appointments, and i think with a high-profile removal after the mayor's reelection, it is clear that politics can be played in commissions, and when riders go to there additional supervisors, it is frustrating to refer them to the mta where there is little to no responsiveness in terms of the commission, so i think this makes a lot of sense. the only question i have is which one of you are going to throw in your sword to kill it. i believe supervisor avalos and either the only ones who are not listed as co-sponsors, --

supervisor avalos and high are the only ones not listed as co- sponsors, -- and i are the only ones not listed as co-sponsors, and i support it. >> i am very grateful for the collaboration between our staff and the advocates who have been working to reform. what i would like to do at this time is make a motion to duplicate the file, and there has been an issue with regards to the provision i included in this, and i understand supervisor campos may have some initial amendments to make before i duplicate the file, so why do i save the motion and refer back to the chair. supervisor campos: i do have some technical amendments i would like to make, and i think it would be important to make

this prior to the motion. i have copies for the rest of my colleagues, so i would make a motion to make the technical amendments that were outlined in the revised copy you half, -- you have, and i want to take the time to thank julie, let's put a lot of time in this amendment. colleagues, i would make a motion to make the amendments outlined in the document. >> i would like to second it. >> all right, moved and seconded. any comments or questions on the

amendments? >> what are they? >> supervisor campos. >> if you can turn to your copy, let me give you a brief summary. on pages 20 through 21, changes were referenced in the introduction. if changes the language so it actually ties said two additional revenue that comes in, -- ties it to additional revenue that comes in. on page 22, it replaces the current parking allocation with one based on the percentage increase or decrease in revenue from parking meters or off street parking facilities.

on page 24 it clarified the should the board of supervisors rejected the budget, that it should be made first on any of violence made from the transportation fund, and on page 30 its limits the ability to acquire or construct new parking facilities, so that is the summary. >> we need to continue to next week? >> that is correct. >> supervisor chu and sylvester elsbernd. >> i am prepared to do for my comments.

>> i think potentially characterizing these amendments is a bit of a stretch. i would like to understand a little bit more. on page 22, all of a sudden, throwing a hard figure into the charter. it is kind of a unique thing. what does this mean? $52 million, which will be adjusted each year based on calculations year to year. what does this mean? what are we changing? what does the effect? -- is the effect? i would like to understand, and i would imagine since this is the public's first review of

this, maybe those who are still watching would like to understand as well. >> supervisor elsbernd >> with respect to your question, on the parking and traffic baseline, that represents the dollar amount that appears to parking and traffic, that is now on considered to general funds that had been in the past for parking, and the item you are referring to allows the controller to adjust the amount of or down depending on the parking revenue.

>> right now it is set, and you do not have the ability based on revenue. it is a hard number, and this allows it to go up or down. what is the effect of this? how does it change from this year? >> it would change according to the change in parking revenue. this particular number is based on the baseline formula that had been in the previous charter, and now that particular amount of money would be adjusted according to increases or decreases in future parking revenue. >> at least 80%. is that right? supervisor maxwell: it is equivalent to 80%. >> if it is a percent today and

revenues go up, the total amount would go up. if revenues go down, it remains until the amount goes down during get -- goes down. what is the purpose of this? >> my understanding is that this is a legal cleanup that reflex what the mta would get from parking tax. that is my understanding of why the change needs to be made. >> supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i would ask supervisor campos. as you were going to your amendments, what are the others

after this one? >> there is one on page 23 page 21. >> there is one on page 22 and one on page 24. it clarified what happens should the board to reject the budget once the fiscal year begins, and there is one on page 30. it limits the parking authority limitation on acquiring or expanding parking facilities to garages. thank you. >> further comments or questions on the amendment? without objection, or do we need a roll call several without

objection? so moved. supervisor chu: i would like to make a motion that would duplicate the file to create two versions, one that is currently in the charter amendment that would only be triggered if we were to see an annual revenue increase, so one version would stay as is. the second would remove the set- aside provision. i understand there is discussion. different colleagues have different perspectives, and i would like to have those two

options. >> second? president chiu: that is on page 20, and it is the last paragraph that is an important component of the originally composed amendment. >> it has been moved and seconded. >> can i have are roll-call vote? [calling votes] supervisor daly: no. >> there are 10 ayes, one no.

>> i want to thank everyone for the work that has been done on this. i do plan to continue the conversations that have been ongoing for many weeks as well as in the colleagues that wish to take part us on the immediate reform measures that reflect why we are seeing this. if these conversations are fruitful, i could be prepared to wait to move forward. we all know we need to increase accountability. we need to make sure funding is in place, and the look forward to working on these goals over the next week. >> both of these items will be

completed on july 22. motion to continue? supervisor avalos seconded by supervisor chu. this item will be continued until july 22. will you please read the adoption about committee reference? >> items 58 through item 73 are being considered without reference. there will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless a member call for discussion of an item. gerd >> would anybody like to separate an item? supervisor alioto-pier: 62. >> any other items? we will take care roll-call on items 58 through 72 except for

item 72. [calling votes] >> there are 11 ayes. >> the item is urging full pardon and allowing him to remain in the united states and continue serving. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. and my main issue with this is a

full pardon. if san francisco is backing of for all pardon, i would like to have an understanding -- backing of full pardon, i would like to understand what this is. in 1986, he put a lot of people through a very traumatic and violent act, so i would like to have a better understanding of what we are doing, because i do not want people to be saying his acts should be ignored. >> to the question raised by supervisor all year to appear, he is somebody known -- to

supervisor alioto-pier, he is a bunny known to the community and has set an example for young people. he -- he is now well known to the community and has set an example for young people. he served for 19 years within the department of corrections. after that time, governor schwarzenegger allowed it to stand uncontested based on the tremendous rehabilitation he exhibited during his time in prison, and after that time, he has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the communique and has not only been appointed by the mayor to the council and has won numerous awards, but the real issue of is that it

continues to have an impact on his ability to stay in the united states, and in 2006, this body moved to resolution asking the department of homeland security to ask him to stay in the united states because he did not have citizen status, and when you are convicted of certain kinds of crimes, that has immigration implications. many members would like to assist him in receiving a full pardon which would allow him to rephrase that from his record and stay within the united states and move forward with citizenship. the cracks -- supervisor alioto- pier: i understand that. i would like more time to look at this, because the acts were violent and awful, and i understand these are the types

of people we hope will turn around, so i would like more time to look into it, and i would ask for a continuance. >> i heard a motion to continue? will we take that without objection, or would we like our roll call? >> without objection is fine. >> are there any memorials for today. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in the memory of the following individuals, for the late thomas f. eisenman, joseph walsh, and wilkinson, four media and on behalf of the full board for the late dr. jose.

>> can there be any more business in front of the board? >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you. i feel like all of us are starng to see what the problems in this country are. i think plenty of people are opinionated. i don't think there's many forums where you can really express yourself or try to make a difference or anything. i mean...wha'...whatdo... what do i do, ya' know? the only people that i'm able to affect are the people who care about what i have to say. there is something you can do, but i'm sure it wouldn't be, uh...easy. different man: i get angry about it, but it's like... ya' know, in my own apartment.

[laughs] >> all right. thanks for your patience and taking the time to be here. we wanted to give you a briefing and update on our midyear crime stats. as chief gascon promised we will keep you informed to reach our ambitious goals that the chief set out with the command staff and members present. let me create a quick context. in 2008 the middle part of the year the city and county and police department decided to shift gears toward a new approach of governance in terms of deployment of police officers using what has commonly been referred to as a zone strategy. basically saturating the areas and deploying police officers based upon statistical analysis of crime. it was not as sophisticated as

it is today. but the effort has paid dividends. as a consequence we have seen over the course not just six months but candidly over the course of 20 to 24 months a substantial decrease in crime in almost every category in this city. one year doesn't necessarily make a trend but two years begins to associate itself with a trend. so, without getting ahead of ourselves, without overpromising, i don't want to leave you though with a sense that this news is new news or good news that may not continue in terms of its pace and its trend line. i want to acknowledge as well that the zone strategy was just recently recognized by the department of justice as one of the best practices in the united states. we received this award, an ward

for outstanding local police department involvement presented to the city and county of san francisco just recently. so, our efforts are not only paying dividends in being recognized locally by the community, most importantly, and by leaders throughout the city and the region and state, but now across the country. now, quickly to the stats, the chief will walk you through ain specific detail. i will say just the following. last year we saw a 54% decline in homicides in the city among the lowest rates we had in over half a century. in fact, the stats get very questionable in those 1940's, 1950's and 1960's. but they are down to the lowest level since the early 1960's. we had crime, violent crime, part one crime in the city, drop 10%, double digits, last year. the statistics that the chief will give you today are based

upon those historic drops last year. i say that to make this point. they are even more significant working with your district captains who are also here. analyzing problems in your

kennedy and determining the priority for police enforcement. this is a cornerstone of the community policing models that we have in san francisco. the one to think you because you have been an integral partner. the deputy chief was here and the assistant chief were the engineers behind this a war that is being presented. this award here represents the hard work of john murphy as a commander that was worked.

also the men and women of the organization that are responsible. [applause] the will walk you through our mission statement. i will not read it for you. i will just go through the outline. if you recall when i first came to the city, the mayor hired me with a clear mission. he wanted to make this the safest city in the country. one of the things that i told the mayor and i told the committee is that we would come back and report on this for a regular basis. indeewe're working with the peoo

achieve this. there is community policing and something that can be done. community policing is the police department and all of the participants working together, the stakeholders developing strategies, looking at the resources available. looking at the problems that are developing problem-solving solutions that actually reach the kind of results that we see here where we have a national award. the things that we are doing here are the direct product of

working with the same builders and our community board and with many other people around the city and county of san francisco. that is what community policing is all about. as you can see by the numbers you are looking at, what we did it is a year to date comparison against 2009. the numbers are even better than this because we have been able to reduce crime in the last few weeks.

there are a serious crimes in this city. and you can see that there were 22,029 crimes. now we have a 20% reduction year to date. this was compared to last year. i tell people it is hard to really conceptualize what this means until you start looking at the victimization. we're looking at this and we are looking at over 4400 less crimes today than two years ago. that equates to 4400 families in our city that were not fit the must the sheer. to me, that has a greater significance than any thing we

have today. when people get victimized, our entire community is victimized. this is what we are talking about, we are talking about real human beings. it does not whether your car is stolen or it is a violent crime. when something is taking a test taken from you, your livelihood is invaded. if your home has been burglarized and your personal effects have been ransacked, for you, for your families, that is very traumatic. i think it is important to put this into context of the fact that there are 4400 less people in this community today that have been victimized