wanted to express about his comments in the paper. and i would like to give you space to do that. and i want to have follow-up as well. there are lots of people that spoke here, very personal stories. stories that are not often spoke on television. made me feel very uncomfortable. i want to acknowledge that was done in you revealed to me and to the public that it is very difficult to hear but we need to hear those things. thank you for doing that in giving us that uncomfortable must that helps us to do our work even better to acknowledge the conditions out there in the city. >> thank you for the opportunity. i do not often comment on what is portrayed in the press, and we all know how the media sometimes has its own way of spending things, but this one was particularly alarming for me, and it was the quote attributed to me about this not

being a crisis. unfortunately this was taken out of context. what i said it is not a crisis that demands the opening of new shelters, but one that requires us to address the lack affordability of housing and lack of income or low income among homeless families. unfortunately that whole " did not express. -- that whoele quote did not get expressed. supervisor avalos: i want to work with providers to make sure we close the loop on any family that potentially is at risk of prolonging the condition of being in a shelter. i think it is support we do that. also, you can summarize for us

what has been achieved so far in terms of new programming in new funding, just to summarize that again before the close of the hearing. what do you see as a challenge to make sure we're reaching more families as well? >> thank you for having the hearing and the families coming out and taking the time to share their stories with us. at times uncomfortable, but important to hear. you ask me about ensuring families get connected to the system, and we will make sure that happens. there was testimony about the mayor's not meeting with families. the mayor is well aware of the concerns of the families, and that is why the mayor instructed his department to court mate, and also he was open to hearing from their private-sector. i will be meeting in some of the city staff will meet with the families on the coalition of homelessness tomorrow to address concerns, and so we will be

doing that. regarding the programs you heard about some of the rent subsidy program, i will ask mr. look out for us to come forward. that is 200 families we believe co-exist in the school system and homeless shelter we need to address right now. we're trying to get them into housing, something short-term right now and hopefully long- term going forward before the holidays. we cannot get all 200 during that time, but a large number of the men. then we're looking at other parts to look at the way we're coordinating. as i told you on the side, i am very concerned that many families are applying for the families in transition program through the school district, but it does not seem they know about our system of care. many of those families live with relatives. but it's an ok situation for them. if i reach out and connected to them, they may say i am fine.

i want to know that front and center. i also want to say we talked 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