present chiu: supervisor mirkarimi has made an amendment -- president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi has made an amendment. coveys, can we take this? a roll call -- colleagues. madam clerk: [reading roll] there are 11 ayes. supervisor campos: that item 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 a popular outcome to this, it will also move what i think is an obsolete strategy

from 1994 of the 1971 number that has been put on the charter amendment because the police department knows that they are literally handcuffed by an objective that's the ceiling but also by a floor because we don't get way beyond 1971 ever. they're also above or significantly under. i think the demand on our police department will be well felt when people see something that they like, that they know that works and that will help, i think, prompt other reforms that are long overdue and i think going to the ballot will help showcase this. supervisor dufty: i want to thank the author for that. the chief has brought a level of dynamism to the department, having participated in many meetings. i think that the command staff is very proactive and looking at effective problem solving and looking -- and has had a

dramatic impact in a number of different areas as we've seen. and so i -- for me, i just feel that these are issues that if we were not having support from the department and the leadership of the department, i think it is something that any board of supervisors could address and so i question the purpose. if anything, i think as popular as foot beats are, i think our chief, frankly, is just as popular and it is because he's taken on issues and been willing to bring change, to bring technology to the department and to bring a sense that even when he steps on toes here at the board or anyplace else that he's standing up for the role of the department and has been a strong voice as the chief public safety officer for the city. so i appreciate what our colleague has done previously as it relates to foot beats, but i do believe this is something that can be addressed to the board.

>> supervisor michela alioto-pier. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. i would like to thank supervisor dufty for his remarks. i was the dissenting vote in committee on this item and the reason i voted against it had a lot to do with that supervisor dufty just said. there is nothing that would preclude us from establishing a policing policy or a foot beat program within san francisco here at the board of supervisors. there's nothing that would prevent us from doing it by ordinance and there's absolutely no reason it should go to the voters. this is one of those examples, in my opinion, where the people that elected us to do our job say, well, why aren't they doing it? why do we need to make this decision? can't they sit down, come to the table and figure out these problems by themselves? that's what we elected them to do. and i think that that is what we should do. the chief has been a real leader in this regard and in

many other parts of the police department and right now, taking any power away from the chief to give to the board of supervisors to me seems to be misplaced. we should be trusting our chief to do his job. he's been doing a great job thus far and i, for one, will be supporting the beat program, the beat patrol program that he and his officers put together and would like to put on to the streets of san francisco. >> thank you. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you. i don't think that this vote is about being for or against the chief as someone who served on the police commission, i understand the importance of protecting and safeguarding the authority of the chief, but what i will say about this measure is that it's not just the prior chief that's been given a lot of opportunity, was

given a lot of opportunity around foot patrols. this measure was something that was proposed for the june ballot and at that time, the author of this mermaid an indication that he was willing to take it off so there could be a dialogue with the new chief around the very issue of foot patrols and that has been a number of months ago. and the fact remains that the issue of foot patrols remains unresolved and it doesn't remain unresolved just in the context of wanting -- the public wanting more foot patrols but also in the context of other issues, sit/lie being the key issue. what we heard repeatedly on those discussions at those hearings was how foot patrols could actually provide the

solution, a more effective solution to that issue and yet, the foot patrols were not provided to the extent that was needed. so i think that this measure is a balanced way of addressing the issue. it's not an attack on the chief but it's simply a recognition that something needs to happen and i'm glad that supervisor ross mirkarimi has brought it forward again. thank you. >> supervisor ross mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: this is an inoculous measure. it really is for all intents and purposes. it does not do anything prescribed, it doesn't mettle in the inner working of the police department. i've been working with the police department a number of years on these kind of matters and i agree there's an unorthodox assertion that the board of supervisors should not take these kind of leaps or steps but at the same time,

we're the ones who answer constituent concerns about public safety. we're the gatekeepers that people come to complain to us the most about insufficient response or insufficient resources on the police department but yet, we're all the ones for over the last five or six years have done our homework on what other cities are doing. and they have demonstrated, i think, with sound proof as it has been well documented, too, by perf, which i sit on the executive committee with the police department that has become the the idea for the chief to make these reforms and prior to that, the foot patrol study that was well veted that i spoke to before. this is nothing to do with any police chief or really has nothing to do with the mayor or even any one of us who is elected. it is time we institutionalize, i think a commitment to something that is proven, tried

and true, works and well in demand. and i think with the reforms that the police chief had advanced goes well in hand, i think, with the strategy of us allowing the best of our officers to be out on the streets or on beats that the people feel, i think, assured that the finest are there with them. i think that will only motivate us down the road to be challenged by resource requirements that will want us to change to the 1971 figure in the future. people won't want them to go away. president chiu: any additional discussion? supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i would like to have the voters ask two questions. first i would like to split out page two, line 12 through page

three, line 12. second 2a89.2 and item 43, the same section although it's different lines, page 2, line 15 through page 3, line 15. so in other words, i would like two separate questions within item 43 and within -- president chiu: could you repeat that whale we're looking at the legislation? supervisor elsbernd: we could separate out second 2a89.2 and then on item 43, the exact same section, although that's page two, line 15 through page three, line 15. president chiu: those are the sections specifically requiring the police department to do the community policing policy. i think that's absolutely necessary. that's a good thing. it's the foot patrols that concern me. i would like to support the first part and oppose the second part. president chiu: and so i'm clear, you want to divide out

section 2a89.3 on foot beat patrol? supervisor elsbernd: 2a89.2. president chiu: you want to vote on 89.2 separately from the rest of the legislation? supervisor elsbernd: within item 42 and within -- we have two in front of us. just to be safe, i would like to have two separate votes on those. president chiu: our clerk has just advised me if we make any changes today, we'll have to sit for another week for public comment for next week. i just want to advise people of that. supervisor daly. supervisor daly: you're unilaterally dividing the question to make separate votes.

you're not making an action to amend. that's fine. president chiu: i've been told that apparently the deadline for submission is today. if i could ask the deputy city attorney, are we able to make any amendments to this legislation at this time? >> mr. president, election code section 305a3 provides that any amendment to your proposed ordinance for the ballot shall be noticed for an additional public comment. so it's not that you're not allowed to make amendments today. it's that a new version of a ballot measure must have an additional opportunity for notice and public comment before it can be submitted to the voters. president chiu: but if this is amended today, we could consider it next week with a public comment period. >> but it would be too late to go to the ballot for this november. president chiu: okay. so i think we understand that if this is amended today, it could come back next week for inclusion potentially on the

november 2011 ballot but not for the november 2010 ballot, correct? okay. any further discussion? why don't we take a vote on item 42. supervisor elsbernd: i think the sum is now divided and the appropriate motion is to continue both pieces to next week's meeting. you can't vote on the item until we've had public comment. president chiu: i don't believe that's correct. supervisor daly? supervisor daly: the member wants to vote different ways on the same item in front of us, he's allowed to do it but ultimate physical we vote in the affirmative on both, the item would be submitted as currently noticed. no change, no need to renotice. i think that supervisor sean

elsbernd may be correct that if it votes one way up, one day down, then it changes and it would need to be re-noticed. >> the elections code requires a -- else what is the difference question? >> you have two separate ballot measures opposed to one. supervisor elsbernd: what we have now is a member wish -- wishing to divide a question and if both parts pass, the file is what it is. it's not two questions. it's one question. if a member wishes to create two ballot measures out of a single ballot measure, he'll have to do that through an amendment which require a motion, a second and six votes in the affirmative to amend the item. >> your analysis is incorrect.

they do not need six votes to do that. supervisor elsbernd: but it's not two ballot questions. >> my understanding is you're asking to divide the file, that if a majority votes on both halves to include that, then that collected could move toward the ballot. president chiu: this is a nondebatable question and i believe supervisor sean elsbernd has made that motion. supervisor elsbernd: i don't need to make a motion to do so. any one supervisor can unilaterally do that. >> i think if supervisor, with all due respect, if sean elsbernd's interpretation of the rules sticks, it means that one single supervisor can kill a ballot measure through the timing of when the file