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 ] >> feel like it really is a community. they are not the same thing, but it really does feel like there's that kind of a five. everybody is there to enjoy a literary reading. >> the best lit in san francisco. friendly, free, and you might get fed. ♪ [applause]

>> this san francisco ryther created the radar reading series in 2003. she was inspired when she first moved to this city in the early 1990's and discover the wild west atmosphere of open mi it's ic in the mission. >> although there were these open mics every night of the week, they were super macho. people writing poems about being jerks. beatty their chest onstage. >> she was energized by the scene and proved up with other girls who wanted their voices to be heard. touring the country and sharing gen-x 7 as a. her mainstream reputation grew with her novel.

theses san francisco public library took notice and asked her if she would begin carrying a monthly reading series based on her community. >> a lot of the raiders that i work with our like underground writers. they're just coming at publishing and at being a writer from this underground way. coming in to the library is awesome. very good for the library to show this writing community that they are welcome. at first, people were like, you want me to read at the library, really? things like that. >> as a documentary, there are interviews -- [inaudible] >> radar readings are focused on clear culture.

strayed all others might write about gay authors. gay authors might write about universal experiences. the host creates a welcoming environment for everybody. there is no cultural barrier to entry. >> the demographic of people who come will match the demographic of the reader. it is very simple. if we want more people of color, you book more people of color. you want more women, your book more women. kind of like that. it gets mixed up a little bit. in general, we kind of have a core group of people who come every month. their ages and very. we definitely have some folks who are straight. >> the loyal audience has allowed michelle to take more chances with the monthly lineup. established authors bring in an

older audience. younker authors bring in their friends from the community who might be bringing in an older author. >> raider has provided a stage for more than 400 writers. it ranges from fiction to academics stories to academic stories this service the underground of queer fell, history, or culture. >> and there are so many different literary circles in san francisco. i have been programming this reading series for nine years. and i still have a huge list on my computer of people i need to carry into this. >> the supportive audience has allowed michele to try new experiment this year, the radar book club. a deep explorationer of a single work.

after the talk, she bounces on stage to jump-start the q&a. less charlie rose and more carson daly. >> san francisco is consistently ranked as one of the most literate cities in the united states. multiple reading events are happening every night of the year, competing against a big names like city arts and lectures. radar was voted the winner of these san francisco contest. after two decades of working for free, michelle is able to make radar her full-time job. >> i am a right to myself, but i feel like my work in this world is eagerly to bring writers together and to produce literary events. if i was only doing my own work, i would not be happy. it is, like throwing a party or a dinner party.

i can match that person with that person. it is really fun for me. it is nerve wracking during the actual readings. i hope everyone is good. i hope the audience likes them. i hope everybody shows up. but everything works out. at the end of the reading, everyone is happy. ♪