amending the police code to prohibit public nudity. >> i know the car could not read the rest of the description. fowe are addressing it discreet issues that are primarily affecting the castro it could be elsewhere as well. there has been allowed discussion about this and the press has been upset about it. when we had a hearing, no one came out to oppose it. we did hear from one person in

the neighborhood that this is a tangible issue happening in the castro. colleagues, i respectfully ask for your vote. >> can we take this same house, same call? without objection. this ordinance has passed. >> why don't we go to item 30? >> item 30 and 31 work is diverted by a.d. neighborhood as the services ready item 30 supports the occupy wall street movement and the people's right to peacefully. >> i called the committee report, item number 30.

>> first off, i would like to thank the co-sponsors for this resolution. that would like to thank supervisor wiener for his amendments. this is all the language which i included, the peace of language that supervisor wiener will mention in a moment. this is discussing a shared responsibility between the mayor and the board of supervisors and being more specific with the language.

this supports the occupy wall street movement overall and the goals of the occupiey sf moveme. i can see the consciousness that is changed across the country. this is a very welcome thing occurring create meaningful change in our society about how we can restructure our society and our government's relationship to the economy to promote the welfare of the people. that is the goal. we need to have a government that is truly accountable to the 99% so i wholeheartedly support the movement. this resolution does about support for the movement. this is also about free speech and the right to assembly and their recognition that the occupy wall street movement

consists of 24/7 assemblies that happen in public spaces and in some cases private spaces around the country and currently here in san francisco, on market street. i have been at the site and number of times. i've been called to intervene against the police action against the occupation, the first time was about a month ago when the police were about to move on the occupiers and separate their belongings from them. i went to market street and try to intervene but i did not get the support from the police department as i had hoped. there was some confrontation on the street that led to one person getting hurt and one person getting arrested and my concern for the police intervening was that it would create tensions that would be an

unmanageable use of public space and it would be difficult to negotiate how the public space could be used. the movement itself would probably grow as there's police used against it. sunday, police action occurred and we saw that the occupiers increased in number and that made it difficult to action negotiate the use of space again. then we saw what happened in oakland. this was something that was horrendous in terms of how the police department in oakland had used teargas, reports of more bullets or protect those that cause the damage to people's bodies including bruises, cuts, and one member was hit by a projectile and suffered a skull fracture and was in critical condition for a couple of days.

after the police force and oakland use force against the occupation, the occupation only grew in number and this created a very difficult way for the city of oakland to negotiate how the public's base could be used in the time to come. shortly after that, we have the threat of imminent use of police forces are not last wednesday, thursday morning and luckily we move from that and the refuse of force that was quick to happen to the mayor sitting down and talking with members of the movement and people who are part of the movement and also supporters like the san francisco labor council, the interfaith coalition, the teachers' union, the nurses

association, a number of other organizations around the city. i want to commend the mayor for doing what this resolution urges which is that we have a discussion about how we can use the space and minimize the health and safety concerns and not use any kind of force to dislodge the occupation because that will only lead to tensions that would make it difficult. i think the mayor for coming. i think it is significant that the mayor has made these that an

it is worth mentioning. thank you. i also want to thank the promise of a been going above board and working around the clock and make sure that this area is safe. supervisor kim has played a large role. there are a number of members that were there and is prevented any real action from happening. the presence of ourselves with the interface organization, all work together to prevent what happened and i want to thank the mayor for not moving forward with the rate.

-- the raid. thank you for your consideration. [applause] >> we have a role within the chamber of not expressing applause or opposition to statements so that we can move with our proceedings in an efficient way but if you want to make a silent hand gesture, but that is absolutely appreciated. thank you. >> this is to make an amendment as a whole, correct? course correct.

-- july >> correct. any discussion on the amendment? the motion passes. >> thank you. >> i would like to thank supervisor avalos for being open and collaborative. i did suggest a number of changes to the resolution which i think make a better resolution. i would like to thank supervisor avalos to -- for agreeing. i am very supportive of occupy sf. i went to the general assembly. what it stands for is incredibly important and i will not go into those details.

the times i have been down there has been peaceful and people have been friendly and passionate. what happened in oakland was abhorrent and unacceptable. there will be ramifications and repercussions for a long time. the last clause says that the mayor should instruct the police department not to use force at all. what happened in oakland was terrible and was completely inappropriate use of force as

far as i can tell, i don't think that it is appropriate for us to tell the police department no matter what happens, come on a matter how anything changes between the peaceful state and what could happen in a week or in a month or three months or a year, that no matter what happens, you cannot use force. although none of us want forced to be used, we all know that things can change and so i think that we need to take that into account and i don't think that we should hamstring our police department's ability to ensure public safety. i have distributed an amendment that at a frieze of the very end.

but ed, unless there is a move that amendment. >> supervisor amendment has made the motion, is there second? any discussion? >> i understand the reasoning why this of the puzzle but to include the language and i feel that was performed in a clinic was on the pretext of a result of safety concerns so i don't think it means what they need. i do believe that the line is we have without it is adequate because we're talking about the use of force to dislodge the occupation, that is what this whole clause is about an hour

think that if we were to do that, we would see a return of people the next day or the death after -- or the day after. that is how people respond to the use of force and i think that what happened as well. i prefer to keep it as it is. >> just a question to my colleagues, i understand what supervisor wiener is saying. it seems to me that that is already given. there are paternities to do different things. i'm wondering about the language that supervisor wiener is looking at that, if that

becomes unnecessary instead of talking about the occupied demonstrators, we change this to a demonstration so that this is a general statement about the demonstration as a whole so that it does not address any specific instances. >> well, in response to the question, the current language is a categorical -- it asks the mayor to categorically instruct the police department not to use force and that is the problem that i have because we have no idea, 100,000 different things can happen over time and so that

is why i made at the amendment. i don't think that the word change really changes anything. i did indicate earlier that if there are other ways of phrasing, i am completely open. we talked about several different possibilities. this was probably the phrasing, i want to make it as descriptive as possible. if others have ideas, i am game. >> we're trying to address public health and safety concerns. this is implicit in the way the mayor operates and this is urging the mayor to a symbolic statement. this is about protecting the

right of the protesters to be there. i know there have been efforts from the city's part to have a key liaison person and occupiy f is looking for one as well. everything i've seen is that occupy sf and its allies have reacted quickly. i see this as unnecessary and i support the language as is. thank you. >> any further discussion? should we take a roll call on the motion to amend? >> on the motion -- -- do i >>

the motion to amend passes. any discussion on the underlined resolution? >> i meant to speak early before this amendment. i appreciate what the supervisor was trying to state and hours trying to think of another way to say it. i am almost certain that oakland police felt it was necessary for the threat to public safety to allow them to use tear gas. i appreciate that there are things that we cannot predict and i appreciate your thoughtfulness on that.

i really just want also to jump in and say i have been very appreciative both of occupy sf and the mayor's office. they're sitting alongside with the heads to see how we can work together. there is nervousness on both sides. there are the commitments that everything thought that everyone would like to see on the table but i appreciate that everyone is patiently moving along and a ton of progress has been made. a month ago, many of us were nervous about what happened. there have been a few bumps along the way, i think that right now what i am seeing, i am very optimistic about.

>> i want to take supervisor kim for being out in front in trying to have a measure solution enshrine contrast. despite what the resolution it tends to say, this is non

prescriptive to either the mayor or the police department. the general orders is what prescriptive. the orders of the police apartment supersede a resolution that is afforded by the board of supervisors. as it comes to public safety, the place of garmin will be guided in their response as likely to the mayor. -- the police department will be guided in their response. it is important that measured and cool heads prevail and continue to foster the kind of collaboration that has been demonstrated thus far. that makes me proud to see leaders from this body, as well from city hall, community, and law-enforcement work together to help highlight the respect that should be afforded to the occupied movement.

that approach should continue non violently. what we saw should not happen in san francisco. that should never be considered as a first resort. supervisor chu: thank you, president. first of all, i appreciate all the efforts all of the members of the mayor's office. many of us agree we do not condone violence, on both sides. that is not something we ever want to see happen in any protest in san francisco. in terms of the occupy sf movement, reading the resolution overall, i agree with 99% of

what is being said. there are a lot of folks who feel similarly, who feel very frustrated at the movement or lack of movement we seen nationally. there are policies in place that seemed to create a larger divide. i certainly agree with that message. in terms of free speech, i think it is a fundamental right in the united states. i think that really distinguishes us from any other country. that is something very close to our hearts. but unfortunately for me, i want to express what it is a will not be supporting this resolution, because i think it is important. it has nothing to do with the movement or the message of the movement. it has nothing to do with the free speech right. i do not condone any violence in

san francisco with any future action. for me, the area where i have discomfort is what we do around permitting -- term use -- permitting long-term use of public spaces. it could be any other movement. it could be in just herman plaza. it could be somewhere else in the city. i am not sure we have a good idea of what the city is falling to do around these public spaces. the 99.9% of this resolution and the comments about banking institutions and foreclosures -- i think we have a large structural issue to contend with. i wanted to make sure i told you that so it is not misconstrued, or the vote is not misconstrued in any other way. president chiu: thank you.

i want to thank everyone in this room, who i know has been thinking very hard about the events of the last few weeks. i want to thank all the members of the public who have been engaged in these very important discussions about our community, our country, and the inequalities we have today. i appreciate the comment about the 99.99%. i want to say that having visited the joseph herman plaza cite a number of times, i have been very impressed by the conduct of the individuals involved in this movement. i certainly think that what happened last week in oakland was deplorable, and was absolutely praetexta will -- and -- was absolutely pretextual.

the reason i join my colleagues is always concerned, as i think all of us were concerned, about the possibility of an unnecessarily the violent confrontation between folks trying to get a message out and others within city government. i want to thank the folks who have participated, and the department heads that are looking out for the public health and public safety issues we have to be concerned about, as well as the members and leadership of occupy sf. i supported supervisor weiner's amendment for a number of reasons. i was prepared to support supervisor avalos, but i would prefer to build a consensus at the board, and hopefully have a super majority of colleagues in

support of occupy sf. it is important to build consensus. if there is a threat to public safety or public health, i do not been there is anyone involved today who feels that if there is something real we would be concerned about it. but i think the thrust of this resolution, as it is no written, balances of the issues we care about. we want to ensure the first amendment rights are protected. we want to make sure over one has the right to assemble. we want to do this in a way that is safe and takes into concern public health issues that we know and are sensitive about. colleagues urge our support as well.

supervisor campos: let me simply note again the need and requirement to step in when there is an eminent threat, a big threat to public safety. that is what is required. all smut, nothing that we say or do not say here takes away the very fact. we live in a time of limited resources. we have to make sure that as we move forward and how we handle the movement, that we are very careful about how we use the limited resources we have. the fact is that we have neighborhoods throughout the city of san francisco that require and need attention, such

as the plaza where occupy sf is. i hope the administration is very careful in how it deploys the resources we have, whether it is police or any other resource. i think it is important for us to make sure we are responsible in how those resources are utilized. we know public safety is a priority and should be a priority across the city, not just in one part of the city. the second point -- i think it is important to note the facts. cummins around the use of public space -- those are important issues. in terms of history, there has been a precedent here in san francisco for a group that is peacefully assembling to protest something to be