The abatement appeal board. I would like to remind everybody to turnoff their electronic devices. Item one, roll call. [roll call] clerk we have a quorum. And the next item is item b, the oath. Will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. Okay. No members at the time there is someone . Im sorry. I cant see up there. Do you swear to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge . Thank you. You may be seated. Okay. For the record, the department will present their case. Each side has seven minutes. Then, the appellant will present their case. Next, theres Public Comment, and each member has three minutes to speak. Lastly, theres rebuttal, three minutes for the department and the appellant. Next, discussion of minutes for the meeting held on july 17, 2019. Okay. Are there any corrections or comments regarding the Meeting Minutes from the 17 . Okay. I move we accept. Second. Clerk okay. A motion and a second. Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Are all commissioners in favor . Any opposed. Okay. Minutes are approved. I also wanted to announce that our first item, case number 6861, 49 drum street, has withdrawn their request for appeals. Okay. Thank you. Clerk next item is order of abatement, case number 6863, 1139 guerrero street, rincon properties, l. L. C. Action requested by appellant. Time needed to work with tenant to get final inspection done. The departments can come forward. Good morning. My name is moises hernandez, chief inspector for building enforcement. A wall heater improperly working, causing potential life safety issues. A notice of inspection was issued by inspector loera, which noted that the wall heater was actually installed incorrectly and requested them obtain a building permit. A notice of violation was issued on december 9. The final warning letter was issued afterwards because they failed to comply with the permit. The actual permit was actually issued two months later. There was a hearing on december 12, 2018. The hearing was continued in order for them to correct the heating violations. Heres the inspection so far, which you can see on february 7, 2019, there was no one onsite, so therefore, the inspector could not inspect the site. The order of abatement was issued based on the fact that there was no inspection history afterwards after the initial inspection. As you can see, the other inspections in april, i believe, show corrective action, which the wall heater still hasnt been corrected. Therefore, Code Enforcement requests to uphold the abatement and all assessment costs. I do also want to point out that weve had multiple cases or open complaints again this property, multiple violations throughout the years which also applies to City Attorney because they have filed to comply with multiple notices of violation. President mccarthy thank you very much. Clerk is there a representative or appellant present . It does not look like it. Is there Public Comment . Any Public Comment on this case . Okay. Commissioner walker . Commissioner walker thank you for bringing this. So you havent been able to we havent been able to access entry to see if theres been any correction, is that the case, since april . Yes. I spoke with the Planning Department today, and as of april, they have no inspections from the contractor. Commissioner walker seems pretty cut and dry. I move to uphold the order. Second. Commissioner walker because the evidence provided indicates there indeed has been a violation and it has not been corrected. Thank you. President mccarthy [inaudible] clerk yeah. So the case were discussing is 1139 guerrero street. Commissioner walker yes. Commissioner clinch appeal number 8683. President mccarthy thank you, commissioner clinch. Clerk and we have a motion and a second. And there was no Public Comment on this item, so ill do a roll call vote. [roll call] clerk okay. That motion carries unanimously, and our next item is item f, general Public Comment. General Public Comment for items that are not on the abatement appeals agenda. Item g, motion to adjourn. Motion. Second. Clerk okay. All in favor . Okay. We are now adjourned. Well reconvene as the Building Inspection Commission at 10 00 a. M. Exactly. A way of life in San Francisco. When the next major quake hits, the city hopes a new law requiring seismic upgrades to five story buildings will help keep more residents safe and sound. Tell me a little about the soft Story Program. What is it . Its a program the mayor signed into law about a year and a half ago and the whole idea behind it was to help homeowners strengthen buildings so that they would not collapse. Did you the soft Story Program apply to all buildings or building that were built in a certain time frame . It only applies to buildings built in the time frame of 1978 and earlier. Its aimed at wood framed buildings that are three or more stories and five or more units. But the openings at the garage level and the street level arent supported in many buildings. And without the support during a major earthquake, they are expected to pancake and flatten ~. Many of the buildings in this program are under rent control so its to everybodys advantage to do the work and make sure they protect their investment and their tenant. Notices have gone out to more than 6,000 owners of potentially atrisk properties but fewer than onethird have responded and thousands might miss an important deadline in september to tell the city what they plan to do. Lets talk worst case scenario. What happens in a collapse . Buildings have the tendency of rolling over. The first soft story walls lean over and the building collapse. In an earthquake the building is a total loss. Can you describe what kind of strengthening is involved in the retrofit . One of the basic concepts, you want to think of this building kind of like rubber band and the upper three floor are very rigid box and the garage is a very flexible element. In an earthquake the garage will have a tendency to rollover. You have to rubber band analogy that the first floor is a very tough but flexible rubber band such that you never drive force he to the upper floors. Where all your damage goes into controlled element like plywood or steel frame. So, here we are actually inside of a soft story building. Can we talk a little about what kinds of repairs Property Owners might expect . Its a very simple process. We deliberately tried to keep it that way. So, whats involved is plywood, which when you install it and make a wall as we have done here already, then you cover it with this gypsum material. This adds some flexibility so that during the earthquake youll get movement but not collapse. And that gets strengthened even more when we go over to the steel frame to support the upper floor. So, potentially the wood and the steel it sounds like a fairly straightforward process takes your odds of collapse from one in 4 to one in 30 . Thats exactly right. Thats why were hoping that people will move quickly and make this happen. Great. Lets take a look. So, lets talk steel frames. Tell me what we have going on here. Well, we have a steel frame here. There are two of these and they go up to the lower floor and there is a beam that go across, basically a box that is much stiffer and stronger. ~ goes so that during the earthquake the upper floor will not collapse down on this story. It can be done in about two weeks time. Voila, youre done. Easy. For more information on how to get your building earthquake ready,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y, next. We. Next are i he thank you so much for that. Congratulations again to the director who made remarks at this years time chinese real estate convention. You updated its members as members on an important d. B. I. Safety improvement building program. Thank you for that. Finally, d. B. I. s Employee Recognition committee reviewed some nominations and selected building inspector clancy as our employee of the year. His dedication and outstanding work on multiple inspections under very tight timelines helps to ensure the new chase arena will open on schedule in early september, enabling San Francisco and the bay area fans of the Golden State Warriors to usher in yet another championship season for our team and its brandnew stateoftheart facility. We will be presenting this award i want to say that i was able to take a tour of chase centre. Amazing work. It is huge, it is beautiful, all of us should go see the building it is really pretty amazing. Congratulations to clancy. I think our secretary wants to read something and then i will present the award. I just have a statement from the team that he worked with. I speak on behalf of the entire Clark Company as well as the joint venture when i say that he has been a partner through the can his to the construction industry, upholding the oath, values and discipline given to him by the city of San Francisco , but also partnership and leadership he has shown to us throughout the last years. I could not think of another person more deserving to be recognized. We meet city officials in every city, county and town that we worked. Some are very good, some with room to grow. He has managed to achieve the right balance of Public Safety and city obligations with being part of a team and he simply gets it done. From all of us at the Clark Construction throughout the city , we applaud the city in recognizing him. Well done. Thank you. [applause] if youd like to come on up, please. And recognition of your professionalism and outstanding service, on behalf of your division and going above and beyond the call of duty with engagement and responsiveness and encouraging code compliance, your confidence with stakeholders and staff make you an invaluable asset. This award is hereby presented to you as [indiscernible]. [applause] [laughter] this completes my announcements. Congratulations, again. Is there any Public Comment on the president s announcement . Seeing none, item three, general Public Comment. The b. I. C. Will take Public Comment on matters within the commissions jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. Good morning, commissioners. I had a client recently who had an issue about Property Line windows. And the plan checker said, unless you approve evidence of this existing [indiscernible] the criteria for allowing these windows would allow us to do that. The chief building inspector went out and got some photos to show these existing windows. I did not believe that. We know he did do that. Let me say this. He said yes, look, here it is. Here is what is going on. This is what you call service to the public. On another thing, i did appreciate mr. Fergus from the permit centre who shadowed me for one day. That was really cool to go around with. Lastly, there is a new way of signing up for plan check. It is really great. Thanks for holding the spot in the general planning line. There two people ahead of you. We will let you know when you are near the front. [indiscernible] status update from general planning is not ready yet, but please have the city if the city or San Francisco need more time, you can reply. How cool is that . Once again, im looking forward to this new building. We will see how it all works out great job, d. B. I. You always do a great job. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have a presentation for commissioners, please. Commissioners, my name is kevin chang. The topic today is on the followup of the july 17th b. I. C. Hearing on the property on 18th street. On page one of the presentation, there is a timeline to the missed Code Enforcement opportunities. There are 20 onsite inspections for a total of 26 inspections over a 304 month period. Checkout when these were conducted. Excavations were from december 21422015. Why did they not understand the full extent of the permit . Checkout when it was okay to cover the inspections that were conducted. Sheet rock being loaded in may 2016. Notice how the roof is ripped off the attic. It is highly unusual to load sheetrock when it is not closed. Checkout planning taking two years to issue this after a zero permit complaint in may of 2018. The buildings have been known to force complaints to planning within a matter of days. Checkout that 90 inspections including the complaint inspections were done by one building inspector. From start of work inspection to the final inspections, they determined there were no violations. Why was there no rotation of inspectors. Check out the building taking out one year to issue n. O. V. Why did building issue in n. O. V. Only after the discretionary review at the Planning Commission . Checkout special inspections being done without geotech reform. Checkout the project that involves mercury engineering all under investigation by the City Attorney. Checkout page two. The excerpt of the building staff report to the Planning Commission, which was not presented to this commission. After building staff conducted 26 onsite inspections from december 2142 october december 2014 to october 2016. They did not document the as built conditions. Are the wheels of justice low or selective . Are building staff incompetent or corrupt . These questions should not be hard to answer. These questions will not be answered if the Building Inspections commission does not call for an independent investigation that is thorough and transparent. Commissioners, please call for an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation. Thank you. Is there any other further Public Comment . Seeing none, item four, commissioner questions in matters, inquiries to staff. Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. I talked with some stuff already, and forgive me if this was already going to be discussed. If i dont i dont know if everyone saw the news earlier, i guess it was last week, h. U. D. Sent Planning Department on the building does Building Inspection Department a letter saying it was going to be investigating the last ten years of reports that were done by the department that led to legislative decisions at the board of supervisors and as far as housing, planning, zoning and all of those things are concerned, and the assumption that San Francisco might be violating they fair housing act. As an Affordable Housing director, i have many takes on that. I guess i would love to know what i believe d. B. I. Got a letter directly, and i would like to talk about that specifically today just to know if there is a schedule or game plan around it. So you want an update . Yeah. And agenda item on that at some point when we are ready . When you have had time to download it, i would like it to be an agenda item, please. Any other commissioners . Okay. Our next item is item four b. , future meetings and agendas. The commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission, and in our september meeting is on september 18th. Is everyone good . Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on item four a or b. . Our next item is item five, discussion and possible action regarding the ordinance amending the plumbing code to delete the local amendment to the california plumbing code, rules and regulations and the section on Cross Connection control. To add local controls for beverage dispensers in a testing requirement for backflow prevention, in addition to other requirements. We were expecting representatives today to speak about this to you from the sfpuc and the department of public health, i see they are not here at the moment, so i dont know if you want to move on . Sorry, i didnt see them in the back there. Would you like to come up . Sorry. Thats okay. Thank you thank you for coming this morning. Sorry, we were hiding in the back. Thats okay. I am the epidemiologist and manager of several programs including the water regulatory programs at the department of public health. Before you today is an amendment to the local plumbing code that we have been working collaboratively on for a while. It has a bit of a complicated history that i can give you details about if you are interested, but essentially what the amendment before you does is makes the local plumbing code consistent with the rules that we have under San Francisco health code, article 12 a, and together with your staff and the code advisory committee, we have come to consensus that we would like to all be on the same page about how, what we require of beverage dispensers with respect to backflow, industrial chillers , and the way we think about some of the tasking requirements. Is there any questions . I dont have questions, i will just make a statement. Most of this is pretty standard now. And many of the other jurisdictions have already adopted it, such as a backflow preventer for the beverage dispenser, and requiring that they dont use copper piping on a downstream side of the backflow preventer. The reason is that carbonated water hitting copper causes some italy fact if people drink it, so that is why we want the backflow preventer removed. Contra costa county does it, i know that for a fact, and im sure other jurisdictions does it , too. Great. Is it backwards, as well, or just Going Forward . Do people have to come up to this code . Most should be in compliance, actually, and we continue to enforce it through the health code, and now this will just assist the Building Department to make sure it is enforced in their environment when they are onsite. Okay. Great. So whenever they run into it, this is it. Right. Got it. Thank you very much. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, we do a roll call vote. Is there a motion to approve . I move that we approve this. Second. There is a motion and a second. [roll call] the motion carried unanimously. Thank you, again. Our next item is item six, discussion and possible action regarding the high calculations for including occupy roofs as an occupied floor and code interpretation number 17001. Great. I believe we have our fire marshal. Do you want to come up and give us the latest on this . It seems to be going back and forth. It is. Good morning, commissioners. With me today is chief pruitt chief pruitt, he manages plan checks. So just a little recap, in 2017, we put out a formal interpretation in defining highrise buildings. Typically highrise building is defined as a measurement from the lowest point of Fire Department access, to the highest occupied floor level. The interpretation stated that a rooftop deck was considered an occupied floor when measuring 7r or not the building was a highrise building. Obviously there are many implications to this. The codes are dramatically more conservative and restrictive for highrise buildings. Theres a lot of reasons for that. The past fire marshal, who is now retired as of july, we have a new interim state fire marshal , i had gone up and met with him and his deputies twice, and had multiple phone calls. This is one of the issues we talked about. And from those conversations, the fire marshal at that time told interpretation for further consideration and review. It has recently come to our knowledge that that same interpretation now has been reposted. Nothing has been revised, nothing has been added or any kind of rationale provided in addition to what was already there. It came to our surprise that it was posted because we were not notified in any way. Theres been a lack of communication with the state and s. F. F. D. That maybe because the new administration. Im not here to be critical of the state fire marshal, but there has been some disconnect. What we have done recently over the past couple of weeks is we have reached out numerous times with phone calls, trying to set up a meeting with the state fire marshal to discuss this very matter. What we would like to do is understand the rationale. What are the concerns . If you look and read through the code, theres quite often exceptions to exceptions to exceptions in the code. What i would like to know, from the Fire Departments perspective, what are the concerns, is it truly aerial access, is it increased fire load, is it delayed egress, what is it . And then maybe we can talk about a carveout for limited exceptions or something, and we were hoping to have that conversation, and that is what we are trying to do right now. Over two week period, we got a phone call yesterday from the state fire marshals assistant. I asked to the assistant, do you have the decision to make an authority, and he said no. He says he will relay that information to the state fire marshal and get back to us. So that is where we stand at this point. So, i do have one question. Just for clarification, previous to this previous determination that was posted by the previous fire marshal about calling it a floor, wasnt there a period of time where it wasnt considered a floor . Correct. That was not part of the measurement in determining a highrise building. That has been our past practice. It all changed with that interpretation in 2017 when it was rescinded or removed for further consideration that we went back to that practice, meaning we will not consider it part of the highrise. As a local authority, we have the authority to make that interpretation, and since the stage did not have a formal interpretation out there, that was our interpretation. Now since it has been reposted, we are bound by that interpretation. We would like the City Attorney to weigh in on this. Are we truly bound by that . But i believe that is the case. So there were actually projects that you considered under past practices that it wasnt a highrise, so there was a period of time where it was in flux, where we have some projects that maybe underway, i mean, im just curious. The way we handle that is if you submit your application, whatever the guidelines were at the date of that application, we follow those guidelines. Got it. We dont go back and now so you are halfway through, you cant do this anymore. Exactly. It goes by the application date. Perfect. Any other questions . From a laymans point of view on this, when i review a lot of plans that are coming in, one of the things i keep seeing is that the use of rooftops is increasing. It is a very desirable feature, and, you know, where it has gone from, you know, almost an informal viewing and gathering thing, now it is permanent cooking facilities, all kinds of other uses, different hardscape his, is this change of use and a demand for more exterior space and utilization of roofs really triggering part of the thinking, or adding to your concerns about requiring it to be deemed a highrise, and therefore the Higher Standards . Where is the open space, up on the roof. We have the same concerns that you just conveyed. How do we find the use of that deck . So if you are having cooking, open flame, that is a whole other thing. That is an Assembly Space up there, and that occupant load of 15 square feet per person, and if you place an assembly and a type three a building, you cannot be above the third floor. You have to limit your load to 49. There are limitations here. Were not proposing you have 200 people on a rooftop deck, it is still case by case. You still have to follow the building and fire code for levels of where you can place assemblies, the area, all of that still applies. None of that is being waived, we are just addressing the fact, we are measuring for a highrise. You still have to follow suit, but it is already there in the code. Thank you. Any other questions . Commissioner walker, i want to let you know, in 2018 in d. C. , they have interpretation to define that the roof is not an occupied floor. Curiously we have this [indiscernible] of course, that will be more for someone to talk to the state fire marshal to resolve it. The interpretation from all the building officials, we go by the roof is not an occupied floor. Right. If i may add one thing, it really should be the starting point here. The state fire marshal is the authority for all highrise buildings in the state of california. We as a local Fire Authority enforced those building standards at the local level, so that is why i believe we are bound by that interpretation. Not only that, by state law, we have to inspect every highrise building annually. That authority is given to the state fire marshal. We put in a letter requesting that we conduct those inspections, since our members are the ones who go in and fight the fires and respond to the calls. We have been granted, that was given to us, but we had to request permission to even inspect them annually, so really the authority lies with the state fire marshal on this. I think we should all understand that that is the case. Absolutely. And anything that we can do to help facilitate a conversation to get clarification on this, we are happy to do. I think i speak for all of us. I think were on the same page. Great. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none, our next item was discussion owned possible action regarding the Green Building code, but i just want to finish up, this is serious, and i think that theres probably projects that are affected by this that are in the process or being applied for, et cetera, so i meant if theres anything that we can do to help facilitate something around this to get a meeting set up or, i mean, i am sure the Governors Office would be interested in helping move this conversation along so we can decide one way or another what to do. Let us know. Thank you. Thank you. Item seven, it is actually going to be continued to our next months meeting. Were there any people here for Public Comment on that . I believe it was requested by our president , who is away with a family issue, so we can put this on the next agenda if we can continue it. Do i have to do a vote on that . Or can i just say . Okay. We should vote to continue it i move to continue. Is there a second . Yeah,. There was movement and a second. Any Public Comment on that motion . Seeing none, are all commissioners in favor . Aye. Any opposed . The item will be continued until next month. The next item is item eight, directors report. Eight a, update on d. B. I. s finances. Good morning, how are you . Good morning, commissioners. In your packet today, you have two financial reports. One is the approved budget for fiscal year 1920, 2021, and the second one will be the first july month report for the current fiscal year. I will take a couple of minutes to go over the budget. I think back in february, the Commission Approved the budget and when you approved this budget, there were some caveats knowing there would be some big changes to the budget, primarily 49 south van ness, some of those things had not been worked out. Now we have the full budget here as you can see, the budget has increased from quite a lot when you actually did the approval. It has gone up by about 20 million. That is primarily for three major items, 49 south van ness, digital services, and s. F. Permit. If you look at the second page, and you look under expenditures, you will see services of other departments. That would be on the last item before you get to the total, and you are at 18 million and now were at 36 million. Most of the things that were added to the budget were basically work orders from other departments. Fortynine south van ness, real estate had some work orders and the city administrator had some work orders, brent is in there, too, so that is primarily the biggest increase that we potentially made to the budget when you approved it. So it is 26 now . Is that the one you are looking at . Im looking at 2019, if you look at the second page of the budget, the number under account is 58103, now it is 36. Thirtysix, i see. The net has increased about 20 million. Got it. Okay, then theres one other item that was included, and this is when the board received the budget. So we had about 700,000 in cuts that were minor. They were basically some cuts to materials and supplies, and also some and not actually cuts, because we are waiting for lists to do some hiring. Instead of hiring in july, we were given the authority to hire in september. There was some savings there. The board has chosen to use those cuts to fund an a. D. U. Pilot program. The details of that program are not yet settled. We have had our first meeting with supervisor mars office. I match the City Attorney who will also be involved. D. B. I. Is a special Revenue Department and we have to make sure the program meets whatever the state requirements are. I have more information on that later and i will give it to then is it an Outreach Program . A couple of things have been thrown around. Possibly a loan program, similar to the Cover Program, but they want to see how that will work. This is just one item in a host of board initiatives that will help with a. D. U. S. They want to make sure it complements. That is one of the items. I think they talked a little bit about outreach, but once again, we have to make sure the City Attorney his involved to make sure the program meets the requirements for fe. Got it. Im happy to answer any questions if you have an you questions about the budget. Of the 20 million increase in services to other departments related to 49 south van ness, it is fair to assume these are all onetime costs and not necessarily occurring, or is this component recurring . The rent is going to be recurring. There are about 10 million, about 8 million should be one time. It is the furniture and fixtures we are going to have a move consultant. The department will have a move consultant that will actually help us with the move. About 8 million of that is one time, and the other ones will be all ongoing. We are also funding a portion of the permit centre staff salaries that will be there. That part will be ongoing. The rent is because of a change in total Square Footage charge, or an allocation of Square Footage between ass and planning . The rent is because of the allocation. There are two different rent models on the second floor, instead of it being done by Square Footage, it is being done by the estimate of what is d. B. I. s focus, and that is about 60 something, 63 or 64 . On the other floors, it is Square Footage. And our Square Footage isnt as high as some other departments, but the actual amount of the rent has gone up. So we are getting more Square Footage, but the amount of what it costs to be in that building is more expensive than what it would cost to be in the older building. I can get more details once we have some things worked out. I can bring more details specifically as we get closer and bring in information on that , too. Yeah, because we all know this is a much more expensive building then our previous one, and that is no surprise, but one of the ongoing issues with the allocation of space issue, so thank you. Youre welcome. To the point of the increase and the a. D. U. Program, i think i previously requested an agenda item to go over our current Cover Program, so maybe we can do that in the next month or two to look at where our Cover Program currently is, what the issues are with those allocations, because theres also been some discussions about expanding its to cover some other Code Enforcement, because it is currently the Cover Program, just to let people know , is a low interest loan type program that helps small buildings owner occupy and one to four building units when they want to get assistance with funding Code Enforcement work. So it took quite a while to get the program together, and it would be great to see how it is being used so we can, you know, look at how to expand it, and what it makes sense to do, but a. D. U. S a. D. U. S is certainly one we talked about. I think when scott weiner and i were looking at forming this in the beginning, there was and a. D. U. Was one of the things we wanted to reach two, but there is a lot happening now that could use some assistance, like seismic work, and theres a lot of mandatory programs in some of our older buildings that we might want to capture. If we could do outreach to the Mayors Office of housing with managing this, i believe we could get them to come and present to us about it and see how effective it is and what we can do to strengthen it and expand it. That would be great. I can do that. I can follow up. Maybe we can work with the person there to come in and give an update. That would be helpful. Thank you. Sure. The second no more budget the second report is our july, 2019 financial report. This is our report for the fiscal year 1920. It is very preliminary. It is usually during during the first part of the fiscal year that we are still setting up contracts. Even for the projections, we project what we we will be at budget, but that is probably not the case. There is so little information. Where we are with that is that both the revenues are up in this first month of the fiscal year compared to last fiscal month fiscal year. If you look at the second page, page two of the memo, if you look at issue permit, you will see in fiscal year 20, the number of permits issued between one and 5 million is substantially going up. That is part of the reason why the revenues are up. Normally the plan review and the building inspection fees are the ones that are based on evaluations, so you see 55 versus 301. That is where that is. We will not say that is a trend or something, that is just one month. Once again, because our budget is higher than it was last year, of course, expenditures are up over last year, too. Part of that has to do with salaries because salaries have increased because of some of the this is where we are right now. We wont really be able to see any trends for a few months at least. Great. Im happy to answer any questions on that, too. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next item is eight b. , update a proposal recently enacted state or local legislation. Good morning, commissioners. Legislative and public affairs. Along with the Cross Connections , the plumbing code item that we just voted upon, we are expecting, per the continued item, this electricity preferred for new construction, Green Building amendment, that we will be talking about next month. That ordinance is likely to be introduced once the board resumes its normal business schedule in early september. As a result, there hasnt been any new items on that, so im happy to take any questions, but essentially the report remains the same. Questions . Thank you. Thank you. Eight c. , update on major projects. Good morning. Director of department of building inspection. As you see, theres some slight increases, 2. 7 compared to the last reporting period. Any questions . Next item is eight d. , update on Code Enforcement. Good morning, commissioners. And sweeney from expect inspection enforcement. The Building Inspection Division performed 5,491. Thirtysix complaint responses. Fortytwo complaints with first notice of violation. Fiftyfour complaints received without an ob. Beta complaints without violation, 303. Housing inspection services, housing inspections performed 1,018, complaints received for 411. Complaints of notice of violation issued, 151. Complaints with n. O. V. , 442. Number of cases said to the directors hearing, 30. Routine inspections, 1309. Number of order of abatements issued, 50. Number of cases under advisement , 19. Number of cases abated, 101. Code enforcement inspections performed, 204. Number of cases referred to vic litigation committee, two, and there was no cases referred as of yet to City Attorney this month. Great. Code enforcement Outreach Programs, total people reached out to, these are quarterly numbers, 42,045. Counciling cases, 1,174. Community program participants, 2,050. Cases resolved, 173. Thank you. Questions . Is there any Public Comment on the directors report