begin. >> good morning today is tuesday, september 22, 2015. this is the regular meeting of the department of building inspection commission i'd like a remind everyone to turn off electronic devices. >> roll call. >> commissioner president mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner lee commissioner mccray he is expected commissioner walker and commissioners french is expected and commissioner melberger is updated. >> welcome to the bic meeting of tuesday, december 15, 2015. i apologizing for the late stat some presidents announcements

thank you to commissioner walker and chief housing inspector for their participation in supervisor president london breed town hall meeting on tenants rights held on december 3rd from the retirement board anticipate responded to questions for about 50 attendees thank you for your participation commission i'm happy happy to report from 16 by the building inspection the tire shop that is getting a lot of press was elevated and found to be pub save safety hazardous so it has been demolished and per direction director huey's due to the owners failure to meet the deadline the digital will be

adding couldn't to achieve owner compliance with stieptd as to insure public safety in those situations thank you director for your participation in getting that done and congratulation to dbi for the websites key action step homeownership's and property managers for the storm situations with el nino from the prospective those are practical like inspecting roofs and cleaning relieves from the sloechz and insuring foufrn or furniture and construction materials that could be deadly under storm conditions visit www. bic.com

director hugh in 2016 this is quite an honor and a terrific way to begin the coming year the money confesses in the chinese zodiac that is ability, innovation and enthusiasm you got it all congratulations director will we be able do get seats pr that's okay. but i definitely will be down there with the family finally i'm pleased to join with the recognition committee and if i mispronounce names congratulations to kevin and marseille hernandez in quarter 3 and four respecting for outstanding performances for july, august and september of

quarter 3 and during october and november and december quarter four kevin was nominated for his world-class service for 9 provider of technical support for customer staff and mary sea was nominated by the chief inspector for demonstrating the highest standards of time management and communication and skills in the most difficult of circumstances in the certificate of appreciation's a presentation at the end and he building bill will come up and commissioner mar will do the presentation navigation to the certificate of nomination each winner will got 4 tickets on the eye ring

courtesy of the bic and for director huey and congratulations for our dedicated effort on behalf of the building inspection and happy holidays with that, if commissioner mar will do the honors the recognition four did certificates of recognition and bill can come up thank you. >> i apologize to the winners i'll not shake you're hand i have a cold on behalf of the commission thank you guys for our sifshs as always hard to

pick one winner for employee of the quarter buses congratulate from management kevin i know you'll get the seller up and returning single-handed that goes would with the award. >> thanks kevin. >> thank you. for the building inspector division marcie hernandez there is a difficult division you guys have a lot of worked work and i'm glad we includes someone from our department congratulations marie. >> congratulation to everyone

thank you madam secretary that concludes any presidents announcements. >> any public comment on the president announcement seeing none, general public comment on matters within the jurisdictions not part of agenda. >> good morning, commissioners i'm pat i'm here to comment on the colonial about the computer program for computer system and i'm not going to comment i'm not of the knowledgeable expert but going on to attack the exerters i'm an expediter my wife is an instructional engineer i'm got a

lot of clients that own buildings to keep an eye on the building when a tenant applies i want to encourage the commission to encourage the architectural engineers to come down my data is an architect if i thought that was an issue i wouldn't have her do that and it went on to attack the building department housing and building inspector they work their butt off a hard job plan and technical staff i have my differences boy do i but at the same time, they do a job it is important you couldn't pay me to do that job i want to thank them none ever thanks them and encourage the commission to come down director huey does the best

thing by keeping an eye on i want to encourage the commission to come forward and walker with ed sweeney their keeping an eye on on it and this chief do it you guys should come forward carbon monoxide and see for users. >> thank you for your comments. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> morning commissioners my name is lee hugh's. >> speak into the microphone. >> i'm lee a single-family home in the richmond district we've been in our house on 3 two years now my wife is a native of san francisco and been here since i was 5 years old give you a little bit of background a paralegal working, if you will, since 2001 working with the legal or attorney clients and

i've spent a lot of time with dbi and planning basically pulling documents doing research, talking to people so got somewhat familiar as a ordinary citizen can during the course the past 4 months allison park i've been involved in a allowing dispute with our laborer when you are doing something for yourself it is harder to step back i've tried basically, the woman next door i'll sealing call her a seriously abuser she's a realtor but having said that, and the point i want to make to dbi or perhaps rhetorical question what is the purpose of having a system of basically point in time issuance i've been.

>> obligated to file 6 complaints the punishments we are issued after the work was done or the additional permits have been signed off as work completed yet the work is continued going forward for most and most i've filed a number of complaints most them have been ignored and dismissed it is good to give credit people need to know there is one inspector b mitchel has done his job the most e gregarious example a permit that was issued last november 14 november 14th the building inspector i don't need to name

him this is a sign off on the job for the four story. >> embed thirty seconds and basically this permit was signed off as work completed yet the work went for the purpose for several months the complaint was filed to set up the same inspector caught the next day and closed the complaint 9 work has continued since then thank you. >> if you have any questions i'll be happy to to take them thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? okay. seeing none item 4 discussion and possible action for the proposed action for the board of supervisors file amending the building code the

amendment shall not think abandon for two years. >> good morning. i'm ray legislative aide to to supervisor tang thank you for having me this morning enough time to addendum the vacant building with the san francisco building code from being considered vacate or abandoned as you may know dbi has a program of doing fake and abandoned building with the building into registry and paying an annual fee and putting signs in the windows the goal of the legislation to examine prosecute from those program requires r i went for the companies over time we've talked to others in situations and realized there are some situations that should be

excluded from those program requirements given the difficult situations they have to go through already thank you i'll be happy to answer any questions any questions. >> commissioner walker. >> can you tell us what the exact amount is this a fee waiver for those. >> this is actually a waiver for those proposed that actually under probate we hope when the property owners go to department of building inspection tells them oh, we understand you changing the ownership of the building so you don't need to actually register in this program. >> i actually would maybe like to hear from staff about how often this is occurring i mean it make sense to see what the universe we're dealing with can

we - >> see if. >> yeah. commission. >> thank you. >> morning commission and commissioner president mccarthy director of dbi it is a rare event probable a good thing 0 people are trying to right things sometimes those probates get hung up for six or seven months by no fault of their own i don't think it affects us. >> are we are dealing with private ownership or banks. >> it is vacant in the homeowners sails hey, i'm in probate generally a death in the family something traumatic. >> so commissioner mar. >> i understand this legislation will even though raise the fees and register all

the property have to be up to code and no existing violations and stuff like this so in that light it sound a good thing to do. >> and it is temporary there's a time limit i believe two years. >> to you're point under the two years let's say the two years forgiven you're name. >> ray. >> after two years the probate is sometimes they drag on what it's the next step. >> so you mean after two years they have to register. >> regardless if it is in probate. >> right. >> if it not extendable. >> yeah. typically the times for any case is 7 to 9 months for some rare cases that would be years and even that case so

we don't want to extend the case outside of this program. >> commissioner walker please. so they're not signing up for 9 program but the codes they're expected to comply are the blighted property rules if it is blighted they so to clean it up and put wood over the windows and - >> so i want to make sure. >> exactly they have to comply with all other codes. >> thank you for your presentation this morning. >> i believe we needed a motion on this item. >> call the motion. >> a motion on item 4? >> commissioner walker did you want to make a motion. >> yes. >> i move to approve and

support this legislation second. >> okay there is a motion and a second i'll take a roll call vote. >> public comment on this. >> i'm sorry public comment on the item? >> seeing none, commissioner president mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner clinch commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner walker yes. >> owe eject be that item passes item 5 presentation on dbi 2015 satisfaction results. >> go easy on me now.

>> chris. >> (laughter). >> good morning, commissioners i'm john with the research i'm going to present the finding from the research project we did earlier this year give you a little bit of background on our firm we're a full service market firm located in san francisco since 1933 quite a while we have a lot of expertise in customer type of research that is similar what i'm presenting to you today, we conducted a research project for dbi about 8 years ago 24 was a direct follow-up but similarities give you a little bit of detail

a robust project it included customer surveys and stakeholder says and focus groups we work with agencies and oftentimes it maybe just a survey or a set of focus groups dbi did looking for is something they'll get such information they have not done this in the while but put forth the gambling bet as well as the focus groups that we are quantify in native give you a little bit of background on the project the project was done between february and july of 2015 we led the research effort by involvement in dbi and the controller's office so the target responds were customers of the depended so people get with the department one way or another it is either professional or a homeowner but dealings with the department

over the last years okay. >> did that include people filing complaints or getting permits. >> yeah. it included on the survey we did did phone and intercept it the phone involved permitting and the other for dbi office coming in with interviews it involved both. >> the goals of the project was to assess customer prospective and satisfaction the dbi services with the end product something dbi used for strategic planning in the future the project itself i talked about the difference in the fullness of the project a robust survey over one thousand customers same side both the folks and the enter accepted in the dbi building there was also a qualitative two focus groups

two of the groups down with individuals that had more interactions with dbi four or five interactions and did a group of people that were less familiar with dbi less interaction an online stakeholder survey that was interviewing with professional organizations and community members he poem who were active and other agencies finally we followed the topics if in the focus groups in a public forum and took feedback that in that forum as well would be the key queasy was overall experience with the department of building inspection would you say satisfied or somewhat satisfied or mature or very dissatisfied

overall 2/3rd's of respondents their satisfied with the department of building inspection okay. >> similar to the percentage in 2008, okay and one of the things i'll point out this the theme throughout individual would interacted with dbi looking at the professionals it rose to 71 percent satisfied when we looked at homeowners those who have lows interaction dropped i'll talk about that and acts that can, taken an important thing to point out at this point. >> we asked a question about whether in the question over the past 12 months the services provided by the department of building inspection have

improved or declined we use this on customer projects for different department we look at are those improvements and declined slices okay. when i fast forward not expecting changes but the ratio of improvements or sdlien it is a positive picture in terms of the improved decline you're seeing 8 percent improvement 3 and a half times the number of customers saying improvement versus the ones saying declined okay for us to see this percentage is a very good or positive development with dbi in. >> what is the standard improvement you'll see. >> sometimes, you'll see even okay 75 percent saying the same you know the balance being split among balance decline a two to

one ratio the better the ratio the best or better we've seen it those slices are even and talk about people say about improvement and this is why there is a decline okay. >> thank you. >> i will say on this we'll get into this more the sentiment we ask people disapproved they felt conditions have improved we want to reach and raise that bar. >> some trends some question was asked after the improved and decline among those who said that dbi is improving that thirty percent why do they say deploying was improving the 8 percent that said dbi is declining those are the key reasons versus dbi is declining okay keep in mind in the upper

improvement represents that thirty percent among those folks the reasons the way the times have driver's side more helpful in resolving the issues more issues are organized and the staff are more professional and friendly the 8 percent said that is sdlooin is two slow the process is two long and it is arbitrary two busy the department is overwhelmed and confusing those are the top reasons on either side okay we did ask a number of questions regarding the divisions in dbi so with this chart showing the mean or the average scores the divisions got when we rated that so the average is using that call that i showed you in the overall very satisfied and satisfied and somewhat satisfied

and not satisfied so this represents the mean scores of 4 you're seeing in the satisfied range okay what you see on the top part of chart with had he combine the charts like microphone services we asked several questions and combined it to have an average or mean score and among the public education the technical scores we asked a single question you see the overall rating mean score the 65 percent is that the 7 mean co-sponsor one thing i'll mention on this slide when you see when you look at the division rating nearly all are actually higher than the overall satisfaction rating one thing we see we saw in the focus groups and the surveys it

equates with people that deal with the department more often this can be seen a as positive thing if you deal with the department a lot and our satisfaction is way do you think that's not good you don't want people that work regularly and saying no a good job but the people coming there for the first first or second time those are the folks that have a harder time okay. >> where the service is objected we asked service questions what services were used this is among all the customers property owners and among the professionals and this shows the percentage that said they'll use the different services over-the-counter 76 percent said they visited the website and 70 hers over-the-counter 76 percent,

etc. so this is sort of information that can be used to understand you know how much each of those services are used amongst the customers some of the survey demographics the average age is 49-year-old the gender a 48 percent men and 20 something women more of them have visited dbi and 24 percent that visited more ten times in the past year quite a bit. >> most of findings api i've shown you motion from the quantity active the couple of slides i'll pull from the focus groups is useful information you can get in depth information but

not reliable we read in between lines in the focus groups about two programs mandatory and the in-law unit legalization program in the focus groups the mandate program not a lot of awareness even amongst the property owners and or not were generally favorable towards the program okay one of the items that came up during the focus groups is cost a key consideration and actually doing the work one thing that came up during the groups was the letting find my notes on this the ability to add an additional unit was something that was not nestle wildly known once that was brought up some folks in the groups were aware it made a difference that can

make a difference in terms of offsetting the costs but communicating the additional unit portion to the legislation or the program it is something not everybody was aware but made a difference recessed analyzed with people highly okay. >> we asked about the in-law unit legalization should awareness lease than the other program once given information about the program we were generally favorable and most of time a win we think for homeownership's as well as the city contractors also mentioned the idea some of the code issues are taken care of through the program like safety and the overall goal of dbi they felt it fit within those areas information on the program was something that people asked about it was relatively new and back in june okay

people said well, i'm not sure about the details making sure that people get information on the program was what they were asking for. >> okay. again, talking about the focus groups welcomes the open-end questions we asked people to respond whys to the question this slide shows the recommendations they are fun and there in their focus groups okay. no it in the survey but. >> laundry list of things people are saying at the dbi office some of the things help those not as familiar with dbi people that are in any have a harder time navigating and treating everyone fair to make sure they have fair treatment across the board okay improving signage so you know there was mentioned having professional signs making them

clear to people know what which way to go and the staggering lunch hours not an inability ability to get anything done in a particular block of time on the website outlined in the division goals and by that again that was mentioned by people in the familiar a flow chart what the steps are needed to get from point a. or whatever point having that a little bit more clear on the website and realtime the we're talking about when do go down to dbi whether or not this is realistic but people said i want to know what the waits times before i go down maybe a two housing or nouftd in the hour and a half reorganizing the information for the less familiar that is people that are not as familiar with

the process and making that friendly and the transmission was a theme that came up in the focus groups a lot okay. we want to do things more electronically and expanding the online offering you know work with in the office and finally publicizing it for complaints more often cited by property owners if i had an issue kwha where can i go and make sure that there is no, i, do that confidently and a process to follow up on that. >> prospective of dbis role okay. so this was derived from quite a bit what we were analyzing in the survey reluctance we're seeing again that differentiation between

property owners and professionals amongst the professionals in large part an understanding that dbis role is safeguarding the public when we react to different questions their reacting with that in mind the property owners not all of them in large part maybe don't understand that and so i think from the property owners prospective they're getting a service going into to net e get a permit or whatever but the idea of dbi overarching goal is not seen as the property owners from analyzing overseeing results let people know because you know once people are made aware oh, you're right i don't want any building to fall down but display them on the website short 2 page memo this is dbis

memo it can be done in this a short message for people it can probably make a difference in the focus groups said i understand it makes a big difference and communication the best way to communicate with both property owners and professionals they're all over the board it could be great to just did it in the building or twitter feed but looking at all the different ways to communicate so you're left with trying to communicate in many different ways and i'm sure it it get to bill two those are the key things themes it came out of this raven customers are generally satisfied with dbi 65 percent satisfied when he landmarked the different ratings

we read the process and the wait times and rated the staff dbi staff rates highly they should be commended in the focus groups as well working hard to do their jobs some of the two things long wait times and inconsistent interpretation those are the two things those familiar with the dbi are rating it more highly we're talked about that and many of us recognize improvements at dbi over the last two years and even some of the property owners one of the key examples over-the-counter was mentioned we did this this is working great and want more of that we want you to do more things like that we saw a difference it was a difference maker all right. and customers are not aware of

the safeguarding trying to make them more aware in the waste time is an how are they know they're waiting is a real reason for that it may make a difference in terms of their prospective and patience and with that, i'll be happy to answer any questions thank you very much. >> commissioners any questions. >> commissioner mar please. i was wondering why there wasn't more focus in terms of survey on code enforcement and housing where there is a lot of complaints that come in and they tend to be less professional complaints either tenants or homeowners. >> so i also with the housing you know actually with month

code enforcement and the housing we captured information one in the focus groups we were dealing with the focus groups the professionals as well as the homeownership's mentioned the sdaksz with the department and a couple of errors people can provide sdaks and specific question about complaints some areas it was asked i guess i shove should have said in the zimmermann we have much more detailed finding that a robust report so additional details throughout the report. >> that report will be made available - >> the report. >> good morning, commissioners it will be up on the website today, the full report with the different sections we'll be able to end send you guys a copy.

>> generally people from the public they want to weigh in. >> yes. my information on the website sfgovtv.org. >> interesting to give a it a little bit of a period maybe come back and give reports to the general public comment sorry commissioner walker. >> income tax. >> i want to thank you for this it is always go good to hear how the people using our department are interacting and thank you to director huey and identifying what we need to do a little bit better it piggybacks on what we talked about in 0 code enforcement and housing as we go forward and do this again in the next time in the

process that would be helpful to get focus a little bit more and including code enforcement and housing issues those are big deals in the city a robust outreach and i think that the results do sort of tend to emphasis what we talked about here about needing you're department to be more do more outreach for people not using the department all the time professionals input is important and good we're doing go back in that regard but being able to serve people that don't use our department and people coming in a negative way trying to address the issues that come up those are issues we can always do better so somehow capture that a little bit more and i know this is a focus group but the

diversity of demographics of this or concerning i want to see more outreach to the results can say it is i don't know it reflects those who use you're department and certainly not our city's population i know that is a challenge in doing focus groups, etc. but i'd like to see those more reflect our population. >> thank you commissioner just to address in terms of how this survey was done we did that in multiple language chinese and spanish and other so we tried to make you know efforts to be as inclusive as mobile. >> commissioner mar please. just another quick question i was kind of surprised not captured here because a lot of

the professionals and non-professionals kind of separate i know that for example, anecdotally a lot of homeownership's are confused what belongs to us and planning or dpw or something like that so sometimes when we - there's a complaint about a long waste time not necessarily with dbi but it could be with planning to for example, when you know you swap out windows anything facing the streets belongs to planning a homeowners come into they want to swap ousted 8 windows they don't understand those windows come through us ordering and then stand in another line for planning i was wondering if this was captured it is confusing everyone sits in our building

that's a good thing but they don't understand what they're in it dpw line versus a planning line versus a dbi staff person so i was wondering if any of that what captured. >> commissioner mar excellent, excellent point hit the nail on the head that came up so i'll tell you how we handed that in the survey we were trying to get an assessment of dbi so when we do the introduction in the survey a there was words in there to actually remind poem we want you're feedback with the short explanation of the different roles that was important from a research prospective we're not getting you know reaction you know to complaining but is there confusion absolutely we saw that in the focus groups and when we

did the survey and people said what do you mean interest is a difference and had a further explanation we're trying to isolate probation officer dbi but as you described it is there much more with people who are not as familiar and going to get the windows and not deal with dbi it came up in the focus groups people that are less familiar where people were having a discussion with a cross over in the focus groups we listened that's how we understand you're facing that challenge but it is still a challenge and was when we did the survey in 2008 but still there. >> commission. >> i want to add i worry about

this survey included more of the tenants and complaints as respondents. >> but one thing i want to add i've sort of agree what your findings this thing customers are not consistently aware of dbis role and the public that's one area we do need to improve the way i see it normal customers are not aware of this non-customer or potential customers are not ; right? those are the ones we want to capture not the non-customer or the potential customers not to use our service and do things that will harm themselves maybe build an additional or it is not legal or do something to get it signed off not safe those are the kinds

of things i'm worried about we jumped in we're the bad guys we looked at upon as reshths and endorseers we're the bad guys i want to shift the focus on so, yes we should obtain safeguarding the public not here to beat you up because you did something wrong but security guard you. >> i my few comments i agree with the commissioners i find those surveys i love this kind of data it is we had a commentary what was kind of written in the newspaper and some of the experiences and you produce reports like that it my experience it is usually the person to you're point this survey talked to it the folks

are not seasoned operators and interpreters as not getting the proper you know service when - so when i see you know thirty percent improvement i know that everybody hearts are in the right place and trying to do a better job and a few issues we have to get but hopefully time takes care of that but with the leadership and the management in place they're much aware of what things are going on and probable shown in the thirty percent improvement so that's a good thing we need to find tune everything i like this report and demonstrates the rank and file are doing a great job and

with such a busy city and to you're point did you take into consideration how busy this city is let's say versus other cities that have good evening. i'm big on the fact we seem to be doing a lot more with a lot less percentage wise and permits are issued. >> that definitely comes up particularly in the qualitative work for people who is when you go to oakland or santa fe san francisco and they point in a positive way the over-the-counter plan context none does that in the same way it is recognized you know to some stent in some of the reading you're doing if the report. >> thank you for your time and thank you lilly for the presentation now commissioners very something to say.

>> i want to underscore that the purpose of this is to feed our strategic planning and i'm just glad to hear about strategic planning going on that's the first i've heard that have in sometime so i'll be interested in knowing what the staff plan to do with this now we have it and i see it moving in two directions one more familiar and those that don't know about it and calling for a strategic plans that's it where do we go now. >> the question is hesitate rhetorical. >> but where go now. >> commissioner mar and commissioner walker and we go to public comment. >> sorry to keep on asking for questions i was shocked none exclaimed about the fee

professional and newcomer because anguish i i mean we maybe proficient but any contractors knows we have a higher fee. >> fees came up not they didn't come up but if i look at the top one a partial list those came up i think one the segues those are consideration but it didn't come up as a top you know issue but if you improve things improve those things and with the less familiar folks the fees were bigger fidgeting where they calm from i got any receipt and was trying to figuring out where the fees were coming from maybe a understanding of those fees came up. >> that's a good question actually. >> commissioner walker.

>> yes. just one last question this survey was done may to june? ; correct? >> so. >> yeah. >> do we do this annually? >> or. >> and is why did it take 6 months i'm curious. >> because this was a pretty robust survey effort i'd like to mention sometimes, we will do a quantitative one for an agency but multiple parts is the reason for the length the last time to the best of my knowledge about 8 years ago we work with agencies that is consistent every two years or whatever it maybe but nicole the last time was 8 years ago all great i think that i said the discussion point i'd like to see a discussion we'll

roll out a new permitting system we'll include doing this more frequently during that process. >> director what triggers off is that a particular - >> yeah. >> timeframe. >> maybe 3 years you know or two years you know the system and then to let them be familiar before we do a survey because you do this rights away when you roll out. >> you'll feel - >> is interest to commissioner walkers point is there an industry standard. >> every agency is different we do other surveys every 3 years for agencies and a robust effort every come up of years but this includes the survey portion and every 4 years include other things there is a

cost involved clearly that's the reason but announcing to every 3 years is you know but some agencies do is it and not for another 10 years we commonly do it every - >> to the director and commissioner walker's point we sit down a sate timeframe to help us look at this that is helpful towards the commission when you get the data for better or worse so that's maybe something we'll have so - >> what's the process it is you know, i think we need to have this data. >> yeah. and figuring out how to do things as we need so thank you appreciate it thank you for your time on this report. >> make sure this gets to the

chronicle newspaper please (laughter). >> a comment on item 5? >> hello, i'm lee again, i want to speak in general having come down to the agency for the past 14 years and the past 4 months now communicating either electronically or checking the site talking with people which i've done i've had meetings on every floor first, third and fourth and fifth and sixth since september i want to say that jobs are necessary people need expediters i know pat because i worked in a law enforcement he worked for the attorney

expediters have necessarily i live in the neighborhood and had a conversation with commissioner walker last week, i like this kind of work and you have to enjoy is ousted on the street people say the dbi is like going to the guest they feel uncomfortable and a difficult processed to get anything done now personally when i go to the third story and assert my point of view the desk it is hard to toll e tell who the contractor and what who is working for the city the relationship are any words chum i didn't most people don't know off the street to whom to speak and who to talk to i think a lot of the the items in this report is relevant but

the public in general just feels uncomfortable coming to dbi and planning because they don't know where to go what the process is or with whom to speak thanks. >> thank you for your comment. >> next speaker >> seeing none, item 6 discussion and possible action regarding a proposed change to administering bullet ab 137. >> as a matter of procedure could we go to - i don't want to hold up everybody and if no objection from the other commissioners come back no so we'll go to sorry i don't have any comment. >> we're taking an item out of order on item 8 discussion think

a tracking system. >> sure. >> yeah. i think we're waiting on miguel caught up him downstairs. >> mr. chair my question was answered we the chief in any ear we in the middle of doing strategic planning now and looking at it and this is going to be fed into it with the mayor's plan for - >> go ahead. >> first of all. >> we're off topic we need to

stay on topic but maybe bring it up in the questions at the end. >> so if we could go to item 8 please. >> hello. >> good morning. >> good morning commission i'm miguel the city k i o he stepped out to take a phone a call to give you a little bit of background about the permitting tracking system and trying to get that project moving forward and to a that have the completion so as previously discussions we worked we're working on getting an independent assessment of the project the intent the business requirements of dbi to make sure that we have a very clear

understanding of the finish line frankly and an assessment of what it takes from here and there so i have good news we've received 3 what i consider high quality responses through the technology marketplace to the solicitation for that assessment the all 3 respondents are very qualified i'm not going to name them specifically for the purpose of maintaining the district of the process but frankly in good shape whoever get selected i know there is a lot of discussion i apologize. i wasn't here i didn't know i what is to be i'll be happy to to address anything quite frankly so i know discussion last time about timelines and a

lot of concern i had openly decided any expectation around timeline but reversed retired in trying to pin down a timeline not wanting to have a gross analogy and not ask the architect to build the taj mahal i had set expectations and any expectations were roughly met because all the respondents are projecting a project timeline between 11 and 1 weeks that is right around the general timeframe i had to set as a reasonable exceptions did point is it is somewhere between a timeframe and reasonable time

expectation d t the department of technology is leading this effort doing so as the tech i thought but on behalf of the city purview to make sure those things come to a successful completion we are leading and involved already and invited compliance the parents on the panel will be representative from the mayor's office the budget offices and the controller's office and any office the evaluation will be plenty in january, i was pushing quite frankly to get it done this week and hoping to have it done before today's meeting but the holiday schedule is - we are

probably kicking off the project on or about january and selected and get them rammed up a reasonable expectation on time there was also a haddy discussion who should contribute to the conversation i wish i was here last meeting i could have answered that but absolutely we want all of the stakeholders groups represented in the conversations that will absolutely include bic and, dbi and quite frankly everyone that has been involved as far is valuable experience and contributions to say is our expectation and direction to the dependent consultant to make

sure to involve as many of the stakeholders groups and humanly possible the only thing that might prevent someone is the time a frame to get input from everyone to get in completed as quickly as possible so in the event someone is on vacation right around the wrong time speaks for itself the only sort of circumstances i see where someone might not be able to contribute but it is directly to the consultant to engage all those people that's at summary and my attempt to clarify questions i saw came up last time that may have remained open i'm here to answer any questions and engage the dialogue. >> thank you miguel i told commissioners you do exist and

i'll take responsibility why in the last meeting you felt you should have been here appreciate you coming today. >> commissioner walker and commissioner mar please. thank you very much for coming and helping us towards our completion goal i'll appreciate of that i als also want to express support and appreciation for including all the stakeholders my concern we don't want to lose our assets at this point the partners what came here with us here is the right place at this injunction we have to make sure that everyone sort of parliaments in the solution going forward so i really appreciate everyone hearing from

the bic over the last couple of meetings getting you're office did controller's office all sort of looking this and making sure where we go will get us to the final end in my evaluation hopefully, i make here this is my goal looking at this so just to reiterated hoping to start this bin of the january 2nd to three month process of evaluating and hopefully able to provide a timeline out this that would be sort of i think what we all hope for without speaking for everybody sometimes, we, so - >> that's absolutely you're the president. >> great we can expect after the process starts to meet with whoever is

doing the interviews and i don't know that any of us will be involved on a regular basis is this you're intention to interview people. >> yeah. the consultant b will get a list of people involved a they'll need kind of a historical timeline and allows of players; right? for the purpose of i mean evaluating what has happened requires we engage all the different voices absolutely. >> thank you. >> okay yes, thank you again for coming. just a quick question i was wondering one of the things you can share with the bic and the vendors will be picked in january may be done after their picked give us the rfp one of the things that is frustrating

the commission has not been you know knowledgeable the amount avenue money we've spent and also what we're getting for that money the rfp will covet give the commission that kind of baseline knowledge >> two things one it is public document; right? because it gets published to the marketplace, and, secondly, converted with henry he sent it but if this somehow got lost or something like that i'll be happy to to send to you now the evaluation and anguish all that sorts of thing need to see remain in process but the document is available for anyone that wants to see that but have

it resent to you specifically before the end of the day. >> conforming the e-mail all the commissioners tomato make sure you received that. >> i do. >> commission. >> i like to ask about the timeline i understand that we won't be picking a consultant by the end of the january 11th to 15 weeks to that takes us to the end of my what do we hope i mean, i'm hearing what concrete assessment - what are we trying to achieve by the end of may a report back to us how long more it will take what concrete things are you expecting to be produced? >> so very specifically he have articulated and documented in the rfp that my expectation is that at the outcome we'll

have a proper evaluation in mr. mayor the business requirement and the intended outcome so once in a while, we'll put the goalpost into the ground quite frankly it is in the interest of a sell and 21 tech if they continue to work on and on on this project i was a little bit surprised quite frankly with the qualification if i was them i want this too their participating in this kind of death by. >> though paper cuts i don't know how to say it more bluntly but step number one establishing a goalpost and then an evaluation of what's been done so for and is that pushing us towards that goalpost if so what

the delta what exist between where we are and know to be this establishes hopefully, a fairly firmer if not concrete scope of work to kind of cross that and will result in a specific work request or requirement of the vendors very potentially and likely the current vendor it could quite frankly be anybody but the outcome of this phase to firmly establish where we want to go and what we've done so for and what gap pea what it takes to close the gap. >> will we get some sort of timeframe at a point. >> we could ask the consultant to give us their estimate in terms of time to complete that

work effort by the positive precise answer will come in the next step the consultant establishes the goalpost and tells us what is missing we take that and go to the vendors and is what will it take you to now complete that work effort that will result in an important precise timeframe and cost to do that work. >> i think i'm not speaking for everyone my feeling i need our advise to let me know the timeframe i can't ask - i don't want to see the goalpost keep moving i'm relying on the expectation of what it should be right now i'm not knowledgeable this will take two years or 6 months i need to rely on someone's expertise i'm hoping

the consultant will do that. >> the consultant will absolutely give us a timeline expectation that will be precise in the actual work. >> commissioner walker back to you. >> i want to support 2, 3, 4 i think that is port for the estimate of solutions to the finish. >> yeah. >> i think all of us have illustrated extreme patience with needing to amend that slightly but no more drift. >> we are singing the same song. >> thank you. >> and miguel to close out i had a conversation with henry briefed me on this i don't know if you want to talk about that but the fellow commissioners one of the confuses what will we do with the downtime when the did not analyze it going on to keep

update what will happen in the next three or four most. >> tilt more activity i think the consultant will not come and collect artifacts and disappear and come back in 43 months but active engage ever engaged with you all the vendors and staff i think there is a lot more activity than maybe preserved at the moment so i first and foremost that is the priority to make sure we're contributing the only i know the greatest reflex to the timeline of this assessment those people are not available to do so so that is kind of paramount priority to make sure that we're responsive and active with the consultant to make sure they have everything they need to complete the analyze it is kind

of the paramount work activity. >> commissioner walker to fellow that maybe an update at the meeting. >> sure. >> if this would be that would be helpful to update what the process is providing at the different goalposts. >> a i'll be happy to to do that. >> okay. but to you're point you're focus is that independent analysis. >> right. >> it will cause potentially cause very good questions to be kind of thought through internally their ask about the business processes and questions like i don't want to put word in their mouth but why do you do this process that way and why - whatever the function in this sort of way and that i hope

causes something more than just because we've done is that way response i hope that triggers thought full kind of considerations because one opportunity here to also make the process better so the earlier discussion about customer service i think the theme is i think everyone is interested in making the experience better; right? for the customer and for staff and everyone interested there will be hopefully, some thought provoking conversations give you an opportunity to consider some of the things parallel or spate but hopefully kick the rocks over that's outside of my lane having been there this is not the first time i've been here and done this this is the real

golden opportunity i'll encourage you to figure out how to process evaluate kind of the what that experience looks like. >> thank you we're in good hands if any more questions no more comment thank you miguel for coming out public comment on item 8. >> good morning. i'm jerry i have to specific concerns one is that again there is no document that plan as to what we're trying to do with the consultants and couple kickoff things i heard today scare me one the original intent in installing was to deliver as is solution to what dbi currently

does when you expand the scope of the project to include a business analysis and improvements you've made the project much, much bigger i think that is really something bic needs to manage again, can't percentage manage it without a high-level scope document i encourage the bic to demand that the other as commissioner lee indicate the report won't be out until may sometime what is going to be done now about the lack of documentation? henry and the other it directors have been working on this for 14 months they know where the documentation weakness exist are we 200 not going to address this night life may we don't need a

report they know they exist so two things again, no scope statement are you going to do something and expand the scope you can about managing the building project scope is the enemy of anything please don't let that happen thank you >> is there any additional public comment? >> hiding hugh's again during the past 4 months i've been on the dbi site almost everyday i want to give generally when i think are positive observations about how i'm able to assess the permit information through the boarding backdoor a grid of the city and one plays i type in the

address at issue and basically up comes all the planning and dbi and agencies and find first and foremost that is really helpful i go to dbi there is plumbing and electrical and complaints and get basically a line for each complaint or permit and can open up to see what is going on and frankly it is helpful i don't know how i would have been able to keep on top of the situation not able to do this people say you look at this evidence yes, if someone is interested in an issue you need to track it everyday i think if there is one concern when i want a permit or a document and it is necessary to come down to either the fourth floor or the third floor for the plumbing or the electrical permit so i think this as basic system and what the previous speaker had to say

make it two complex that may make if it more difficult folks want simple information what is the status of the group or the complaint but i think if there is a way where the permit can be rolled into pd f file it is helpful in the past 4 months thank you. >> appreciate it thank you for your comments. >> if we have no more public comment we can go do the next item. >> return to item 6 possible action to the 16 any of us active bullet soft story with the technical position regarding the diagram and design continued

if our previous meeting. >> i'm kicking from the department of building inspection services i'm secretary to the advisory committee bringing you a proposed change to an equivocating bullet number 107 that a deals with the soft story provisions ordinance the main thing a lot of words added to the bullet but my understanding is that it is basically just clarifying a particular part of how you deal technically with the attachment of the sheer walls to the diagram it is beyond me i've brought steve harris our charger of the subcommittee to try to explain it to you and be able to answer any questions you may have. >> thanks certifying thank you for coming today. >> commissioners just by way of explanation you mean ab 107

is a complex document we were essentially inventing this soft story building from scratch and allowing the use of technical provisions in order to comply one thing that was not dealt with initially was the connection of the new and exist shear wall elements in the soft story or the target story up to the floor above and good engineers and plan checkers seem to grasp what was generally necessary but there was misunderstanding from the lack of clarity on the part of some plan checkers that was earlier in the year that was a collection problem we worked with dbi to create an information sheet that spelled out conceptually what the issues were basically we want to develop the strength of the

element into the diagram and to provide clerk drag lementsd to make that happen the actual words advisory committee were developed by the existing buildings committee through most and most of negotiations and discussions as usual but we've got a pretty solid document one that includes all kinds of good representatives to be used for those diagrams and so i encourage you to approve that change. >> very rare. >> (laughter). >> our engineer. >> very rare. >> it is so awesome. >> i think the nice thing one of the comments was brought up i say survey an inconsistency in

terms of the position i was reminded by a clerk if you go into the office you'll find the exact same thing that is what they brought up a cigarette way into this they're trying to clarify things and which is very difficult and especially in a city like san francisco with old buildings all buildings are different and you can have sections without the hardwood flooring that gives us different strengths so a very good document as one question it is rather a technical question i'll throw awe at you if i could. >> okay. >> there is a reference to section b 5112 that talks about an existing sheet and supplement that with another sheet and take

one percent of one and wouldn't it be withholding of one and zero percent of weak material. >> it takes us 50 percent as opposed to 100 percent it is go significantly diversity but not different at a certain point the existing material provides no resistance so some resistance if you imagine the forced materials as the different material gets up to its higher resistance the sort ofer material reaches some of its capacity but not yet to its full capacity an attempt to give some break to the existing material and not just to say a few. >> okay. i see. >> that was my only comment or

question i should say it is a good document thank you. >> thank you commissioner clinch. >> commissioner lee please. i'll leave the technical requirement with our engineers i'm concerned about when those technical requirements are triggered i looked previous code section that was clear i'm talking about sort of 04.72 when more than thirty percent cumulative may 31st 1973 blah, blah, blah. >> are you talking about item 67 now. >> yeah. >> are we talking about that. >> no. we're not as commissioner lee. >> we're still on item 6 so. >> i thought we took them together. >> to our point. >> yeah. >> i believe we are happy to

have them together. >> an introduction on 7 first. >> okay. >> i'll read item 7 i'm sorry is discussion and possible action regarding a proposed code change to the building code structural alteration a key sections general i'll read the representative to may 1973 with a date. >> okay. so by way of the introduction. >> please. the provisions that with respect talking about in every code and every code cycle changes the numbers but back in the day known as provision one 04 f there has been generally so to speak two triggers that point in that direction of the structural

upgrade i upgrade one the non-structural trigger doing work significant work on 2/3rd's of number of floors that could be changing out serials and practitioners and the structural trigger that talks about doing structural work that is effects thirty percent or more the tributary area of the gravity element in the trigger there is to get out of jail free cards, if you will, that points to this miss scienter dates of may 1973 no structural basis i don't know exactly where it came from, no basis in terms of building strength or building code requirements or anything like that we're proposed rather than

to keynote speaker that date or update that date in number of years where we are now to replace it with a list of benchmark years we know depending on what type of building you have the codes got to a level we consider to be modern codes and different times frame at different times and metal in various locations there is a standard list of benchmark years that is available to us in the national standard put out by the american society of engineers s c-41 the benchmarks exist and complaisance for us to make use of it what we've done we've taken that benchmark year

list and we have combined it with the list of adoption years for the sfpuc so the list of benchmark years in the provision are just a little bit later than the benchmark years in the sfpuc 41 simply it took some time for san francisco 0 actually adopt the code that invoked the codes in the benchmark years other than that clarification and slight shift is it so essentially the benchmark in s c-41 we're proposing to replace that arbitrary dates with the dates that depends on the type of building caps. >> make sense. >> a list of dates now. >> so a table now. >> the structure is alternated and increased by 34 changes by a

certain time limit to meet the standards. >> the dates pertain to when the building was brought into compliance with the code if we take for example, go letting pull one of these up here - and look at the say the very first thing wood-frame building residential wood frame the date is january 1st, 1984, so if the building in question was permitted on or after that date or has been retrieved in compliance with the code on or after that date it triggers would not apply no nothing requires before that date it was permitted or brought into compliance with a retrofit then do angle analysis to show you've

met the requirements 75 percent of load in the current code if you met them your calculations are all you need to do if not further upgrade is required. >> year one we are only doing 25 percent then it didn't trigger a trigger. >> the following year we're coming back for other program with another 25 now 50 percent triggers. >> that will trigger from the original construction predates the benchmark yes. >> okay. i'm in. >> good. >> but someone will have to explain that slowly at the table; right? >> it will, printed in the building code and if you approve is that will be printed in the table and part of code so if under those any question then

the checkers will know and check the permit application date of that permit and just the same checking with the table and it should be straightforward as to which type of building you have if there is a pointer to the descriptions in the s c-41 that explains what we mean and a pointer if you have a building more one type you use the one with the latter year. >> so actively this puts it only the department to catch it. >> the onerous is on the department on this slightly more so. >> commission. >> a shame also plug for hiring structural engineers. >> it is you see these (laughter) i don't know if it is the

question you were raising but fairly complex to an engineer it is not so i think those code provisions radio not meant for the law person just hire a structural engineer i'll sort of it out you a i've got business cards on the table (laughter). >> thank you, mr. harris and your service on the code advisory committee. >> this is really i mean very complicated and the pages here when you been the fact you have different buildings made auto ousted of different materials with different years and stories doing different things coming up with a consistent standard verbiage is important to make sure this soft story succeed so thank you guys for doing this a

lot. >> is there any additional public comment on items six and seven okay. seeing none is there a motion for about items? >> yes. motion to approve. >> i'll second that. >> okay. we have a location roll call vote commissioner president mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner clinch commissioner lee commissioner mccray and commissioner walker that motion carries unanimously. >> we're on to item 9; is that correct. >> item 9 director's report. >> 9 a update on dbis finances. >> good morning, commissioners deputy director for the department of building inspection and before you say a

in front of 2015 year to dated financial report i'll take a couple of minutes for highlights revenues continue to increase actually collected $8 million mower this year to date 2015 than 2014 and for a variety of reasons our evaluation has increased $900 million from last year to this year and trending through the evaluation usually two of the largest permitting are based on the evaluation of the permit in plan check we collected $4 million in 2015 compared to one .4 last year so basically this year on reader to be the highest record because a 2013-2014 we collected about $3 million less than that was collected in the current year maybe studying 2013-2014 this

year and on the expenditure side they're our expenditures are less than the same time last year two reasons our buildings are lower than expected they'll caught after the holidays expect those numbers to be different your capital outlay you're not orders our replacement of vehicles speeded overview exterminate this to go up i want to brought to your attention the work orders it is higher than last year that includes a $1.45 million add back that the board placed in the budget for the dpw and that is for phase 3 at the telegraph hill probable over the flex come up of months did expenditures will got up

they've contacted us and are going to work on it i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner lee please. >> increased revenue. >> yeah. >> is that essentially for the services we'll provide. >> yes. thank you for pointing out that. >> our collection are up because of building permit and because of planning review so when all we're collecting a lot of the money some we'll have to do at the end of the year a reconciliation for the deferred credit report we'll be capturing the motorbike up front not earned in the current year. >> exactly the issues are not an issue. >> oh, staffing is getting better we actually didn't bring any accomplice i believe that we are going to bringing on more electrical inspectors we brought

think additional inspectors we're doing hiring we continue to hire i think there is a recruitment two or three recruitments every month continuing be that to staff up and in 9 other departments to make sure we have enough people in it. >> my last question. >> are we still under the hugh section. >> yes. under the fee reductions to the effect on november 19th. >> until october 19th. >> no, it took effect on october 19th a oh. >> and until allocate fee study the staff recommend we do a fee study. >> commissioner walker. >> the fees are tied to the survey not the 7 percent but the tiered one; right? >> right. >> there's a result that came

back that established the fees based on the study. >> correct. >> you okay. >> and to forgiven me deputy director i noticed at the board of supervisors a decision made about a particular building that was funds were going to come from that were going to be i know we talked about you are offices you budgeted for . >> yes, so. >> i kind of if we can have this conversation another time but answer when it means raw that is derailed right now. >> i'm not sure it is derailed my reading the initial kg price the board didn't agree but gave instruction to the direction of

real estate but a van ness that includes revenues to purchase the building that will be located being other departments didn't - that offer was not approved so at this point it is two earlier to say if this has an impact. >> okay. thank you. >> item 9 b the recent enacted state or local legislation. >> good morning, bill strong legislative and public affairs i passed out in you're packets a number of updates but one after we sent the packets supervisor avalos has recently introduced a new piece of legislation that had mentions to you a number of months ago that will establish a

mandatory requirement for owners with illegal units it legalize them and would also modify the planning use review in the stance we were a private initial conversation with the staff i expect further conversations not schedule yes, but be aware it pier 30/32 to be moving forward it hadn't been sent to a committee or assigned to a committee on other piece of legislation the auditorium code enforcement with supervisor wiener has put on a thirty day land use calendar is skord in the new year a version in the city attorney's office it is refinanced that's the reason they're not likely to see it

before the holidays. >> but are these calendar. >> not calendared it is on the thirty day calendar for land use they haven't actually set a date for the agenda i expect that will happen in early january. >> can you do that when the document is incompletely. >> once the thirty days inspire they don't have to put it on the agenda depends on if they have other priorities i do have another message from the supervisors aid trying to get the city attorney's office and anyone else that as refinements or suggestions to get together and finalize the documents. >> yeah, and i know i think you and i talked offline i'm talking about the original document i felt. >> that was problematic and

not clear well, i'll say on the revised version i believe many of the items that dbi have expressed concerns were addressed in many respect what is happening with the legislation taking you are templates around code enforcement and trying to have especially the fire department and the the public health follow suit in a sense of establishing a hearing process a notice of violation process i know that the from time to time and the health department are talking with the supervisors i don't know the details but suspect that is another reason he's not accelerating this it is probable going to be january or february before we see this at land use for actually hearing discussion much less than forwarding to the

full board. >> commissioner walker please. yeah do you have a revised versions. >> yeah. >> maybe send it to us. >> i'll be happy to to. >> that would be helpful i think that is the department put in a formal feedback to try and make sure it doesn't temple 19step on our processes that is the goal 0 replicate our process with code enforcement a citywide approach which is good we're the only ones with a formal directors hearing and a formal process that helps with resolving those issues whereas some departments like fire didn't have this. >> i agree i'll be happy to to send that the one issue that

remains out there in the legislation the city attorney's ability to go ahead and talk up a cased without a departmental referral the way it works now you're litigation commission meets every other month we have been referring a couple of cases at each the meeting we end up 24/78 and 10 additional referrals from the city attorney every year there many modification if the city attorney seize a case of we haven't provide the background the case history he'll be terrorized to go forward and litigate that case no way short of asking the city attorney whether or not necessary, do that now but that's proposed.

>> commissioner walker. >> yeah. and that can happen now actually many different ways the city attorney takes on cases some avenue which deals with the sro task force and others that bring together health and dpw in a robust way they sort of do this this is you know, i think that is something to talk about if there is concerns about. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> to talk about in what cases and . >> someone said on the utilization commission commissioner walker and other this is efficient in getting to the city attorney's office we've had a good - so i'm - >> this is not necessarily about that. >> aligned and to you're point but i hate to put you on the spot bill if so fire department

don't sign on to this what happens this is the education you can't answer. >> i i'd like to take this opportunity read the supervisors minds. >> if they don't sign off it didn't hold any water to the administration; right? >> i would imagine if under those resistance from either fire or public health then the conversation will continue. >> yeah. >> is what i expect. >> well, i think that around code enforcement it is given the city attorney is trying to establish consistent rules to everyone knows whatever in their dealing with. >> but sign open to this we're a back to what is the purpose of the litigation. >> who makes the rules. >> okay. all right. well, i

look forward to seeing how this plays out and i know that commissioner walker and a few commissioners so i'd like to be on top of this before a recommendation and approval we're asking those hard questions we should be asking you get it i do get it. >> i'll send all of you the most recent version he have other than if you have any questions i'll be happy to to answer them. >> commissioner, i had a comment on one 4 is 01 by supervisor wiener i wanted to check into to make sure our department is working with him on this because i think this is good legislation but i just want to make sure it is going to be taking care of. >> yes. we're supportive of that and as we understand the building official has the authorities to soft work on the

project if, in fact, someone is in vision the question is if the - it is a placated project and multiple permits issued do you does the building official want to stop all the work if under the issue we understand the supervisor has a specific case in mind and whether or not that case you know merits the weed wider net speaks for itself it is his discretion but certainly.

>> a few more projects coming in like the candle stick park and you know the arena and you know other things come on but those are you know the money for the future work and then after that i didn't see any item huge are coming in after that any questions. >> thank you director. >> item 9 d update on code

enforcement. >> morning commissioners displacing murphy deputy director inspection services here to report on the code enforcement and the monthly update for november 2015 for the building inspectors was 4 thousand 8 hundred and complaint 200 plus the containment response within twenty-four hour to 48 hours the complaint of first notice of violation 31 and complaints abated without notice of violation one and 29 and abatement complaint with notice of violations were 20 and second notice of violations were 12 the housing inspection all them were one and 50 and complaints were three hundred and 54 complaints response from tours to 48 hours the complaints issued one and 28

and ability complaints three hundred and one and the number of cases sent to the directors home sharer were 18 and on the code enforcement services the number of cases sent to the corrections were 36 and the order of abatement were 10 number of cases under advisement were 9 and abated were 27 and code enforcement inspectors performed one and telephone number of cases referred to the litigation committee were 2 pr or also in the report expand the report to include plumbing and electrical ross are inspections performed to keep you updated and inspections so for the inspections division we performed 2 to tell us nine hundred inspections for the month of november for the

plumbing division it thousand plus inspectors inspects for 9 division complaints it was thirty complaints for that most 6 notice of violations issued and for the plumbing division 68 containment with 556 notice of violations issued we are will be happy to have other status we have a couple of questions regarding the directors hearing the open complaints we're here to give you a somewhere of that. >> okay. >> directors hearings directors hearing are conducted on tuesday and code enforcement buildings and thursday for the housing division the code enforcement services 60 property are processed on a average monthly with roughly 15

weekly for the housing inspection 33 with roughly 8 weekly on average the weekly covers a four months period thirty days for the training fee and 50 days for directors hearings and possible thirty days continuance possible thirty details advisement on average over 200 cases are scheduled for the directors hearing in a four months periods but at the end approximately 70 new cases to code enforcement that result is also having a balance of 70 to one hundred cases so this is never really a static number even at the end of this process with cases waiting to go

to hearing we i'd like to take this opportunity abate a complaint or notice of violation even in the process of waiting there are permits that are complete that need to be abated so the fabulous is fluctuating we try to give you that synopsis but this is a breakdown of the month for open code enforcement complaint that report was on 10, 2015 for the open complaint 4 hundred and 5. >> so you have a slide we're supposed to be looking at. >> they're in the packets. >> it is not connecting there we go. >> thank you. >> oh, okay. >> so for the total open times

for this month is 4 hundred and 5 order of abatements issued on the 409 was 200 and 899 process for directors sharing was one and 6 so for the same number of the month later the 4 hundred and 5 were projecting a month later an december 8th is the same cases their stan be able added to take the same amount of cases so out of the 4 hundred and 5 cases a month later 200 and 33 had an order of abatement on this and 21 were ability and 51 are still go assessed with a monitoring fee out of 41 permits issued or permits you know still awaiting the planning department that is why that number is seated the monitoring fee is

still a notice of violation until it is completely corrected. >> right. >> for the abatement process order of abatement can only be removed revocation when the permit permit is complete final inspections signed off and fees paid nine hundred and 50 cases were abideed. >> commissioners any questions. >> i do have a question a process question a noeks let's say either on work with w without permit or exceeding the scope something like that and our inspectors goes out and sees this the work is down done to code do we abate it or assess something because the action was

if it is exceeded the scope of the work in a correction or a noeks they'll take pride a revised document to show it if there is structural calculations part that will be require a revised permit so either there is latitude or the notice of violation and a half exceeded the scope of work. >> once the work is done is there a penalty assessed as there is if they've completed the scope of work they have an existing work. >> but it is 9 times exceeded the work. >> yes. >> and how odd you handle store commissioner lee has it ever been a case that went to the directors hearing that never gotten abatement