Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 30, 2015 5:00am-5:31am PDT

5:00 am
departments are not facing this police department as well. you look at the isue of what happened with the racist and home phobic texts, i imagine if the police chief came out and said nothing will happen to these police officers i imagine this board of supervisors would hire more police officers but say we need to address the issue of the texts that are racist and homeo phobic before we hire more officers. yet something really significant happened with respect to those texts yesterday. even though the police chief is saying we should terminate those officers, the san francisco superior court issued a order that basically says that the san francisco police commission has no jurisdiction over those disciplineary cases vaurfbing those officers. the court said
5:01 am
we are taking that away from the police department and we as a court will be the ones who decide a very important question when chis whether or not the police commission and police department acted in a timely basis in terms of disciplining those officers. what does that mean? it means that we may have a situation where the court decides that in fact the police commission did not act in time and that the police department actually knew months more than a year maybe a couple years about those texts but didn't do anything. what is going to happen is there is a very real possibility that those officer will be reinstated. that is a possibility. the mayors office is shaking their head but that
5:02 am
is what the superior court said. they could very well decide that. what kind of message do you think it will send to these communities that as a court could very well reinstate these officers, we on the board of supervisors we are not talking about the need to reform the system, to figure how it is that the police department knew about texts and yet nothing happened. we are talking about hiring more officers. i'm sorry but that is putling the cart before the horse. before we go down that path we need to make sure we look at this police department and addressing the reforms that are needed. the fact that the chief of police is saying these officers should be term inated is a good thing, but the
5:03 am
problem is that the court is saying that this department did not act appropriately. the fact that a court is saying that should give us pause. it should give enough pause to say, let's look at what reforms may be needed before we go down this path. i will be supporting some of the amendments but i will most definitely be voting against this ruzlution and think if this resolution passes we'll have egg in our face here in city hall and i think it is actually sad that that is how we want approach this. at a minimum we should continue this if we are not sending it back to committee but i want to be on the record saying this isn't just a mistake, but one of the
5:04 am
graveest mistakes we will have made if we go forward with this. >> supervisor avalos >> we have amendments i believe that i think we can vote on those now if we could. i would like to go one by one and then i have a amendment as a whole i would like to do >> so based on the amendments that i proposed if you look at page 2 line 16-21, those seem to be the items that you have concern with and if you look at the further resolve clauses on page 3-lines 18-25 and on page 4 line 1 and 2, it seems as though those are the ones you with willing to support so maybe we can-no. okay.
5:05 am
>> i'll explain. the first where asclause where the 15 study [inaudible] average 271 police officers per 100 thousand residence, i believer that is fact i can support that. the next one to meet the average police level [inaudible] that is opinion. san francisco police staffing goal should reflect future and current needs, that is a opinion and can can't support that. we established the 1971 number 20 years ago is a fact but not think because we did it 20 years ago we should establish the numbers we should establish it on other factors.
5:06 am
on the first resolve clause if we change it and say in addition to exploring police staffing level the board will look at strategy. you changing out exploring to-from increase to explore and get to what i propose in my amendment as a whole is not commit to increase staffing level but have a multidisciplineary process to consider establishing staffing level rather than saying we are going to increase staffing level. that is a the difference between my amendment and here. if we want to go one by one i'm happy to vote but i'll come back with something else that will override the whole thing >> in that case we'll take my amendments in their whole form and i won't split them up and take your amendments. madam clerk on the motion to amend-- >> sorry to interrupt, but i
5:07 am
believe if i want to request we split the file to vote on it that is a action and motion that would prevail over actually having a vote on the whole resolution. is that correct? >> as to the president yes you can divide portions of the amendment out >> i couldweed like to do that >> if i can repeat supervisor avalos what you would like to separate. page 2 line 18-19 and 20-21. >> that section i would like to separate. the where as clauses. >> and on page 3, line 25 >> line 24, 24, okay. we'll take a vote on everything
5:08 am
before that and a secondary vote >> for each motion will the page and line number be stated for what is voted on? >> i'm happy to do that >> this is for president breeds amendments >> that is correct >> madam clerk is that clear? >> yes madam president >> before we get to the very end i want to offer amendments as well >> okay. basically for clarity sfr visor avalos asked to remove line 18-21 as well as line on page 2 and on page 3 line 24 and remove those and vote on those separately and vote on the rest of the underlying amendments, is that clear? okay. colleagues can we please call the roll on the
5:09 am
items without-do you want that to be repeated? >> i think just to be clear if i may suggest that the clerk states what line we are voting on in terms of amending into the resolution >> supervisor breed made a motion second by supervisor wiener that the amendments that she supported be voted on. we are severing out for a secondidary vote line 18-21 on page 2. and on page 3, line 24. those items we are removing from this vote and then we'll take a second vote on those items that i serveered. okay, can you please call the roll >> wiener, aye. yee, aye.
5:10 am
avalos, aye. breed, aye. compose, aye. christensen, aye. cohen, aye. farrell, aye. kim, aye. mar, aye. tang, aye. there are 11 aye. >> those amendments pass unanimously. >> if i may articulate what they are. on page 2 lines 18-21. and on page 3, line 24. >> please call the roll >> supervisor wiener, aye. yee, >> i'm sorry. i am a little confused. i thought we just
5:11 am
did--got you. >> yee, aye. avalos, no. breed, aye. campos, no. christensen, aye. cohen, aye. farrell, aye. kim, no. mar, no. tang, aye. there are 7 aye and 94 no. avalos campos kim and mar voted no. >> those amendments pass supervisor avalos >> i motion to duplicate the file and >> you can just make a request to duplicate the file >> i'm requested to duplicate the file. duplicate the file and one i would like to propose the amendment as whole and you have a copy of the amendment on your desk and let me read the amendment as a whole. rather than establishing police
5:12 am
staffing levels we are establishing a multidisciplineary process for determining police staffing levels and then in the language of the resolution it says rez dugz establishing board of supervisor policy that police staffing levels will be adjusted through a multidisciplineitary process involving departments and stake holder and redue voou public policy best practice for evaluating police staffing levels. then i have other where as clauses i added to the resolution on page 2, top of page 2 line 1, the stucystics from the cam department of justice show between 194 and 2013 despite increase in population the overall number of crimes in san francisco have decreased with diviolent crime decreases by 34.8 percent homicide [inaudible] robberies
5:13 am
decreases by 36.6 and property crime decrease by 5.3 percent and down to line 15 on the same page, where as the per report states the tagt for patrol staffing should be balanced [inaudible] next line 16 is another line i want to add. where as the pir report upper limit recommendation of 2254 officer was intended to allow officers time for heavy involvement in community policing and problem solving especially during prime time police hours 11 a.m.-9 p.m. allow to [inaudible] work with community organization meet with business people and contact other government
5:14 am
agencies. page 3 line 9, where as the controller report found that san francisco has.14 civilian for aench wn sworn officer which is liss than half the national achberage for cities with population over 350 thousand and where as in comparison with peer cities san francisco was found to have a slightly lower number for high priority calls. [inaudible] violent crime falls in the middle of [inaudible] and slightly above the national average for population over 350 thousand. i have one other page which has a lot of-i won't read the whole thing but it talks about the international association of chief of police and their report around patrol staff{talks about ratio for
5:15 am
population rate not boo to determine the police staffing. and michigan state university does that detaches per capita and report other issues of how respond. those are the amendments as a whole and there is also on the resolve clauses in stead of committing to a higher staffing level we request the budget analyst to study the different approaches staffing levels for police departments are done around the country, what are best practices around that and we should consider that before decided what the staffing level should be which makes more sense. using anecdotal evident what makes a neighborhood or city staif and what the praerp staffing levels should be.
5:16 am
>> supervisor avalos made motion to amend the duplicated file and veckd by supervisor campos. supervisor campos >> thank you madam president. i want to make a important point i failed to mention in the earlier remark jz think it is important for the public to know this because while i think that it is true some people raise the issue of staffing i think one of the things people don't know which i think it is important for the members of the public to keep in mind is san francisco not doing very well in terms of the number of police officers that are actually patrolling the streets opposed to police officers sitting behind a derfck and doing the job of a civilian. i believe people want staffing and i believe people want to
5:17 am
make sure police officers are patrolling streets and not behind oo desk. let me give you the number the per report had. when the per report was issued in 2008 had 2130 officers and san francisco had 231 civilians. interestingly enough you look at a department like boston that had 2170 police officers at the time, very similar to numbers of san francisco, boston had 640 civilians. 3 times more than san francisco had which means that they actually had civilians doing the work that should be done by civilians. to the contrary here, you had police officers sitting behind a desk at a higher proportion
5:18 am
than boston. if you look at seattle, seattle had staffing of 1273, half of what san francisco staffing was and seattle had 502 civilian employees in 2008 recollect twice the numbersuch had. baltimore 2900 officers, 721 civilians, again just a few officers more than san francisco but 3 times the number of civilians. the reason i say that is that i think it is important for members of the public in san francisco to know that we are talking about hiring more police officers when we haven't done a good enough job making sure the officers we do that they are patrolling the streets
5:19 am
and not behind a desk. i think if the public notes that a lot of the same people saying more staffing will say before you do more staffing can you make sure police officererize patrolling a street and not sitting behind a desk >> okay. with that colleagues-supervisor avalos >> just to reclarify the motion, it is a duplicate file and do it as a whole and send to committee and want to specify can goes topublic safety >> thank you. on the duplicateed file as amended to send to committee- >> madam president we have to take a roll call vote on the amendment as a whole offered by supervisor avalos >> okay. madam clerk can you please call the roll? >> on the amendment offered by supervisor avalos, supervisor wiener, no. yee, aye. avalos,
5:20 am
aye. breed, no. compose, aye. christensen, no. cohen, no. farrell, no. kim, aye. mar, aye. tang, no. there are 5 aye and 6 no, supervisor wiener breed, christensen [inaudible] >> the amendment fails >> i like to ask the motion go tooz pucklic safety committee. >> second by supervisor campos. roll call vote >> wiener no. yee, aye. avalos, aye. breed, no. campos, aye. christensen, no.
5:21 am
cohen, no. farrell, no. kim, aye. mar, aye. tang, no. 5i, 6 no wean rb breed, christensen cohen, farrell and tang voting no >> the motion to send item to committee fails. madam clerk can you call the roll on the item as amended >> item 23, wean, aye. yee, no. avalos no. breed, aye. campos, no. christensen, aye. cohen no. >> madam clerk i can't hear. >> supervisor kim [inaudible]
5:22 am
5:23 am
>> recess while we clear the room. we left off at the vote and we were at supervise r christensen. >> christensen said aye. cohen, aye. farrell, aye.
5:24 am
kim, no. mar no. tang aye. there are 6 aye and 5 no with supervisor yee, avalos, campos, kim and mar in the descent. >> okay. the resolution is adopted as amended. madam clerk can you please call the next item >> item 24 is ordinance to amen it admin sthraitive code to establish the cannabis legalization task force to [inaudible] regarding the local impact of possibly legislation of cannabis and setting forlth the membership and deutaeds of the task force >> colleagues today before us is legislation to create the
5:25 am
cannabis state legalization task force. i want to thank my cosponsors supervisor kim and supervisor mar for joining me in this legislation as well as jeff [inaudible] in my office for his hard work on it. we have seen cannabis legalization effort succeed in other states and it is likely 2016 will bring legalized can bss to california. several state wide advocacy groups are working on it now. if this passes and it is very well may san francisco will be at the epicenter of the change. we need to take a spart and thoughtful policy approach to what the news will mean to the city. if we don't formialate posin advants we will have a ciotic fire drill after legalization occurs. the
5:26 am
cannabis state legalization task force will bring together residence, adcoicate residence and other leaders to identify the key policies we need to plan for now. it is 22 member cannabis task force with representative as described in the legislation from various sectors to really provide strong feedback and various perspective about how we need to plan for this likely change. the term of the task force, the goal is for it to commence [inaudible] and tosk force to report back the board of supervisors in one year on the legal social and enforcement issues we are like tee to have to address. the task force will take no official position on legalization but focus on policy and administrative solution. colleagues this is a important effort to plan ahead for a significant change in state law and i ask for your support. i do want to offer a
5:27 am
minor amendment that supervisor kim and i drafted today that will simply clarify for the 2 seats reserved for cannabis consumers that they need to have at least 2 years of experience in cannabis related advocase so we distributed those mining amendments and i move we adopt those amendments >> supervisor wiener made a motion to emend 2nd by supervisor kim. can we take those amendments without objection. without objection the amendments pass >> to the chair this reports bat ba took the first reading as amended if the item passes today >> that is correct >> okay, but it is on the first reading. thank you. can you please call the roll >> item 24 as amended supervisor wiener, aye. yee,
5:28 am
aye. avalos aye. breed, aye. campos, aye. christensen, aye. cohen, aye. farrell, aye. kim, aye. mar, aye. tang, aye. there are 11 aye >> this ordinance is passed as amended unanimously on the first reading. madam clerk we'll skip over the regular business and go to our 3 p.m. special order. can you please read item 26 and 27? >> item 26 and 27 compize the specialordser of 3 pm on the motion approved on joounl 16, 2015 the board of supervisors will resauv as a mitdee of a whole to paublic hear toog her assessment cost conind tain the resolution subject matter of item 12 aprieving a report of assessment cost for inspection
5:29 am
and repair of lighting property [inaudible] paid out of the blight abatement fund >> colleagues todays committee of the whole is conduct today hear public testimony on a report of assessment cost submitted by the director of public for inspection and/or arepair of blighted property through the accelerated side walk abatem program so at this time we'll open the public hearing. mr. quan welcome back >> thank you. this report is for the properties inspected and repairs made and invoiced by the city from april 2014 to april 2015. during that period the department inspected and [inaudible] repair site [inaudible] public and private property throutthe city in response to delinkwit notifyiation, issued a response
5:30 am
to service request receive fwhide city attorney office, the mayors office of disability issuing 28 notice of violation and abatement orders and 176 notifications in regards to public propertys blighted at a cost of 23, 478 dollars for blighted properties. and also 5 0 s, 34 for blightal property for a total of 530, 5 six [inaudible] sent out to property owners where invoices were paid allowing the city to recover 514 thousand dollars. the property owners elected to