tv [untitled] July 31, 2010 6:30pm-7:00pm PST
what they're able to accomplish, so a person want to thank you for what you have done for the disabled community and for the non disabled community, because i think it is just as important for people without disabilities to see how able-bodied the disabled community really is, so thank you very much for all that you have done. >> thank you. [applause] president chiu: colleagues, if we can get back to our regularly scheduled items, what i would like to suggest is that we proceed to additional items on our calendar. although i am waiting for our clerk. colleagues, if we could call item 15 and 16, please. the reports related to blighted properties and sidewalk repairs from the department of public works.
clerk: item 15 is a resolution approving a report of an assessment of costs submitted by the director of public works for sidewalks and curbs repairs, an item 16 is a resolution approving report of assessment costs submitted by the director of public works for inspection and/or repair of blighted property located at 1232 noriega street. president chiu: seeing that there are not, it is my understanding that the department was planning on making amendments. so, colleagues, you were circulated an amended report of the costs of sidewalk repairs and improvements. i understand, let me ask you, madam clerk, do we need to do these? clerk: this was made last
tuesday, two takoma that the board could accept these changes, make a motion to accept the changes. president chiu: before we do that, do you have any comments, supervise chu? we initially started to address item 15. item 16, it is-understanding that the department has worked something out with the property owner, and are you going to offer something? supervisor chu: yes, i will make a motion to table items 16. there is an agreement with the property owners. president chiu: with regard to item 15, if we could take a roll-call vote on the resolution on the amended report? madam clerk? clerk: roll call, mr. president?
president chiu: yes. madam clerk: [reading roll] there are 11 ayes. president chiu: that is adopted, and in relationship to item 16, supervise chu has made a motion to table it. item 17. madam clerk: item 17 is a resolution adopting findings under the california public utilities commission, the san andreas transmission upgrade project. president chiu: colleagues, a
discussion? this item is adopted. i in 18. madam clerk: this is a resolution approving an amendment to the contract between the treasure and the department authority and another. president chiu: this item is adopted. i 19. madam clerk: i 19 is a resolution authorizing and directing the port executive director. presenident chiu: this is adopted. madam clerk: item 20 is an
ordinance, and 21 is an ordinance, and item 22 is an ordinance during that -- dedicating a portion of the state trust parcel five. president chiu: these items are passed on the first reading. item 23. madam clerk: this is an agreement with the san francisco museum of modern art and its affiliate for the proposed future conveyance by the city and county of san francisco for real property located on howard street in exchange for the conveyance of real property located at 935 folsom st.. president chiu: supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: i want to thank the people involved in this project, including the
museum of modern art for their generosity and the work that mr. fisher has been done. we are going to have a truly unique and wonderful museum of modern art. this collection will bring so much to the city, and i think we have so much to be grateful for, and i am also very appreciative of the fact that this helps us petco to deal with the fire station upgrade, so i just want to say thank you for all of those involved. president chiu: a quick question for the city attorney. is there anything we need to do to adopt the amendment in the agreement? this is just for our reference? >> mr. chairman, a new copy discussed in committee has been submitted to the board. if it is not in the file, it should be on the way. i have a copy for myself korean
there is no need for the board to take action. president chiu: can we take the same house, same call? this item is passed. item 24. madam clerk: this is an ordinance amending the san francisco police code and the business and tax regulations code and fire code. president chiu: this item is passed on the first reading. next item. item 25. madam clerk: item 25 is an ordinance amending a section map. president chiu: this is passed. item 26. madam clerk: item 26 is a resolution imposing in terms
zoning controls. president chiu: supervise alio to-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: there are no zoning protections for child care facilities. along with supervisors dufty, daly, mar, and others, this will include an authorization. if they replace child care on off-site, no cu would be needed. bringing this is planning commission -- i wanted to note
-- i want to thank everyone who was involved in this, and i appreciate your support. president chiu: supervisor daly? supervisor daly: one of the largest child care centers was faced with closure. it has been very difficult, i know, for families who have children there, trying to find out what the future is in terms of education. for their families, and then, more generally, in the south of market, so i want to think supervisor alito-pier. i am happy to co-sponsor. president chiu: any further comment, colleagues? a roll-call vote on this item, please.
mr. president. yes. allowing for extracurricular events -- thank you, mr. president. learning from that experience and debate, i asked why we do not have a service academy, and the unified school district for the fire department and the sheriff's department -- i have been working with the police department, and supervisor maxwell has, too. this is considered to be an ad
hoc program already in place. for those interested in a public safety career. these discussions are underway. potentially, a particular applicant to, in the police department, becomes an applicant in the department. this is an all-time low in san francisco. well over 75% of our officers are outside san francisco. when you look at the recruitment budget and what they are able to cultivate it is considerably
lower. when we talk about implementing strategies, we also reach out to communities, also the disadvantaged communities, that may help benefit. learning a particular trade or an interest in learning the process and potentially working with the city and county of san francisco. i make very simple amendments. the converse is dcyf, responsible for developing the plan, and oed would consult, and another would assist in developing the curriculum.
passes on the first reading. supervisor chiu? item 38. madam clerk, if you could please call item 38. madam clerk: item 38 is an ordinance amending sections 1060.20.4 and 1070.20 of the san francisco police code. president chiu: violence and violence around certain night clubs in san francisco. at this point, almost monthly, we have a homicide or a significant issue occurring in or around nightclubs, and the need for additional powers on the part of the city to suspend licenses is something that we
legislative last year. several months ago, after the shooting that occurred at club suede, which is in my district, shots fired, one person killed, others injured, it was discovered that they did not have the authority to revoke permanently the license of a club that had a long history of violence and public safety issues. this was introduced really to deal with the fact that the city attorney had to spend hundreds of hours to shut the club down, and we want to provide the city with powers to make it easier to revoke a license in which a club has a history of public safety issues and public nuisance issues, so, colleagues, i would like to ask your support. i have one amendment. according to the deputy city attorney, there are references to the civil code section from the state code, 3840.
from the california civil code for the definition of nuisance. the correct number should be 3480. those changes should be made on page two line 19 and on page four line 16. supervisor campos: we have a motion from supervised chiu and a second from supervisor maxwell. now, on the underlying ordinance, can we take that on the same call? without objection. president chiu: we will now call item 39. madam clerk: irresolution approving the san francisco child and family services review improvement plan. president chiu: this resolution
is adopted. next item. madam clerk: item 40, a resolution authorizing the airport commission to accept approximately $800,000. president chiu: same house, same call, colleagues? this item is adopted. next item. madam clerk: item 41, appointing carol kingsley to the san francisco police commission. president chiu: colleagues, same call? this item is passed. next two items. madam clerk: item 42, emotional quarter raincoat voters of an
ordinance, and item 43, establishing the community policing policy. supervisor mirkarimiñ in implementing what i think is a community policing strategy that is often well talked about but not well implemented. you asked a hundred people in this room what you think community policing is and you'll get a hundred different answers. there's nothing institutionalized. when you look at the department orders of the san francisco police department, there is very little that describes anything except references that were memorialized back in 1994. community policing has involved considerably as we have learned
from cities like new york, boston, chicago, seattle, many others. and overed years we've addressed the problems that have been spot fires and of chronic distress throughout many of our districts and throughout the city to be able to require that the police department be more engaged. not that they're not and not that community policing v.i.a. a slice of that feature being foot patrols isn't happening but i believe it's time that the voters also have an opportunity to weigh in as to how important the strategy is. and i know that the police department realizes it's an important strategy but as debate often has revealed, this is a strategy that is quote, unquote, seen as a luxury in the police department's menu of how to deploy forces and it's often a reactive strategy. i believe there have been
perfect candidates where we have foot patrols. it's something i've been talking about since coming into elected office and it's highly irregular and highly inconsistent. that would stem a lot of concerns and distress and aggravation people were feeling by periods of either neglect or confusion. that's why law enforcement and/or city was not more effective. we have seen when foot patrols have been applied, they work. the correlations really go, i think, unchallenged as it was studied by the controller in 2008 when they commissioned an independent study that saw, i think, the true benefits of what community policing is v.i.a. so it is worthy of extending those lessons learned
into what may, some people feel that the legislative what was unconventional and orthodox back in 2006 when we legislated the demand and we overrode that veto, my district as well as others were well entrenched in what was considered to be the land morning or historical high crime rates. i'm pleased to say and delighted to say my district as well as other neighbors have benefited hand somely from that level of focused attention. in the southeast sector of san francisco when we saw an uptick of tension between asian american community and african-american community, literally the first response
had been expressed by people and came to city hall was the dispatch of 32 police officers to walk beats and be part of community policing. the question i ask is what if we were able to see several of the offices there in advance? that would have been certainly a greater investment of preventive medicine in law enforcement to be able to channel, to vet and respond to concerns instead of reacting to concerns which seems to be mostly the way it is now. having the ability of being able to identify where these areas of note are, whether it's in the southeast sector, whether it's the polk corridor or the south of market or wherever it may be, the chief of police has complete discretion in the deployment. in legislation, this ballot ordinance gives the chief that discretion. but it will definitely rival a bit of a debate because they will say we don't have enough resources.
they will say that personnel is deficient and we can't do this. and that gets to the core, i think, of the debate, a philosophy of how committed we are, i think, to community policing. those were the same levels, i think of debates and backs and forth that other communities have had, too. your support would be greatly appreciated. i know this is a split file. i would like to thank you for your support and i look forward to answering any questions. thank you. >> thank you. police chiu? president chiu: thank you. i want to say thank you to ross mirkarimi for bringing this measure. when i was in graduate school 20 years ago, i studied at that time a relatively new reform of community policing which has now been adopted by police departments around the country and i think everyone knows this is something we need to do and i think it's quite common sense to ask to move forward that our
police department have a plan that we can discuss around foot patrols and community policing. that being said, there is a broader conversation on the november debate around sit lie and part of my support was around a policy commitment that i think our city ought to devote to foot patrols and community policing rather than a sit/lie ordinance that has had legal questions and there are many other ordinances that have tried to address similar behavior and have failed. a number of weeks, mayor newsom decided to device language between his hotel tax and the hotel tax placed on the ballot by thousands of san franciscans to be placed on the november ballot and i have to admit his decision to do that, which i thought was a very clever way to provide a real choice of san fan sis cans on that issue
inspired me to suggest an amendment and that's to provide a clear choice to voters that we need to think about policies like foot patrols and community policing and restorative justice and other justice models rather than the sit/lie ordinance that i think many of us, the super majority of us here at this board have had significant concerns about. colleagues, i would like to urge you to support item 43 and hopefully with that, we can provide voters a clear choice and policy priorities for law enforcement here in san francisco. >> thank you. supervisor bevan dufty. supervisor dufty: thank you. i thought the police department was not being responsive to the concerns and i felt there was some maneuvering around here where it was said that the legislation was bad but yet still a day before the
legislation we were being assured that everything in the legislation was, in fact, going to be done. so what is a bit different for me here and now is that there have been a number of reform tools that have been established by the department and that we've established model station at ingleside and that there are a number of reform initiatives that are on paper, being implemented, being considered as it relates to the structure of our district stations and so i guess through the chair, i would like to ask the author, given that we previously were able to establish mandatory foot patrol initiatives, what's the purpose of going to the ballot? why is it so essential that we have the voters vote on it? because if in effect we have to make any revisions down the road, it would have to be done by the voters themselves. supervisor alioto-pier: supervisor ross mirkarimi?
supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. in your support is the eighth and the veto override which is essential and we appreciated that back in 2006. this is the study, the foot patrol program evaluation report that the city controller had commissioned and that public safety strategies group had presented on april 8 of 2008. there were a number of hearings, public safety had joint hearings with the police commission and it was well received. the population of san francisco was also surveyed at that particular time. 79% of the people of san francisco want foot beats. we realize we cannot satisfy that high demand but what we did realize in that pilot which was approximately 14 months but we realized at any one time after that pilot, nothing is made permanent which we respect because the discretion is in the police department about deployment but nothing is also
institutionalized so while we had a chief predecessor who may not have put the kind of level of importance on what foot patrols are and we, as you i think insinuate, we have a chief now that might make reforms, who might be more sensitive to these kind of strategies, what if that particular chief is succeeded by somebody else? what if that chief is succeeded by somebody else who does not share the same strategies or the same outlook? what if any of us were succeeded in a way that community policing is not of the same, i think, import in order to see it implemented. by us not having the ability of the voters to articulate how important this is to them continues to contain the debate in here where i think it's highly politicized. i think we allow the voters to weigh in and i guarantee you, with the outcome that i predict would be ao
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on