rig, but continued from there. i have met many people who live in rvs in the city and heard many of their cities. these are not people committeing crimes. these are human beings that do not now how to represent or protect themselves. maybe are trying to hold on to a job or temporary out of work. the city is often battling these members of society and pushing them out of society and this is where i get lost and confused. if they lose their vehicles they will ended up on the sidewalk a burden on society. if even though this legislation is supposed to be limited to some areas, that is going to push vehicles in other areas that will become overburdens. disregarding whether we're worried about the social burden, i'm confused how a progressive city like san san

francisco can suddenly dismiss part of its community? >> in thank you, next speaker >> >> [speaker not understood] these are some of the vehicles that i work by when i walk my dog and there are a lot of school kids in this neighborhood. there are four different schools near me. little kids, high school kids. there are bicyclists. there are joggers. i'm strictly here to talk about the impact on the residents and not to get involved in the politics of the homeless advocates.el calling 311, the 72-hour thing

does absolutely no good. we have tried. we have done it. nothing has happened. and this one vehicle that you can't really see here has been parking in this spot for off and on for ten years. it belongs to a group of gardeners who don't live in the area and dump their debris in the truck and after two weeks will dump the debris somewhere else. i am very much for this legislation. we have waited too long for it and i will do whatever i can to support it. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi me name is mike smith and what i would like to say, i didn't realize this would be a homeless issue, but i can certainly say there are a

tremendous amount of people that are living in trailers in and around where i live. and i have noticed that when they leave the area, they leave behind a lot of waste. i have called dpw several times and they promptly go out there and clean up after them? we're dodging the issue here, because many of these folks want a place to go live. that is called the trailer park. that is called a car park. the people who -- >> excuse me, let's let the speaker finish. >> people who pay for those car parks and trailer parks are people like me, who pay a serious amount of property taxes. we work very hard to stay employ ed it's not easy for us either. i would like to see these laws really enforced over here,

supervisors. i don't see it being enforced. i don't know. it's just not. the purpose for me coming here is actually wasn't to complain about this, but it is a serious problem. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> how are you guys doing?

any name is jabori hicks and i had a notice on my rv this morning that this meeting was going down here. i just bought my rv in june and i love it and my kids love it. i use it because i go to school on the evans campus and i go to schooldae day and night. so i'm going school 11 hours a day. it's convenient for me to spend the night there and go home on weekends. i'm like this guy with the ponytailwho said just having a big vehicle made him meet a bunch of people. i understand what the other people are complaining about with drug deals and trash being thrown. but i have seen that from the bayview to the sunset. people walk trash from the garbage to the corner and dpw

comes and gets it. so nobody is innocent as far as i'm concerned. i'm just concerned what do i have to worry about? because having my vehicle parked right in front of where i have to go to work or school, like the people with the small business out in rhode island. if people there at night and the business is closed at night, i mean, if you guys say you can't have big vehicles parked here in the daytime, i think you should just try to really fine tune this thing. pushing everybody in one spot, because that is making me travel from one city or putting my vehicle across town or some town. you will have everybody bunched up. when i first got there, they said look out for officer lavin, who was officer lavin? i heard about that already. thank you. >> thank you.

i believe that is all the speakers. >> public comment is closed. supervisor chu. >> i want to thank everybody who came out on both sides of the issue. like i said, it's not an easy one. there are some genuine and real problems with oversized vehicles that are being stored in our city streets. this is absolutely a fact that we have seen in vehicles that are not even parked within a quarter mile of where they are registered. this is something had a we know is happening. we absolutely understand there is a human factor associated with this. i don't want to discount that and i hear what you are saying and i know that is something that we have to be cognizant of. some folks spoke this won't solve the issue of drugs and this is a parking ordinance.

we have to deal with our police officers to deal with illicit activities that happen in the city. so this was never what this legislation was intended to do. there was some conversation about this being a duplicative legislation. we do not have that currently on the books. people have pointed to a couple of other things that they say you have tools on the books and the 72-hour notice and it's illegal to live in vehicles as areas of enforcement. we know given everything that we have seen in the past that that hasn't been working. the 72-hour mechanism has you heard from many people today has not been working. we have also seen that folks are illegal habitating in vehicles is something that is not working either.

we have heard this routinely from dpt and police officers. taking away people's vehicles. we are not taking away people's vehicles, but a measure for the mta to regulate parking, to indicate in some areas that you wouldn't be able to park -"d" overnight. one person talked about having a piece of legislation that is enforceable and this is one that i think is on forcible. enforceable. this is one that is actually quite easy to enforce and it's something that we would be able to move forward. somebody talks about designation areas for larger vehicles and i absolutely understand that and that is precisely the reason why we did not say this was a ban outright on the entire city of all spaces. this is simply allowing the mta to choose certain locations

that have had chronic problems to enforce an oversized vehicle issue. we're not saying citywide this would be a restriction on oversized vehicle parking. so i think that is a very measured approach and we purposely did that because we could anticipate some concerns that folks had. so those with visitors from out of town and know that not all parking is off-limits. this is meant for mta to have an additional tool for areas that are chronically seeing problems in our neighborhoods. finally, someone else made a comment that talks about how we shouldn't pass this kind of legislation until we can solve the issue of homelessness. we all in an ideal world that

would be the case, but we know that we're constantly working with this issue. it's not a new issue. we have continued to do. we know that beginning in october we'll see an additional 40-50 winter shelter beds through the interfaith sheriff's department program. city of san francisco just received $5 million in federal and foundation grants to help families stay together in stable housing. in the budget, we have worked with the homeless coalition to put in an additional $2 to $5 million to improve our shelter systems as well. so that is something that we need to continually work on and continual will ually work on the issue of homelessness, but that doesn't mean that you hold everything in place until you solve the problem. it's something that we'll continue to work on. i would simply say that i hope

for my colleagues' support. it's really meant to allow the mta to have very, very specific ability and flexibility to enforce where they need to and where we see chronic problems. again, this issue, the public comment that dealt with homeless issues, but there are some issues of blight that we have seen associated with that, but there are many, many vehicles that are housed on our city streets that have oversized vehicles, commercial vehicles and again, people who are not even parking them where the vehicles are registered. so again, colleagues i would hope for your support going forward. >> thank you. colleagues? >> well, let me just ask the mta staff here a couple of questions. i appreciate supervisor chu and a number of residents' efforts to make our neighborhoods

safer, but address different issues. i want to make sure that we're also being sensitive to people that live in their vehicles and that we're mitigating the pushing them out of their potential living space. but i wanted to ask the mta, how many -- what percentage would you estimate of oversized vehicles are ones where people live in those vehicles? do you have any kind of measurement? because i want to measure of the human impact of a life policy like that. >> right now we do not have a number on how many vehicles are habituated. >> i'm all for a collection ever data and really selectively looking at areas, but i know it's mostly the sunset spots or district 4, plus some of the fulton and to

go after commercial vehicles, but to work with the coalition and have assurances there are other spaces to move to and live in their vehicles would be my hope. i know it's a pilot as supervisor chu and others said, but i'm trying to understand how we deal with it in a humane way as well. >> you are not selecting the specific areas. one thing we'll do next if you approve this is canvass specific blocks to determine how many homeless person are residing in those blocks. so we could do further research before implementing those areas. >> it looks like after six months it will be evaluated for recommendations of improvements and i would like more of that count of the number of people living in their oversized vehicles to be part of that data analysis as well.

>> certainly,supervisor. >> and really key pam"ñis work with coalition on homelessness to come up with solutions for people who live in their oversized vehicles as well. >> i think that would be a citywide discussion among many departments. thank you. supervisor chu. >> i'm sorry, i have already spoken. >> colleagues, it's in the hands of the committee. supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i won't repeat supervisor chu's very thorough and thoughtful statements, but i agree with her and i will be supporting the legislation. >> thank you. if there are no other questions, could we have a roll call? >> on the motion to send this matter forward with the positive recommendation, supervisor wiener? >> aye. >> wiener aye supervisor cohen. >> cohen aye. >> supervisor mar? >> mar aye. mr. chair we have three ayes. thank you supervisor chu and thank you everyone for speaking

today as well. miss miller please call the next item. >> item no. 3, ordinance amending the police code. >> supervisor cohen. >> don't leave everyone, we're talking about foreclosures and it's interesting to take it up on the one-year anniversary of the occupy movement. this is the legislation of more than a year of work that my offices and many of my colleagues and community members have spent addressing the impacts of foreclosure crisis on your communities in 2011 there were more than 900 foreclosures in san francisco. when we speak about the impacts of foreclosure in our

neighborhoods we speak of assisting homeowners of modifying loans or postponing evictions. we're not only contending with the impact of the crisis on homeowners, but the physical blight that left is behind after the foreclosure process. after the foreclosure process has been completed we frequently see properties falling into disarray. a foreclosed property was owned by a financial institution that owned dozens of properties in the city and left to ñx ]zñiñ

this legislation would do a number of things. first it will make clear that nuances occuring the foreclosed properties and commits a court to award up to three times of

owners of up to three or more properties and will continue as a tool to continue our efforts to dress blight and appropriately holds individuals and entities who own significant properties to a higher degree. colleagues i would urge your support on this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. is there any presentation from any department?óezpu >> there is no presentation from any department. >> then let's open it up to public comment. we have one card, robert davis. mr. davis. >> supervisors, good afternoon, my name is robert davis and i'm here to support

the legislation. unfortunately the larger problem here, again, like with the last issue is enforcement. and the dbi's unwillingness or inability or whatever to enforce the blight laws, there are over 5800 open notices of violation in san francisco, dating back to 1994. '94 was significant because that is the year that the records wept went from paper to computer. >> how many different blightedñ properties again? >> i can't speak to blighted properties. because the dbi can speak to that. a notice of violation is someone complained and dbi went out and wrote a notice.

on the second complaint process. you can see there are 14 steps before the city attorney takes action and there are first notices, second notices, the list is extensive. after the notice of violations, the department of building inspection comes up with the director's hearing and send the notice of violation to the director. there is a director's hearing that takes place. since 2000, there are 2000 open director's hearings. hearings scheduled, but never taken place and in addition to that there are 750 director assists 's hearing that have never been sent to the litigation committee or to the full building inspection commission for anything.

now i hope you don't mind if i take another minute? i'm sorry? >> let me just ask the question, all of this data that you have given us, can you give us some sense of the patterns? i see you have highlighted for me these areas, but are there any patterns you could reveal from your looking at the data? >> well, what i would say is no. when i started this, i bought a house in the bayview and looked around and noticed there were a lot of blighted buildings deputy director sweeneywill agree to that. so what i did first was i asked for this spreadsheet, this is the last spreadsheet that you see, the one that is landscaped. i asked for this, just for the

bayview. just for open notices of violation, but i realized that didn't tell me anything, because you may have four buildings side-by-side, you have the data from one building, but don't know what they did on the other side. so i asked for notices of violation for the whole city. some of them, yes, these things take time. you are looking at sometimes a month, three months, six months, a year of i get that. and then there is a staffing issue. i get that, too. and the fact is that this issue is cultural at the dbi. for them to get their paperwork and to passively collect their money, but to go out and inspect, re-inspect, send out a letter, find the people, do the

paperwork, this is time-consuming. it represents an enormous amount of money that is uncollected. if this were a business, you would run a report and find out how much money is owed 30/60/90 days and call in your people and ask for the efforts to collect this? wouldn't you? if it were your money you would. if it were my money, i would. the city is different. i understand it takes time, but i just don't see any effort on their part to collect the money and enforce the law. thank you. >> thank you, mr. davis. >> thank you. i'm sorry i took so long. anyone else to speak to this item? >> no more foreclosed property penalties. i feel like like i'm helps like

a city kitten up a tree. never knowing my right foot from my left, my hat from my glove, i am lost in city gov. should i wander this foreclosed property all alone? hopeless lost and i don't want no property lien, i get misty and i don't want to be mean. no more penalties. >> thank you very much. wow. okay. is there anyone else who would like to comment on this item? mr. chair, seeing no further comment? >> close public comment then. thank you. so colleagues, can we move this forward with a

positive recommendation without objection? >> yes. >> [ gavel ] . >> thank you very much. >> miss miller could you please call the last item. >> item no. 4, ordinance amending the planning code and reinstate controls to prohibit liquor license types, et cetera. >> this one is sponsored by supervisors farrell and wiener and catherine from supervisor farrell's office is here. >> good afternoon. supervisor cohen passed legislation this year. we all know legislation was necessary and received unanimous support of the board. we realized however when the definition of "restaurant" was changed in inadvertently unraveled the liquor license controls in place in the

district. therefore since bars were prohibited in the union street ncd, restaurants could not obtain a new liquor license. the new definition allowed them to have a liquor license as as along as they operated a bona fide eating establishment. we agreed with them and they fought long and hard for the controls and they are working well in the corridor we want to thank supervisor wiener for

his cosponsorship. this did pass 6-1 at the planning commission and unanimously at the small business commission last monday. we do have a minor amendment to offer. i have those here today. it basically strikes out the word "limited restaurants," when it's talking about the liquor license control because you know in limited restaurants they don't allow for liquor. i have those amendments. if you could offer up that. it's line 24, page 11, to page 12; line 2. >> thank you. >> so with that, that is the original. >> maybe i will pass this around,. >> and i'm available for questions and anne marie rogers is here with the planning department as well. >> may i look at it?

>> supervisor cohen would like to review? >> thank you. >> if there are no other questions, let's open it up for public comment. thank you, miss stephanie. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? no one remains so we'll close public comment. [ gavel ] . colleagues can we move this forward without objection. >> mr. chair you need to accept the amendments without objection. >> thank you, can we accept the amendments without objection? thank you. and without objection we'll move this forward to the full board. >> miss miller is there any other business before us? >> no. >> thank you, meeting adjourned. [ gavel ]