mrs. bosky sent it them. [inaudible] they added a couple additional elements in the adopted code such as pressure treated wood being now a requirement and i believe they will require even more frequent reinspections. i believe what the council decided is every 3 year, which is possible and berkeley was a more limited building supply, that would be very challenging in san francisco given our overall situation. but with that i want to mention too that the mayors legislation for waving plan review fees for building and planning on the legalization of in laws did pass and that will take effect in early september. right now

we've issued about 61 or 62 permits on the legalization of in-laws and we'll have to wait and see whether this fee reduction effort may stimulate more interest. you may remember it is a voluntary program and as a consequences we have to wait for people to come to us and then we offer them the advice that they need. other issues that are going arounds supervisor wiener and christensen both have added in the additional dwelling unit opportunity within the existing building envelope. that also will be having a second reading early september and will take effect about the middle of aublt. as a reresult anybody doing a

seismic ret row fit if they have space within the envelope of the building to add a dwelling unit. to date we had about 6 percent applications submitted to us. no one has yet been issued and those are in process. we do anticipate and heard from the permit services section this is a very likely source of increased building permit applications in the very near future. i think the only thing i want to menshz mention is there is a piece of legislation supervisor chew introduced, ab 1236. we had a conversation with his staff about that would require the immediate prioritization of review and permit

issuance for electric vehicle charging stations. our concern with the legislation didn't have a caveat about life safety to let the building official continue to have the authority prioritize that ahead of a electric charging station. san francisco is already according to mr. chew's aid the gold standard in the state and the reason for the state legislation is to try and get other jurisdiction tooz do what we already do. they did agree to have a discussion and make sure that the health and safety exemption still stands and we are going to have to drop everything to deal with electric vehicle charging staishz if we vahigher life safety priority. with that i'll take any questions. >> thank you so much.

>> item 8 c update major projects. >> good morning commission. tom hui department of building inspection. as you see from the [inaudible] compared to last month, roughly increased by.9 percent. [inaudible] any questions you have? >> nope. we have the commerce or [inaudible] still. that is good. >> item 8 b, update on code enforcement. >> good morjing commissioners. dan lowery deputy director inspection services and here to report on code enforcement and monthly update for the month of july. it is very buzzy in the

building department if you come by between 730 or 830 you see masses of people. all the inspector squz clerks are really busy. building inspections performed, 5625. complaints received, 348. complaint response within 24-72 hours is 347. complaint with first notice of violation sent is 34. complaints received without notice of evaluation is 185. abated complaints are 54. second notice of violation is 14. that is for building inspection division. for housing inspection services, housing inspection is 947. complaints received is 355. complaint response within 24-72 hours is 353. complaints with notice of violation issued is 1ten. abated

complaints is 392. number of cases sent tothe director is 17. routine inspection is 145. code enforcement services number of cases sent were 48. number of aboughtments issued is 13. number och cases undrb advicement are 4. number of cases abated are 7 twampt code in enforcement performed is 159. cases referred to the [inaudible] were 2. other thereisologist graphs attached to give you a outlook for the past year for these complaints. thank you. >> thank you deputy. >> any public comnlt on the directors report items 8 a-d? >> my name is jerry dratler. my first comment is that historically

notice of violation is a problem specifically the time required to clear them. my suggestion on the directors report will be that the revenue section would show the neb of nov's out standing this year versus the same period last year. also the number of nov's over 12 munts olds so we can see if there is progress made. secondly, with respect to the revenue that is required it be collected for nov's that run beyond the normal abatement period, i would like to see nat revenue broken out separately this year versus last year. it speak tooz chairman mccarthys point of view that progress is made but you can't see it and if it was shown as revenue we could see if it was substantial. my second point

deals with activities versus outcomes. it may seem like a fine point but let's say you and i have a children and recorded if they went to school or not and whether they did homework, those are actirfbties. outcomes is did they learn anything and graduate. what i see us doing is reporting a lot of activities, things we did, but we don't report outcomes and think outcomes should be the focus of the bick. management is managing activities but see what the outcomes are. the third point is a question on the 3 million dollars of expenned in the first period for community based organizations. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> any additional public comment? >> deputy director you don't have to

come up, we have that data of this year versus last year would we? why don't you come back. just to the comments there. >> i'm not sure if i understand all the comments but on the revenue report we yooyuss specific accounting codes so nrd for us to getthality nrgz that is information that you get from a report from different division if that actually happened. because he is looking more not on the revenue he want said to know on each specific case what is happening on that case and whether or not it is going forward is that correct? maybe i didn't understand your question. >> what i'm interested seeing is some oaf the divisions were not collecting that and i'm interested seeing

the total or aggregate amount of revenue that isect collected for nov's that run 60 or 90 days past the abatement period where there is a monthly fee and there were some division collecting zero and some doing a good job. if we can see the total and also we could see the number of nov's we can make judgments about if you have 4 thousand nov's over a year old and collect 120s dollars it doesn't look like we are doing much >> i'm trying to get to is it possible to answer that. >> probably something the department will have toget back on because it isn't a agendized item.

>> ya. >> so, i'm sorry i wasn't clear before. the information probably exists but outside the financial program so there has to be a way to merge the data together. when we collect for permits i cannot tell you how much money we collect on a bundle of permits. we do things on accounting code so maybe we need to get together internally to figure if that is something that with can be done and reflected in the revenue report because that is based on high lechbl. it may be a separate notice of violation report. >> commissioner mar >> i want to clarify for my own standing for the fees. if nov's are issued a lot of times the fees actually require recorporation of staff time and cost, so for example if housing

is recoperating more of those costs, we would want to know that versus let's say the sections of the building department where there is leckical plumbing or mechanical, if they have a nov on a building problem or lack of permit problem we want to knee their staff time that recoperating this. is that right? we are looking for the tolet total to see where the staff time is getting recoperating. >> hement wants to make sure the fees are collected so if we have 100 nov's we should have x number of dollars. that is what we are trying to figure out and i'm with him on that because that is something the grand jury focused where we have-it was like a million something dollars that we couldn't account for that wasn't

collected. i would make the argument we are a lot better now because we are focusing on nov and collecting the fees and bringing them forward. >> actually thank you. we were a divisioned by the jand jury collect ing the fees. we are talking about not a penalty but assessment of cost for the hourly rate and have a complete accounting of that because we have the lean cycle where the property owner hasn't paid them. we originally had about 800 thousand dollars bnch the board recollect people came in and paid those and it reduce today 600 thousand but that information specific to each of the cases so there is a complete accounting of that. in housing we do a hourly billing that support the letter the property owner gets with a

total so if not just the 52 dollars the monthly fee is just doing the inspection and issuing the notice and reinspection. we have a complete accounting of that it is in the shape of assessment of cost and once the board of supervisors adopt that for those in arequire t is recorded on the praurnt tax bill and appears as code 55 in the special assessment section of the tax bill. there is a complete accounting from when we issue the first bill for assessment of cost all the way to if they haven't paid and it is recorded on the property tax so we have that information going back 20 years with about 35 cases in the late 90's so we have all that data. >> commissioner mar has a comment there.

>> it was related about a different topic than the fee. >> it isn't about the million dollars which is significant but it is also about the earlier issue of nov's notd being addressed by property owners and dbi using all the tools in their arsenal to do that. if that procedure is outlined by the deputy dreblter is follow than the property owner will see that and there will be a financial incentive not to let this run. right now there are no significant penalties for just gaming the system. >> okay. deputy i just-please tell me if you do this that we have a tracking system so this time last year we had x amount of nov and