3.3 to this ordinance, the language that says, nothing in this section shall authorize the general manager of parks and recreation commission to close any portion of any park or park building because of the content or viewpoint of expressive activities existing or anticipated to the extent such expressive activities are protected by the 1st amendment to the united states constitution. so essentially this amendment is conforming our current amendments that we are making to this park code with existing park code language in section 3.83 that is saying the general manager cannot limit 1st amendment rights in our parks and essentially what it's doing is just making sure that it's consistently across the park code and not at making sure we have language that contradicts

one another. i would like to propose that these amendments are made. if we have copies of that we can share that and i have my legislative aid to bring copies fore everyone. i just wanted to check with mr. gibner if these amendments are substantive if yukon firm that. >> sure. department city attorney, gibner. it doesn't require additional hearing in committee. >> you helped me with this language, we are not really altering in anyway the powers of the managers, just making it consistent which has already been in the park code consistent with first amendment rights. >> that's correct. it's proposed in this ordinance noted that general manager

would retain the authority to close the parks in certain emergencies. that authority also exist in the park code, lts -- although the language was a little different. it's the cross-reference in 3.3 in this ordinance and 3.03 included some language that was added in 1981-82. that the commission or general manager could not close the park or any park building in order to stifle 1st amendment activity. we've tinkered with that language a little bit to make clear the parks and recreation commission cannot close any park building or any portion of a park because of the content or viewpoint of any 1st amendment protected activity in the park or building.

>> very good. thank you. i'm thinking of we've had a lot of demonstration most recently in 2011 that lasted days in our parks and those were consistent with 1st amendment rights and people were asserting their 1st amendment rights by rights to assembly of the occupied movement. >> thank you supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener. >> i will second the amendment. i think it makes a lot of sense. it would create a lot of confusion. it would make a lot of sense to cross-reference the section. >> thank you, colleagues, can we take that amendment without objection? thank you. supervisor kim? >> thank you, i actually want to suggest another amendment. i have been told that this is not an anti-homeless initiative. for that reason, on page 3, under subsection d. online 5

and 6, we keep the park hours but shall be subject to the penalty setforth in the park article 10 and i want to pet put put with the exception of sleeping violation. this is a point that i forgot to make earlier. that is this. identify talked -- i have talked to people who sleep in our parks. i don't have the data that shows this but the vast majority of people that sleep in the park are women. i know this concern came from supervisor campos around members of our lgbt community and homeless. by the way, many of you know i stayed in a shelter over night and i saw the bias against lgbt particularly against transgender members. it is not to blame people in our shelter system. our shelter system is a mime mic crow -- micro system.

there is a lot of bias and miss understanding around transgender. i heard a lot from women that say they feel safer sleeping in the parks as well. we have a limited number of beds and that is the reality. acid lie, i remember when sfpd presented this legislation stated that they understood that people had to sleep on the streets and therefore made an exception to acid lie that it was not an enforcement at nighttime that any person can sleep on the sidewalk. i think it's very difficult to tell our residents that. >> thank you, any commence -- comments on the amendment. supervisor avalos. he second. colleagues, discussion. supervisor campos? >> supervisor wiener? i have a

point of clarification for the author of the amendment. is it can you clarify, because i know in this sleeping ban that already exist there is -- there are consequences outlined there.

>> chief sur is here and walking to the podium. >> good afternoon. there are currently fines for sleeping in the park. there is just no fine for being in a park after the park is posted as closed. the posted park closing hours to which have been spoken about which a person is asked to leave the park. >> when is park is closed. i'm trying to get to the point of not ticketing the person in the park. >> that can happen right now. if a person is sleeping in the park, for instance camping. it's a progressive fine. $100 for the infraction, up to five

hundred for a misdemeanor. >> if we create this section which starts a fine at $100. >> if you create an exception for sleeping, you would be discounting an existing park code section that prohibits sleeping in the park. >> that park code would still exist? >> you would have to make a vote i imagine first to -- there is an existing law that prohibits that. >> gibner. there is an existing law in the code that prevents people from sleeping in the park. if someone is cited for sleeping in the park, that person cited for the same

amount. the sleeping section of the park creates a safe harbor or an exception for someone who has not previously been cited for sleeping in the park or for someone who within 30 hours of the citation accept social services by the city. so there are some exceptions to the sleeping in the park section of the park code. >> how would this ordinance impact the current practice. if you are sleeping in the park when the park is closed. you can automatically get a ticket violation starting at $100 regardless of how sleeping is treated during hours when the park is open. >> the sleeping in the parks provision only applied during the hours during 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.. but you are right.

to your question, this ordinance would create a new separate citation. so that if someone is sleeping in the park between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m., that person could be cited under this new section 3.21 for park. >> do you have a suggestion for language that would make the current practice over this current, for specifically for sleeping in the parks. >> i see a few names on the roster. if i can work on that >> supervisor campos. >> thank you mr. president, i appreciate some of the amendments that have been offered, first i want to thank supervisor yee because i know there is an effort to make this a better piece of public policy. at the end of the day, i think the legislation remains

flawed. i want to make a couple of points and it's one of those things that the more i hear about that, the more troubling it becomes. it's not that you have selective enforcement once this legislation is passed. it's that there is selective enforcement already embedded in the legislation. we heard from president chiu that someone at some point decided that certain areas are okay because and unlawful activities that happened in those spaces. i don't know how someone decided which part of san francisco is more lawful than others. i would be interested in understanding what the criteria is use for that. i don't think that one part of the city has a monopoly on unlawful activity nor do i believe that the city

has a monopoly on unlawful activity. if we are going to carve out actual parts, then we need to have a consistent rational for carving those out. why i would say, why carve out one and not the rest? so that i think it makes the issue of selective enforcement even more of a problem and i think to the extent that someone wants to challenge the legality of this law, i would certainly point to the fact that there is already a selective enforcement piece that is embedded in this legislation that someone decided that some things that happen in some parts of the city are okay, but not in others. and i certainly would take issue with deciding how you decide who it's more lawful than whom. the second point we were asked to provide a solution. i have a radical

idea. if we are trying to address the issue of vandalism, how about enforcing the laws in place to deal with vandalism. how about that idea. wouldn't that be what we are talking about here at the end of the day. we try to complicated things without for thing at the end of the day what we are talking about here is that there is a select group of people who are creating the problem and you can't deal with that problem by casting a white net that punish is everyone else. let's try that. >> the attorney answered my questions as well as the chief. >> okay. colleagues, further discussion, supervisor kim you were contemplating an amendment, i'm not sure if you have language yet. >> no, i'm looking at the

section of the park code that deals with citation for sleeping in the park. i would like that to be the presiding portion of the code for when you are sleeping in the park when park hours are closed. >> deputy city attorney john gibner, i have not been able to come up with the exact language, but you have explained your amendment and we can if the amendment passes we'd be happy to write that up and distribute to the clerks office after the meeting. so the amendment would be that no person who fits into the exceptions to the sleeping prohibition can be cited for violation of section 3.21. if that person is cited for being in the park after hours while

asleep. >> if i can just ask clarification to supervisor kim, you are saying you can only be cited for one or the other but not both, is that the point of the amendment? >> no, would you be cited under our current park code for sleeping in the park but not under this. >> so you would still be allowed to be cited on that. >> you would be cited under how currently we deal with people sleeping in the park. which is that if you do not have an outstanding citation violation of this section or within 30 days of issuance, he or she accepts the violation as city attorneys. >> okay. i it has been an offer

of an amendment. >> i would presume that will be sleeping during the time they are encountered by law enforcement. just in terms of having a very clear amendment about when to apply or not apply. in other words the carve out would be for someone sleeping at that time. >> are you saying versus a park patrol officer? >> no, whoever the citing officer they are encountered by law enforcement whoever is citing them, if the person can't be cited under the new provision because they are sleeping, if they then are still at that point and they are no longer sleeping. >> i guess what i'm suggesting

if you are cited for sleeping in the park at 8 -- 8:00 in the morning or 2:00 in the morning. this this new code would not then be utilized on that individual who is sleeping. >> i think we need to make sure the amendment is drafted in a way that it's covering. so a person once they are encountered by law enforcement they are encountered sleeping and if the officer is enforcing under the sleeping section, not under this section, but if the officer then an hour later encounters the person no longer

sleeping and they haven't left the park, they can be cited under the new section. >> the second time. >> yeah. >> i actually feel like this section deals with being found against. >> not when they are not sleeping. >> they are standing. that's fine. >> mr. gibner. >> a person who is encountered by sleeping under section 3.13, but not under section 3.21 for being in the park while sleeping? >> for sleeping. >> all right. that is what i thought was the final language but i understand the intent of the amendment and we will draft it. >> okay. any further discussion on the amendment? supervisor

wiener? >> with that kind of focused amendment i'm fine with it and i would support it and the question is whether we vote on it as an oral amendment or receive the language. maybe you can just articulate what the amendment is so we know everyone is very clear on what they are voting on with the idea of preparing the language. >> sure. department city attorney job gibner. section 3.3 is the prohibiting sleeping in the park provision. that a person encountered sleeping in the park during the hours that the park is closed maybe cited for violation of section 3.13 but not be cited for violation of section 3.21, for being in the park while

sleeping. >> okay. i'm comfortable with that amendment and i will support it. >> okay. on the kim avalos gibner amendment, colleagues can we take that without objection. that should be the case. and any further discussion before a vote on the underlying ordinance as amended? supervisor wiener? >> thank you, mr. president. this has been a robust discussion. and i do, what everyone's view on this and it's clear on all sides of this issue is very passionate and i think we are all very passionate about trying to get homeless people housed and we are passionate about keeping our parks clean and safe. i don't think it moves the

conversation forward to talk about paving over our parks. i think there were a lot of motivations attributed to support this legislation which aren't just me, which our wonderful san francisco parks alliance, our labors union, the people who have to come in every morning and fix all the vandalism and clean up these parks after they are trashed. these hardworking women and men who work for the park and it wasn't just the union leaders who came to this hearing on this issue, there were individual gardeners who showed up because they wanted to tell us how sick and tired they are of working so hard to take care of these parks and having them trashed. these gardener, park advocates and people who volunteer in parks and people who strongly strongly supported this legislation, they are not

mean spirited. they do not believe in selective enforcement or enforcing disproportionately against lgbt people or people of color. they are not certainly ones that want to pave over park. these are people who care passionately about our park systems and want to see them usable and good shape so everyone in this wonderful city are able to use these parks. i also want to address the allegation of selective enforcement. our police department is arguably the most progressive police department in this country. whatever issues one may have with the police department in one respect or another, when you compare this department to other departments in this country, this is a very

progressive forward looking police department. this is the department whose chief of police when stopped and frisked came up publically and immediately who said stop and frisk isn't appropriate. he came up and disagreed with the mayor on that that's the kind of department we have. to suggest that this police department is going to all of a sudden morph itself into a department that engages in a maliciousen for thement en n enforcement, i respect their position. this is a piece of legislation that will help us reduce vandalism in the park.

we need more patrol officers and we need better resources in our police department and park control. this is not some sort of global solution, but it will have a positive impact. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> i want to talk a little bit about that because i think if there is one thing that i completely agree with supervisor wiener is the fact that we do have an incredible police department. i think we have the best police department in the country. but i can tell you that i actually think that the police officers and members of the department deserve better than this. having sat on a police commission that that is responsibility to enforce the laws and to ensure that we are treating them well and the laws that are passed are clear

and we mean for that law to be implemented. i think it's actually disrespectful to members of this department to say that we are going to pass the law but we don't mean to pass the law to enforce the way it's written. that's why we owe it to the police department that when we pass the law, that it's clear as possible and when we enforce it, we enforcement by the lawful i think it's a disservice to do anything less. >> supervisor kim in >> thank you. i'm wondering if the supervisor would like --

also the cost of implementing this ordinance. >> i'm sorry, i couldn't hear what you said. >> i'm fine with supervisor kim's suggestion. >> okay, supervisor kim has made another set of amendments around the annual reporting. supervisor breed. >> not on the amendment. >> any other discussion on the amendment? >> i would like to hear from the department. >> thank you supervisor, i don't think we keep that kind of data. so that's actually an issue. i don't think we track

citation data by risk. >> supervisor breed. it's not about the amendment. >> then supervisor kim. >> when i get a moving violation ticket which i haven't got in a long time, they list my race and gender and date of birth on that citation. i don't know why it's difficult to add that. i know a lot have concerns about selective enforce many. if we are not doing selective enforcement, i think that data has to support that when we get our report back. >> the question around the spirit of supervisor kim's amendment, i think it's more direct towards the city attorneys office and the city's practice on collecting data. i know i have asked for information in race and gender

and hiring practices within the department and i have been told they don't collect that information. would we be able to collect this information? >> deputy city attorney john gibner. i'm not sure if we can speak total practicality of keeping that information. >> we keep gender and race profiles for all citation for the reason of transparency to ensure there is no racial profiling. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar? >> yeah. can i say i'm supportive of these amendments. i think what we are losing is how these legislation are targeting the city. it sounds like it's going to pass by 6-5. let's get on with it and vote and vote our conscious on this

if we can please. >> any further discussion. on the amendment as offered by supervisor kim, colleagues can we take this amendment without objection. unless there is any further discussion. let's take a roll call vote on the underlying ordinance. supervisor breed, were you on the roster? >> yes, i want to make a clarification because this impacts district 5 more than other districts. and where i'm not able to get a clear understanding of is how these things are tracked from the parks and recreation department in terms of issuance of citations. i do know that on a daily basis on buena vest -- vista park, there is a

consistent violation. so i'm just wanting to understand the clarity on how there is a joint effort in terms of the p.d. in providing information so we have accurate data from both departments. >> sounds like a question to the definite heads to the general manager or chief? >> we are happy to keep records of any citations issued. i would like to make one point. there was some discussion earlier about how sit lie isn't enforced. it's represented the way it would be 3 years ago and it's more to move a contact and move along