document. it is a place mat. president olaguecommissioner moo be mediators here. anybody else out there, they are an incredibly generous person. if there is any discussion he need have, use the next few weeks in order to have that discussion. this has been around for a long time. if there is anything urgent in your mind, why didn't you, earlier? there were some very powerful comments being made, and i have to ask you if you take responsibility to talk and get your last bit in so that you're

comfortable they were being heard. >> i have some comments to make. i can write them down. just to give you a sense of where they're at, i think some of the comments of mr. brooks are very important. i have always been perplexed by issues that are supposedly green issues and how they intersect or don't with transit oriented development as it relates to parking or transportation, if it is through the housing element or someplace else, i think that conversation needs to happen. i did not see language here that relates to shelters. until we come up with something that really is going to house homeless people, we will continue to have people that are facing struggles and economic challenges.

i think there needs to be some examination unhook of what the shelter use means. especially now that we have laws in place that are so draconian, it might lead to where people that don't have a place to stay go. there is the issue of keeping shelters open, operational costs. keeping shelters open during the day, that kind of thing so that people have a place to go. that is kind of a complicated issue, and i will defer those types of questions to the coalition on homelessness and folks like that. i notice that there is a lot of language in here that relates to families who are working families. they generally earn less per

capita, but require larger housing units. i think it is a question that needs to be looked at a little bit more. what is the income level of some of these families? is there any language that insurers -- not ensures, but keeping htem i - them in san francisco. some families in the '90s, it might be considered the development pressures for lack of a better word. those types of things, they were renters that had to leave the city. sometimes condominium conversions, those types of issues that came up.

demolitions, speculation. it pushed a lot of families that i was familiar with out of the city. it wasn't about parking. it was about affordability and access to affordable family housing, but some of that. i know is kind of disturbing, and there is no language for this, really. every year, there seems to be a lower number of african- americans that live in san francisco. i don't know what we do about that, really. i am curious to know what some of the issues that are forcing the population out or why they are choosing not to be here. it is a complicated issue. >> we have done a certain amount of work on this. i am sure we can get you a copy.

it is a very interesting thing. it is very upsetting. it is very complicated. it is disproportionately middle- class african-americans. we will give you a copy. commissioner moore: i read -- president olague: i realize that. ultimately, we start to look at some of these projects as they relate to the needs that have been established. and the reports would be good for us to keep track of. i don't know if that has to do with the housing element in directly. there are a few other things like seniors. i know the population is going to go, according to the housing element draft, 60 years and older will be 30% by 2013.

i am wondering what are the demographics. where do they live, what are the needs going to beat in the next few years? i have been looking at aging, and it is interesting to note that there will be an aging population in san francisco. i remember reading somewhere that it would be a higher percentage of aging population compared to some of the other major cities in california. i think there is certain preparation and mindful is that we need to have when it comes to looking at that issue or we will not be prepared for that. there is some language in here that addresses that. but i will look at that a little bit more closely. that is kind of the gist of what

i was thinking about. i think other folks raised the issue on density. there might be a few more comments that i might add to it. commissioner moore: i only have one question. you mentioned that the basis of your study relies on the previous and not the current census. are you going to a least find a way of comparing trends one with the other? there are many very basic assumptions. there is a huge shakeup in all areas of the population part --

partially based on the economy. are you very quickly analyzing anything that is very different? >> as you know, the long form of the census was eliminated. they have been using the survey that was more of an estimate and the data is not really the best where we have been getting bits and pieces of it. at this point, we are figuring out what the data is. there are 10 questions that were done last year. the data will be released either made or late march, and we are hoping to be quickly able to read this and provide

information to not just the commissioners, but also the board of supervisors. we are expecting a that the count may not be the best. we want to react as quickly as we can to correct the estimates. and we do not expect to have the information and ready before the march 24 hearing. i guess that is my response to that. commissioner moore: but you will be writing some kind of summary or synopsis? >> it will be based on the american community survey. it will be around the end of march. or maybe april.

commissioner moore: i am comfortable with you just explain that. president olague: looking at the overcrowded households, the information that you gave us, there are some responses here, but that is the kind of thing that i want to take another peek at. i would like to see the demographic shift in places like the mission, the filipino populations, and other parts of the city. i look forward to seeing those numbers. i think that is it. >> the motion on the floor is for initiation. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner moore: aye. president olague: aye. >> the item is passed.

your ad general public comment. -- you're at general public comment. >> i'm eric brooks with the sustainable green party working group. the three members of the public that are at home watching this on tv, i like to clarify. commissioner sugaya said earlier, what happened to hydrogen? it is not really fuel. you take either methane or water, those are the main substances. and you use electricity to divide that methane or water into the component parts to you get hydrogen as part of it for what you would call fuel.

it is better to create that situation in the first place where you are splitting the water or the methane. it is better to look at hydrogen because it is called a hydrogen sell as a storage device or a battery. you are losing some of the energy. the only time you would want to use hydrogen to power the vehicles is when you want to make sure that a vehicle is reliable like a fire truck or an ambulance. and you will get a lot more efficiency. if you are splitting ethane, it does not do a lot of improvement

on that either. i know is the end day, it is a little wonky, but people should know that. president olague: any additional public comment? commissioner sugaya: thanks, i really don't care. [laughter] president olague: general public comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned.

--www.ncicap.org-- >> we are ready to begin the meeting. they are very loud today.

>> it just fell off. good morning. today is wednesday, february 16, 2011. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. at this time we will take roll call. [calls roll] commissioner lee is excused. we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is president's announcements. >> i do not have any announcements. >> then we move on to item no. 3, directors report. item 3a is update on proposed legislation.

>> good morning. on the proposed legislation we will be going again and having the legislation reintroduced on the charter amendment to change the name of the department and we hope to have that before you next month. that is all that i have on the proposed legislation at this point. >> do you want to elaborate a little bit better >> id is the same proposal we had last november that got delayed by the mayor. it was the proposal to change the name to the department of building and safety, to be consistent with other large city departments throughout the united states. >> public comments on this?

seeing no one. >> item 3b, system. -- the permit tracking system. >> it will be delayed for one week. >>pam can explain. >> as you issue an rfp, many issues come up. we have to put out several addendums to clarify those questions. i am working with the city attorney's office, we identified possible issues due to technology and the differences between office 2007 and office 2003. therefore we did put out an agenda and are extending the date for submission from the second of march to the 11th of

march. that should not be any great delay. we had to schedule the evaluations throughout the week, some of us really need to be there and one is on vacation. it looks as though we are on schedule. these are normal things that happen. the most important thing for me, it is to make sure that we are comfortable that we have made all of the correct directions to people so that when they come back there is not the reduced possibility of any challenges. >> are they technical or legal? >> is a combination of both. most of them are -- i am not

even sure that i would call them technical. they do not have that much to do with -- we have not got many questions having to do with the system itself. it is more process oriented questions. clarification on what people need to do. this last one, it was technical because of the situation with, you know, the technical word system that microsoft has. but it was not technical in the sense that there was something wrong with our proposal on the system. we run everything by the city attorney's office to make sure that they are comfortable. if we get any challenges, we want to be sure that they will back us up. >> absolutely. thank you. can you run us through the rest of the deadline again? just so that we are all clear?

this is a project that is a priority for all of us. i just want to be clear. march 11 is the deadline for the response? >> and then we go through a process of doing a review for minimum qualification that takes three days. we notify the committee, we notify the vendors that have made it through the minimum qualifications. you always have people submitting and hoping that they will be considered ok. and then we go through ourself. we go through a written evaluation. and that can take between one week in two weeks. that takes us through the middle of april. and then they will come in.

we give them about two weeks notification to do a demonstration. which is scripted. we tell them what they want -- we tell them what we want. >> when is that date? >> is generally set -- and everything becomes general, because we do not have dates until the process goes through, but it is generally set for the middle of, at the end of april. and then we will give them about one week -- between one week in two weeks -- to come and make their arrangements to come back and talk to the higher level group of policymakers. which is called the somewhere in between the joint coordinating committee and steering committee.

it is the joint coordinating committee with a couple of people substituted out. it is an oral presentation. after that we get back into mid- may. we issue the intent to award a contract. >> so, you are saying the middle of may? >> and then we start the negotiations for the contract. that is when it gets even less clear. i am hoping that contract negotiations will take no more than three months. this, you know, it really depends on -- there are a lot of problems -- if it is local, if

it is designed well, if it is in a state where we want it and have no issues with it the contract -- you know, the contract language. there are like lots and lots of kinds of things. last time we worked two months into april and we were starting to get things moving along. so, a lot of it is just related to understanding. once we do that, i am hoping that no later than august they will start on the contract. >> they will begin working? >> right. >> that is the hope. >> right. and then we said we wanted and implementation by and no more than 24 months. >> ok. that is helpful.

thank you. >> i do not mean to be vague. >> i get it. this helps. >> and i will keep you informed. >> yes, you will. >> commissioner? >> yes, sir. >> i have just heard that our applications continue to be set back. it has been over one year. categorizing simple items from categories that take place, even when i go to boot up from 2003 to 2007 and microsoft, word, office, all of that, it has been very simple. i do know -- do not know why it is taking all of this additional time when we really just need to get this in place. that is basically my comment here.

the expectation had been set back over one year. and now we are being set back again. i find it very disturbing that this entire process just continues to be extended. by the time it gets put in place, there might be equipment or other systems that need to get integrated. the more that we continue to delay, we keep on being at the mercy of more changes. >> so, these weeks that we are adding is basically due to the possibility of opening up the functional, a technical document, which is 63 pages long and they do not know how to use the system. therefore, rather than having a situation where we would have

the possibility of someone coming in, say i only see 32, but you say 63 -- what is the issue, it seems that it was prudent to give them another week. i wanted it to be one week and the other department that i was working with said they wanted to add a couple of days. i perfectly understand that frustration. i feel the same frustration on this project. we had quite a long, protracted negotiation between us and planning in terms of roles and responsibilities. it was very difficult because when you negotiate, you expect

both sides to move. we had some issues. once that was done we started working on the rfp. frankly, you know, it did take a long time. much of that was due to not having sufficient staff. much of it was due to making sure, as i mentioned before, that what we have people would be happy with and that we would get what we wanted. i cannot say who is going to come back and bid. we have told people that they need to bid, that the technology has to be cutting edge. and we are working with the department of technology to make sure that the degree to which it is cutting edge, the 24 months,