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 would like to all to order the special meeting of the san francisco ethics commission and we'll begin by taking the roll. commissioner liu.

here. >> commissioner hayon? >> here. >> commissioner renee. >> here. >> commissioner studley has an excused absence today. our first order of business is consideration of the draft findings and legal justifications for the commission's decision on august 16th, 2012. we have posted and circulated a written document that summarizes what was done on the 16th. thanks to commissioner liu for playing a significant part in putting this document together. before we begin, one issue i think should be made clear, there seems to have about some confusion about whether or not the commission would provide some recommendation as to what the effect of the

recommendation of official misconduct should be. having reviewed the transcript and certainly my personal understanding of what we decided on the 16th was that there was no need to provide any explanation for suggestion of what the affect of a recommendation of official misconduct would be. because the charter clearly states that if there is a finding of official misconduct, then the person found to have committed official misconduct shall be removed from office. so it seemed to me there is no discretion for the commission to determine or to provide a recommendation to board as to what should happen, should the board find that the sheriff committed official misconduct. so i just want that to be clear in terms of why our order doesn't address what the affect of the findings shall be, because the charter really provides no option.

commissioner hayon? >> while that may be the case, i do understand that the charter spells out what punishment should be based on our recommendation or finding. sheriff mirkarimi guilty on those two counts. i do feel there has been a tremendous amount of confusion about this in the public and even in the media to some degree. and even if our recommendation really has no bearing, in the case of what the punishment should be, i feel that the commission should at least go on the record as to how -- what we feel the punishment should be and the board can certainly ignore that particular recommendation, or use it to bolster whatever arguments take place when the board has its hearing. but i for one feel that the

commission should have and still should consider a vote on what the punishment should be. and if it's not inappropriate, i myself would like to make a motion to that effect. i don't know how the other commissioners feel about this. just for the record, i realize that the legality, it doesn't -- it's not necessary in view of what the charter recommends. but i do think that we should be on the record. >> i guess my concern with that is that we would be recommending action to the board that they cannot take. i mean, their options are to either find that the sheriff committed official misconduct, or find that he has not committed official misconduct and if they find the former, the charter is clear that he needs to be removed from office. if they find the latter, it's clear that he is not to be

removed from office and he is to be reinstated. so i think a recommendation to the board of something that they can't do would not be productive. i don't know if any other commissioners -- >> let me just say that as you are probably aware the lm women passed a recommendation or at least a stance recently, and they have no bearing on the official proceedings whatsoever. but they wanted to go on the record as to what they feel should be done. >> let me say chairman hur, i tend to disagree with your reading of what power the ethics commission would have. as i think i said very early on and although i am sort of alone

in my broad reading of the definition of "official misconduct," it appears to give the mayor discretionary power, not the section that deals with felonies, makes it mandatory. the section that just talks about official misconduct says, "the mayor may suspend or punish." so as i said earlier, i thought our analysis is a two-step analysis and that is first, do we make a finding of official misconduct? and secondly, was the suspension by the mayor appropriate? and the reason why i feel strongly about that is in a way addresses what your concern was when you say with my broad reading of the statute, it gives the mayor unlimited power. i said it doesn't give him unlimited power if at the

hearing it became clear to us that the mayor was acting solely out of a political motive or some bad motive other than that so that the official misconduct that he found we might feel was not sufficient or did not justify suspension. now i agree with the fact that in this case i would say i would not recommend that the mayor abuse his discretion based on the facts in this case, everything i have heard. but i do not subscribe to the view that if we make a finding of official misconduct. that is the end of our analysis in every case. >> okay. well, i certainly don't think that we should be deciding here what would happen

if we found that the mayor had engaged in some sort of prosecuturial type of misconduct. i don't think there is evidence of that in if the record and we should not provide advisory opinions what should happen in that event and neither do i think we should be providing advisory opinions what should happen if the mayor requested that the sheriff not be removed from office. if we the board recommend or do something other than remove him from office if there is a finding of official misconduct. i don't see the benefit of providing any other recommendation to the board. commissioner liu? >> thank you.