about the idea of not needing to open a shelter. we heard from the families that are not talking about the need for increases in shelter. what they were saying is they needed us stable place to live. -- need a stable place to live that allows for the families to get to school on time. they get their benefits in child care. it is the base of support that we all need in order to thrive. that is what we want to put in place for the families and not waste any of their time. we want to help them get housing right away. i will ask them to quickly summarize for your request that program, and then we can wrap up from there. >> i appreciate the comments come and hope to hear about a follow-up, but i want to say that i know hydro mendoza just came in, and i want to ask about

what we do with in the school district to make sure am they are cared for, but also we addressed the bullying him. i would like to know a little bit about that. i want to say that i appreciated the many families that testified, and totally agreed that if 2200 homeless families existed, if the bullet is increase this to me. -- it definitely is a crisis to meet. a number of people brought this up. i appreciate 51 units that are born to be used in housing, but what about the 150 vacant housing units? could more of those be used to ease the suffering of homeless families, especially during the coldest part of winter right now?

>> for think yothank you, commi. this is that currently are really key issue for us, and we try our best to keep our families as the mall as possible -- to keep our families as stable as possible. i want to dturn it over to talk about the program itself. take a good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the program at san francisco unified school district. my name is salvador lopez bar. the money is money set aside for

students to be used to eliminate any barriers that would otherwise prevent productive and gainful education. most of the students enrolled in the program are combination of those that live in a shelter, abandoned buildings, cars, parks, churches. the other half of the family that we subsidize to are those that we would consider doubled up or tripled up for economic reasons, loss of appointment, foreclosures. many of you have heard from prior to my speaking. to answer your question, we do not classify students as homeless students. it is a badge that has a stigma affect to the community, especially in the school setting -- school setting.

i like to refer to my students as it candidates -- fit candidates. they are candidates to receive income and of the program i court in may. i never referred to the students as homeless, and is a badge that i do not think it is appropriate. if anything, i refer to them as transitions students. the definition of this is quite frankly different than the mayor's office intends to define. we tend to focus on the entire district community. the mayor's office is forthcoming in trying to prevent and assist our department. i would like to thank them for securing the additional funding that we will be able to use in the future to help subsidize families.

to g>> good morning again. henry of a rise for housing authority pier yen -- henry alvarez. currently homelessness is the number one preference on our waitlist. on the public housing side we have 25,000 families waiting, of which approximately 2500 of them have self-declared their homeless, and that list is ordered in time and date. whoever has been there the longest typically rises to the top of the list, and homeless families rise to the top of that. and on about your side of aisle, we have a bust -- 11,000 families on that list.

the housing authorities programs are regulated by the federal government, by the department of urban housing and development. the criteria by which we housed families, they all must come from about waitlist. if they are not on the wait list, we typically cannot house them. the wait list is currently closed. we anticipate opening it by the second quarter of the coming year, and including a discussion about preferences. we're hearing about this more and more every day that we may need to adjust our preference schemes, that families that are homeless with school-aged children may come first. there are other groups that wish to become first, so that is problematic. >> how did the wait list it close? take of the department of urban development decides that it await list as i have a

reasonable expectation of housing, that it should be closed. we use the rubric if your weight is typically long prevented years, the wait list is closed. of the 25,000 families on the wait list and public housing, given on average we house 400- 500 families per year, that typically will be longer than a 10-year wait. on the voucher side, that is more than 100% utilized. it is a budget-operative program. basically 10 million per month. once we provide subsidies but add up to 10,000 per month, we typically close the section 8 list. we are at capacity. however, we are hearing from the public that there is a need in certain elements of family population, and our intent is to open the wait list so we can service or assist those

families. >> how do you have the discretion to do that? >> we will need to open the list for all families, because it will create a housing element. the issue will be what are the preferences that we accord to provide? those families with preferences go above those that do not have preferences. the other thing is the notion of how many vacant units we have. that is incorrect. we have approximately 223 vacant units. 100 of which we are processing for families. there are approximately 115-123 baking units -- vacant units that are getting ready to be utilized for families. the typical methodology is to

get a unit substantially ready within a day or so of families moving in, bring in the appliances, because we discover without closing up the units we are subject to vandalism and squatting and theft of appliances, so we tend to for these up as soon as we assess they are vacant. we then start working on them to get them ready, and typically the lesser work that has to be done to get those units quickly come of the more work that has to be done in large construction work, they take longer. i should mention also that the budgetary constraints of the federal level have reduced the ability to do that quickly, so what we're doing to expedite these units is to simply attach families to these units. we will delay other capital activities to get the units ready. that sense that there are large

number of vacant units are not correct. we're typically operated of the public housing side at 93% occupancy-95% on average. our about your program is operating at 100-108% of budget authority, which is where we of been for the past year. some of the things that our colleagues mentioned to you earlier, we're going to look into methodologies of creating a set aside for the specific population group where we take a small portion of our about your program and create preferences that these families can be served a quicker. the issue with that is obviously whoever goes first, there are other families that will then have to wait, because this is a finite product. currently the federal government is cutting resources to provide

those services. i hope that answers the question. if not, i would be more than happy to answer more. supervisor avalos: ok, i can't continue to the call of the chair and get a report back in the new year. how we are able to get families into more stable housing situations and figure out what we can do next of the process. okay? so we could agree to do that. we will adjourn this meeting. thank you very much. [applause]

>> good morning. today is monday, december 12, 2011. this is a special meeting of the building inspection commission. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call]

we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is president's announcements. commissioner hechanova: good morning. i am sure everyone is getting ready for the holidays, carrying over from thanksgiving. one of the special announcements i would like to make is, san francisco was awarded the best marine building policy -- green building policy award last week in durban, south africa, for its building ordinance. we had 22 other cities that competed against us. all told, we graded out to be the top in the category at the ordinance projected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in san francisco and produce a 10-year present value of almost a

billion dollars from those savings. that is great. the award is from the green in building council leadership award for excellence. it was a panel comprised of the un habitat and green building council. it is terrific, and most recently, mayor ed lee did a press release and also saluted staff efforts of the building inspection department, and also the department of environment, public utilities commission, for their commitment to a sustainable and green city. along with that, i would also like to say thank you very much for some of the commendation that came about four ben mann of the staff, along with evelyn

cart and their service for helping to produce the high level of quality and service to the public. they had been commended by that panel. last, and most importantly, i wish staff, commissioners a wonderful holiday -- let's close out the year in a wonderful way and be blessed by all that has been brought to us, on the rising tide of economics, all the things that the commission has done and takes responsibility for.

>> is there any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none. item four -- i'm sorry, item three. public comment. this is the general public comment. if anyone would like to discuss items not listed on today's agenda. there is no general public comment. item 4. discussion and possible action to approve and swear in members of the board of examiners. reappointments/appointments recommended by the nominations sub-committee are: michael cashion, high-rise sprinkler- building owner. seat to expire september 15, 2013. mr. cash john is present. commissioner lee: as you recall

from the last meeting, the commission met about six weeks ago. week revealed -- we revealed three possible applicants to the seat. we recommended michael cashen to the committee because his presence was impressive, fit what the board needed. he has been managing high-rise buildings. he is right now managing 255 california street, a high rise building. he lives in san francisco, has experience with dealing with advisory committees and the government as well because he was on the advisory board. that is why the nomination committee recommended to the full commission to appoint michael cashion to that seat.

>commissioner walker: i would like to second that recommendation. commissioner lee: michael cashion, would you like to make a statement? >> hello, my name is michael cashion. i am very honored to sit on the board of examiners. i was on the graffiti advisory committee for two years. i look forward to this next that in my service to the city. commissioner hechanova: commissioners? commissioner walker: thank you for being willing to serve on this body. you have been very helpful to this commission and looking at the safety issues of tall buildings, having good discussions.

thank you for being willing to sit on this. an important position. >> thank you. >> there is a motion by commissioner lee, seconded by commissioner walker. is there any public comment on item 4? seeing none. we can take a roll call vote. [roll call] the motion carried unanimously. now we need to go to the next item -- president hechanova, please read the oath. commissioner hechanova: please repeat after me. i will swear you in. the oath of office begins with

-- i, michael cashion, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of the state of california, that i will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of the division -- evasion, and i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter, and during this time

as i hold the office of a member of the board of examiners, high- rise sprinkler building owner seat of the city and county of san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner hechanova: we all look forward to working with you. >> item 5. update on process for cancelling permits and notification of customers. >> good morning, commissioners. we have put in your package item 5, which is the process for the cancellation of current

applications. this is the main concern of the commission. right now, we send out a 21-day notice prior to the cancellation of any application for permits. as you see in the table, there are two values that are set for the cancellation. any project up to $1 million has 360 days from the date it is deemed acceptable for building plan review, not when we take it in. and that is a big item, because it can sit in planning for any length of time, but when it comes to the building department for building plan review, that is when the clock starts ticking for the process in the department and cancellation of

application. commissioner murphy: that is where the problem lies. it can stay in dbi for up to a year before it is kicked out. shouldn't that be the time of the clock starts ticking? >> no, the clock starts ticking at the beginning of the plan check, not the last. commissioner murphy: that is what i would like to see changed, suggestion to a change in the code. >> we can take that to -- that is a whole different way of looking at it than the state looks at it. we can certainly look at it. commissioner murphy: it would be

a good place to discuss that, the pac meeting, and then bring him back here. >> definitely, we can do that. we are also looking at increasing the time limit of the vacation -- notification, from 21 days to something longer, to give people more time to actually try to get the fund together to get the permits, plans renewed. commissioner hechanova: is there a declaration sometimes why there is the delay, the basis by which the extension or approval of extension can be given, or is it automatically given? >> right now, we automatically give the extension. we have been giving more than one extension automatically. we have not been canceling

permits just to cancel permits, unless the project sponsor wants the project cancelled. commissioner murphy: that was something we changed two or three years ago, a combination of 36 months. that is another problem now. that was 2008. a lot of these projects are homeowners, small developers, are still not able to get the funding, kick them forward. i would also like to discuss that in the pac meeting, maybe 24 months, to get these extensions going. >> we can certainly discuss that in the pac meeting. commissioner hechanova: that would be another 24 months, 12 versus 24, 36? commissioner murphy: if the

projects are within the envelope, planning should not have a problem with that. perhaps if you go beyond the envelope, they could take a look at it. there needs to be some kind of process put in place that these homeowners, stakeholders do not have to go back through the whole process again, two years in planning, another year in dbi. we need to discuss that. commissioner hechanova: so it is a form of chewing up -- queing up continuity from where they were before? commissioner murphy: the 36 months is up. that is where we are now. a lot of these permits will be expiring, will not be able to

extend thaem. we need to build something in there so that that does not happen. i am mostly referring to the smaller projects, and vertical, horizontal conditions -- whatever. would be unfair for them to go through the process again. commissioner hechanova: commissioner walker. commissioner walker: if you do the initial renewal after the current timetable expires, does it really have to go through a planning and dbi review, or is that just a perfunctory evaluation of they need more time? >> if the project had been approved by planning for more than three years, we do send it as a cursory approval back to

planning. quite frankly, we have won the night in the time that we had been doing this. commissioner walker: that is for the one that are more than 36? >> the one approved by planning 36 months before. commissioner walker: that seems to apply only to the larger projects? >> it can be any level of project. it can be a small home owner who cannot get the financing also. the years have been bad for the last three years. now, the financing is just breaking loose to where the home owners can get them, but planning approval might have been three years before. commissioner walker: is that a state law that planning applies? >>