Okay. So i would move friendly amendment. Make the motion. To grant the appeal, revoke the permit based on a defect in the application and ask that dbi through the nova process tin to work to resolve the misrepresentations and the one year bar does not apply to that. The defect permit. Sounds like intental misrepresentation i dont want of the multiple levels of conduct. But i still want to see it resolved. It can be resolved though by taking down what they on the wrong and waiting a major. I wouldnt impose a year its beyond the defect. We have to deal with the 4 and 4 and 3 and 3. Thats my motion. Can you repeat that. laughter . I can i mean. So revoke the permit on the basis or finding of the misrepresentation of the permit application with the diversify for the dbi to work with the permit holder and that the one year bar should not apply. Thats my motion. You didnt rise that. No, we were having a discussion. A debate. And a persuade unsuccessfully. Did he need to repeat any of that.
Concern is that listed as an opportunity for a violation to be written up or did you ignore it its not my job to write up those things nor am i aware of the codes of sleeping in chairs or what the codes are for occupancy. This is a nonresidential occupancy so sleeping in chairs is not acceptable. Has the department done an evaluation be more specific that were you point to the Homeless Count by the way, have we evaluated the other sites. Supervisor theres only one shelter in the bayview and its not a 24 shelter. Its on the floor of the church with mats where folks put their stuff in herself i didnt bags and leave in the morning. Theres 12 hundred and 74 people on the streets have others provided temporary beds for this location. No, this pro dense can you be halfdozen years ago. Thats the processing process for managing the shelters. Well draft proposals that will lay out of the proposals and well solicit from nonprofit agencies their description of what they hope to provide the budget
Interested and all the documentation that charley mentioned in order to sponsor in and to introduce this. Im asking for supporting documents and this is dated in november 6th of 2012. Theres very little conversation. The last time i heard about this was when the mayor speak about in january of 2013. I wanted to acknowledge that you yourself invited a site at mother browns kitchen and noticed people were sleeping in chairs is that a cause for concern is that listed as an opportunity for a violation to be written up or did you ignore it its not my job to write up those things nor am i aware of the codes of sleeping in chairs or what the codes are for occupancy. This is a nonresidential occupancy so sleeping in chairs is not acceptable. Has the department done an evaluation be more specific that were you point to the Homeless Count by the way, have we evaluated the other sites. Supervisor theres only one shelter in the bayview and its not a 24 shelter. Its on the floor of the church with
The owner is the same owner who owns the drop center. I said theres money coming in 3 months lets make this a shelter. This was probable july or august of naivete. The application was did you august 2012. So i made the decision to move forward and recognizing theres no time we had to put together the grant and the cost estimates would it would do to rehab it. Sometimes humanity has to trumpet the process and i made the decision this time it needed to be. We applied for the grant and received the grant. Im calling it a grant. We ieshtd conversations about the lease. Thats the story of how it evolved. When we look at the need for the shelter in the bayview theres clearly one. We do a bio analysis and what we found was we count both shelter homeless and unsheltered homeless so folks who are living on the street as well. We found for the first time there were more individuals living on the street can i there were more individuals living on the street in bayview we counted 12 hundred and 74
To people who [speaker not understood] homelessness. [speaker not understood] and help connect with it. The next recommendation is around expanding reunification of individuals and trent has tremendous amount to be proud of. Theres been a program home ward bound which has existed for anyone years now. We have close to 8,000 individuals and our city does a good job making sure and confirming people who are returning home are being rejected with family or friends that are going to support them so that were not seeing people dumped, but it has been overwhelming successful, handful of people have come back to San Francisco. Police officers, a lot of all the agencies that work with Homeless Individuals really know to ask people if theyre not being successful in San Francisco, to reunify. The next point is around an oversight committee. I think that is the local homeless board. Theyll want to dialogue about what their role is in term of the next recommendation about Behavior Health and outre