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 ]

>> i have 2 job titles. i'm manager of the tour program as well as i am the historyian of city hall. this building is multifaceted to say the very least it's a municipal building that operates the city and county of san francisco. this building was a dream that became a reality of a man by the name of james junior elected mayor of san francisco in 1912.

he didn't have a city hall because it was destroyed in the earth wake of 1906. construction began in april of 1913. in december 1915, the building was complete. it opened it's doors in january 1916. >> it's a wonderful experience to come to a building built like this. the building is built as a palace. not for a king or queen. it's built for all people. this building is beautiful art. those are architecture at the time when city hall was built, san francisco had an enormous french population. therefore building a palace in the art tradition is not

unusual. >> jimmie was an incredible individual he knew that san francisco had to regain it's place in the world. he decided to have the tallest dome built in the united states. it's now stands 307 feet 6 inches from the ground 40 feet taller than the united states capital. >> you could spend days going around the building and finding something new. the embellishment, the carvings, it represents commerce, navigation, all of the things that san francisco is famous for. >> the wood you see in the

board of supervisor's chambers is oak and all hand carved on site. interesting thing about the oak is there isn't anymore in the entire world. the floors in china was cleard and never replanted. if you look up at the seceiling you would believe that's hand kof carved out of wood and it is a cast plaster sealing and the only spanish design in an arts building. there are no records about how many people worked on this building. the workman who worked on this building did not all speak the same language. and what happened was the person

working next to the other person respected a skill a skill that was so wonderful that we have this masterpiece to show the world today. >> there are kids and families ever were. it is really an extraordinary playground. it has got a little something for everyone. it is aesthetically billion. it is completely accessible. you can see how excited people are for this playground. it is very special. >> on opening day in the brand- new helen diller playground at north park, children can be seen swinging, gliding, swinging, exploring, digging,

hanging, jumping, and even making drumming sounds. this major renovation was possible with the generous donation of more than $1.5 million from the mercer fund in honor of san francisco bay area philanthropist helen diller. together with the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund and the city's general fund. >> 4. 3. 2. 1. [applause] >> the playground is broken into three general areas. one for the preschool set, another for older children, and a sand area designed for kids of all ages. unlike the old playground, the new one is accessible to people with disabilities. this brand-new playground has several unique and exciting features. two slides, including one 45- foot super slide with an elevation change of nearly 30 feet. climbing ropes and walls, including one made of granite.

88 suspension bridge. recycling, traditional swing, plus a therapeutics win for children with disabilities, and even a sand garden with chines and drums. >> it is a visionary $3.5 million world class playground in the heart of san francisco. this is just really a big, community win and a celebration for us all. >> to learn more about the helen diller playground in dolores park, go to sfrecpark.org.