to you with a response. >> unfortunately i only heard the last part of that. i don't know if there was a conversation or a meeting between the two parties. if so, the previous director never gave me any information about that. they did talk on occasion. i did -- >> that's an interesting question, though, about the routine inspections. i know that routine inspections are not part of our m-o-u, as i understand it. >> that is correct.

>> at this juncture. >> that is correct. >> okay. and there's -- there is -- because -- it's because the hud and the housing authority have federal inspection authority over their projects. isn't that correct? john is shaking his head yes. >> they do, but it's the opinion of the city attorney that they still have to comply with the housing code. they can be subject to routine inspections. it was the policy of the previous director not to do them because of staffing issues and the fact that there was no funding for that mandate at the time that we had very low staffing levels. we have done them historically in the past. we may do them in the future. that's a policy issue that would be at a level above me. >> and the life safety question is one, too, that's important because it may accelerate

response [speaker not understood] -- >> it does already. >> at what point does a nonworking toilet become a life safety issue? >> it depends upon what the issue is with it. if it's just something that needs to be unclogged, that's not a life safety issue. >> do we -- >> if it doesn't work, the housing authority transfers that individual to another building because they can't get the toilet to work, then it wouldn't be. but generally we find that they can come and they can deal with that issue. and it can get clogged up again. there is a whole host that happens. it's not a dynamic situation. usually -- excuse me. it is a dynamic situation. usually that's something that they unclog. if they respond to it, they deal with the issue. that's usually not a problem that we see. for us it's more of heat or generally in a building where they may be completely replacing a heat system. that's more problematic.

toilet is not a good -- >> if something rises to a life safety issue, do we have more authority in these buildings or not? >> under the m-o-u, we would write a notice of violation. we would do the inspections and we would have a notice of violation. but what is our authority if they don't comply? we'd have to sue them. all the enforcement tools do not work. so, of course, that is not something that the department wants to do because that takes resources away from the housing authority which already has, you know, a lack of resources. but in the end that would be the last resort if they couldn't comply or they refuse to comply. so, that's why -- that -- hence the m-o-u and having the opportunity to work with them and making recommendation how they operate in the future. >> thank you. very interesting. >> any other questions, commissioners, comments? thank you.

>> item 6, update on notices of violation and process. >> deputy director pointed to me to go first on this so i shall do so. and i am speaking totally about the housing division. so, what we're here to talk about today is the number of open cases that the housing division has. and what you have is a table that you've received which shows you in previous presentations that we have made

to you what the historical results have been. so, the the last time we met on this issue was october of last year. and the number of open cases that we had from the period of the first of january 1995 through march 28, 2011, was 3,359. and that time period was because that was the time period when we first came before you with the first report, which is not included in this table. today that number, that number for that same period has dropped down to 2,197. now, let me -- keep in mind that that is for that particular time frame. the last column tells you from march of 2011 to the present what additional cases we have that are still open, which is 1,845. that means currently right now

i have 4,042 open cases. now, that 1,845 is a number of open cases i have and these have come in in the last two years. keep in mind that i take in about 5,000 new complaints a year. so, we're talking about a 24-month period when i took in about 10,000 new complaints and i'm only carrying that. what we're saying is we've been able to go back, look at this backlog which we've been dealing with since january of last year, and still not create a significant backlog on the cases that are coming in. and what we've been -- even with the staffing shortages that we got as far as the number of inspectors, be able to address the complaints that are coming in substantially within the time frames of the performance measures we have. it's been difficult. we have managed to do that and

also sent cases to director's hearing, continued our billing and what we do to be able to address this in a very creative way on a weekly or bi-weekly basis we are looking at what the inventory cases are. we are also looking at the inventory by how many properties have three or more open code enforcement cases that are of housing origin to see whether or not those cases should be referred, if they're ripe for referral to the litigation committee, and what's going on with those particular cases. we also have to constantly make staffing adjustments to deal with the open inventory, new incoming complaints, city enforcement task force inspection, city attorney referrals, and issues having to do with the rainy season, additional heat complaints, leaking fixture complaints,

roof leak complaints because of the rainy season, and still be able to maintain the number of cases we're sending to director sterling and bill. and we also try and do some proactive things to try to minimize some of the increase, heat complaints, et cetera, during the winter months by doing heat sweeps indoor buildings, encouraging property owners to make sure they are adhering to what the requirements are for central [speaker not understood] or central system in the winter months. we also right now, of the total number of about 15, 16 field inspectors i have, at least sick are doubled up and dealing with one or more covering one or more districts which would traditionally be handled by a single inspector. so, juggling all these thing, trying to keep up with everything. meanwhile going through and dealing with the backlog. now, the other thing we're dealing with as far as the 2,197, is we're currently doing a hand tally so we can get a

better understanding of what these are between routines and complaints, determine whether or not [speaker not understood] whether we got in. the current complaint tracking system can't really give us that data easily so having to go case by case and somewhat assess that so we have a better analysis of what we're actually dealing with. as you can see, we've reduced these numbers substantially. everything else that's on our plate. this is new legislation. >> this is just the housing division? >> this is just housing. and the deputy director will, i think, talk about the code enforcement division. >> so, you talked about the inspector's load. can you talk about are we planning to add folk either to the housing division or as code enforcement inspectors to help with this? >> thank you for raising that issue, commissioner. i was remiss in not indicating that the 62 70 housing inspector announcement went out about two or three weeks ago.

it closed i believe -- >> last friday. >> last friday. and, so, we are now in the process of attempting to fill the vacancies. and that will help -- >> how many? >> it's approximately -- >> minimum 7 or more. >> which would be very helpful if we can fill those. ~ because we're going to have to train those individuals. but that will help because we're doubling and tripling up in certain districts given the makeup of that particular profile of that -- >> and that's just housing -- >> just housing, yeah, the housing classification. >> so, even though the complaints start in housing, sometimes when it move over to code enforcement, does it involve the building inspectors? because if they have to pull permits to do repair and stuff like that, is there a transition, or does the nov stay with housing? >> the code enforcement process is such that a case that originates in the housing division for violations of the housing code in which a notice

of violation is issued stays within that particular division from beginning to end. however, to cure and make the necessary repairs, a building permit's plumbing or electrical permit may be required and that would be handled by the electrical plumbing and building divisions. this code enforcement process is different than a plumbing, electrical, or building inspector writing a notice or notice of violation. when they do not get compliance, they then send the case to the code enforcement section which then takes that case through from director's hearing to abatement. so, there is that difference. the housing division keeps the cases from beginning to end because of the specialization and dealing with -- of those cases and because of the experience of the department and the commission has had over the years including other issues that have come up that really require the housing division to take those cases

from beginning to end for consistency [inaudible]. >> commissioner lee? row mary. >> i have a question about the data. once the number of first novs from january to march of this year is 195, right? and then the number of second novs issued from january to march of this year was 19. does that mean 176 responses were received for -- >> i think you may be looking at something else. that report is not for housing. that's going to be -- deputy director [speaker not understood] is going to talk about that with respect to code enforcement section. we don't write two notices, we only write one. so, that is his analysis of what the code enforcement section is dealing with. >> okay. thank you.

>> good morning, commissioners. daniel lowery, deputy director, [speaker not understood] services. notice of violation are official citations to document conditions in situations that do not comply with the san francisco building plumbing, electrical, mechanical and housing codes. the graphics you see here is 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