the penal code section. the section, basically it says that for the electronic monitoring provider to be accepted in a county, they have to contract with that county with the correctional administrator which is the sheriff's department and what we are saying is that we want to make sure that is in our administrative code, to reflect the penal code section, to make sure that if anybody is placed on the electronic monitoring in the city that it goes through the correct channels. >> the sheriff's thought with this legislation is not to change the procedure for putting people in the electronic monitoring or changing who goes on the electronic monitoring it is to confirm that anybody on electron monitoring go through the proper procedures. and as an example right now, now at least we are talking about a pretrial, and detainee who is on bail and cannot afford bail and they go to court and the court, the attorney, and the judge, and

the district attorney, and discuss the case, and the person's history is laid out the person's current charges are laid out and the public safety issues are raised. for some reason, the judge set bail. this is not a situation where when that person comes back into custody, the sheriff department is going to say we want this person on am and they go out. no, what this legislation says is that the sheriff's department if it is going to be put on electronic monitoring, will review, the public safety criteria laid out in this very code section, 1203.058 in consultation with the district attorney and other interested people and then in san francisco's case, what we intend to do is go back to court. and say, judge, pursuant to our criteria, this person is eligible and they have shown by the last 30 days or 60 days whatever the case may be, they have lived by the rules, and we have looked at the prior history, and then go back to court and say, would this person be eligible and will the court refer the person for em,

if there is still an argument, my understanding is that the sheriff's department is not going to uni laterally change the court's decision. all that it does is when a person is eligible, and has been reviewed, and accepted, it goes to the proper procedures. >> if i may ask, the city attorney for just a quick question, in terms of the issue of if this moves forward, and it seems that there is still the opportunity for whatever, it is proposed in terms of an individual going on electronic monitoring that there would still be court review and i mean is that the case? what i understand the sheriff's department is saying to the board, is that if the sheriffs intend as a policy matter, to seek the court review and any time and to consult with the

district attorney and seek review any time that the district attorney disagrees and the ordinance would not require the sheriff to seek approval when making these pretrial determinations about electronic monitoring. but, as a policy matter, the sheriff's office may decide to do that and ultimately the state law, gives additional authority to the board of supervisors to adopt additional rules and regulations regarding this process, in consultation with the sheriff and the district attorney. >> is there a way to make that intent clear so that there is no question about sort of what we are going to do any way. >> i would... again, i would review a 1203.018, subsection d, which says that the board of supervisors, after consulting with the sheriff and the district attorney may prescribe

reasonable regulations, and it will take into account all of the factors listed of who will be eligible but also make it part of the understanding that once a person is eligible, it would be up to whatever you want to decide, the court to have the final determination in that instance, whether the person goes on em. or how you want to implement the actual program. >> mr. gibner in terms of sort of making that clear, how would you go about doing that? >> i think that what is subsection d, of 1203.018 provides us that the board as a department is indicating, the board has the power to adopt the rules and regulations about how this program is going to work. this legislation is not adopting those rules and regulations, the state law provides when the board does adopt, or if the board chooses

to adopt additional rules, regarding this program, the board would first consult with the sheriff and the district attorney. but this legislation, does not adopt those rules. that is... and we are in the legislation. that is not county practice we have noticed. but through the chair. the sheriff's department under this legislation would have the discretion over how to operate this program. if the board of supervisors chose to put additional constraints on the program as authorized by the state law, it would do that by ordinance, the state law refers to it as rules and regulations.

but the appropriate vehicle would be an additional ordinance in the future, under this ordinance, authorized by the state law, the sheriff's department has the discretion to make these decisions as long as it is following the criteria that are set forth in the ordinance and the penal code. >> sheriff, anything else? >> no that is consistent because it is the penal code that enables the sheriff to use that discretion, again, our intent as i believe confirmed through the legislation is to foster that level of consultation with the existing entities that normally does not exist. it does not exist, so well practiced. >> supervisor, yee? >> so, it was really helpful that you are here and we are having this discussion and it is... you know, i don't know if we need to rush this, and i certainly would feel a lot more comfortable if there were language in here, that would clarify what you have described.

as a process. i don't, i am a little uncomfortable because i did not read the penal code. what it says in there. the, i would like the concept that you would do things in consultation with the district attorney and that there is disagreement and that it would go to the court. is it in here? i did not see it in here. >> do you want me to read it in the record i can, if you like. >> the penal code. >> yeah. >> i think that we are in the sections here 1203.01 a this section will apply to inmates being held in lieu of bail in know other basis, with notwithstanding, subsection b any other law of the board of supervisors of any other county may authorize the administrator as defined in paragraph one of

subdivision and k to offer a program under which inmates being held in lieu of bail in the county jail or other correction alpha celebrity may participate in the electronic monitoring program if the condition, specified in the pub division, are met. >> and then, it just goes on to say that the most most relevant section is appropriate for the program and it is appropriate for the program based on the determination, by the correctional administrator that the inmates participation will be consistent with the community and two, number two, all participants will be subject to the discretionary review and eligibility consistent with this action. >> and this is more. so here is the and the delima for me is that would you have committed to verbally and what

you just read is not necessarily the same and what i would like to see is to have some language in here to indicate that they will do this consultation and go through the process that you have described. and that is once you do that, i will feel a lot more comfortable in supporting this piece of legislation. is it possible to put in some language? i think that chair campos was alluding to how do we do this, and can we do some amenment to this. >> administratively if i may this is still familiar territory to me and so we were not happy to save you the time and we will submit suggested amendment and we should have a full court participation by

others, from the criminal justice system here to speak about this. and i think that it is important that we have a representative from the district attorney office from the courts, and from others, so that we can really get a more clear depiction as to the reality of what is occurring and where we want to go. and that is exactly what this legislation aims for. >> i agree with you. so i would like to continue this item. so that we could recommend some language and also, to have a fuller discussion about what the other parties. >> not a problem. >> not a problem at all. >> and i want to say, and i want to take the public comment. that i really appreciate the openness and the willingness of the sheriff's department to work with all of the agencies, and i mean that i think that it is unfortunate that the da's office is not here, given that

this letter came in, you know, and you know, last minute, and so, i am very appreciative in the one thing that i would say is this. is that it is interesting to see this discussion because obviously no one, and no one is in favor of putting any one electronic monitoring that is going to where the placement on the em is going to create a safety issue for the public. no one is for that. >> at the same time, there is also a lot of pressure that is being put rightly so, on the sheriff's department, to find alternatives to incarceration. and so, i, commend you for doing that. because that is what we have been saying for quite some time and you have been doing. and so, you know, we just have this discussion and debate, about a new county jail and the

size of that and the people who have raised questions about that, keep talking about how we need to encourage more options to incarceration, and i think that it is great that you are exploring that. >> i think that this conversation will help to break through where other motivations lie as to where are some of the contraryan pictures are coming from, about true alternative to incarceration, jail or no jail, and others. but we are going to keep pressing forward. and do our best to optimize public safety and make sure that there is not this over incarceration in san francisco, which is why i think that we are experiencing one of the greatest phenoms in the country by having an under crowded jail population one of the most in the nation because of the programs that we are administering and because of the strong electronic monitoring that we did last

year and the highest of any year in the last five years and that we had administrator in the em of 359 people. and this is exactly where we shoe be going. but never at the expense of public safety. so a letter like what we received here today. i think under minds the progress that we have been making, but i am more than happy to make sure that all moving parts are lined up. in a way that they need to be. >> thank you. >> i don't know if you have anything else, chair, to add from your department. >> i don't. >> but i would like to open it up to public comment and any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> and i know that supervisor yee has recommended a continuance, and i think that makes sense. i would ask our city attorney to perhaps, you know, craft

language that would insure that the intent that has been described by the sheriff whereby there is consultation with the da and a difference of opinion, approval from a court, and reviewed by the court that that language be drafted. so that can be codified in the ordinance. >> and we will work with the sheriff's department of course. >> and we appreciate this discussion and we welcome the da to engage in this too. so, colleagues, we have a motion by supervisor yee to continue to the call of the chair. we can do that without objection. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. >> mr. clerk, do we have any other business before this committee? >> that concludes, today's agenda, great, meeting adjourned. thank you. >>

♪ >> i am so looking forward to the street fair tomorrow. >> it is in the mission, how are we going to get there? we are not driving. >> well what do you suggest? >> there are a lot of great transportation choices in the city and there is one place to find them all, sfnta.com. >> sfmta.com. >> it is the walking parking, and riding muni and it is all here in one place. >> sitting in front of my

computer waiting transportation options that is not exactly how i want to spend my saturday night. >> the new sfmta.com is mobile friendly, it works great on a tablet, smart phone or a lap top, it is built to go wherever we go. >> cool. >> but, let's just take the same route tomorrow that we always take, okay? >> it might be much more fun to ride our bikes. >> i am going to be way too tired to ride all the way home. >> okay, how about this, we can ride our bikes there and then we can take muni home and it even shows us how to take the bikes on the bus, so simple right here on my phone. >> neat. we can finish making travel plans over dinner, now let's go eat. >> how about about that organic vegan gluten free rest rft. >> can't we go to the food truck. >> do you want to walk or take a taxi. >> there is an alert right here telling us there is heavy

traffic in soma. >> let's walk there and then take a taxi or muni back. >> that new website gives us a lot of options. >> it sure does and we can use it again next weekend when we go to see the giants. there is a new destination section on the website that shows us how to get to at&t park. >> there is a section, and account alerts and information on parking and all kinds of stuff, it is so easy to use that even you can use it. >> that is smart. >> are you giving me a compliment. >> i think that i am. >> wow, thanks. >> now you can buy dinner. sfmta.com. access useful information, any watching hello san francisco no, ma'am in a back with other buzz activities if you're low on cash this is all about the freebies

here's the things to do for free. this tuesday february 4th fro admission day for the museums take a visitor open a 5 star four tour for our museums the sequesterer of flowers at no cost at all and on wednesday take the whole family to the discovery museum 59er this is the only one located in a national park for itself you tell cyst and so come visit us for free this wednesday and thursday have free fun in the fillmore come to the comedy it's a weekly comedic police radios the show tarts the 8:30 and that's the weekly buzz for any information visit us at the

self-govd and while our on

>> february fourth meeting of the entertainment commission, and like i said, my name is brian tan and i am the president, turn off your cell phones or keep them on vibrate just so that we have silence in the room so that we can hear everybody in the room today. if you are a member of the public, please fill out one of the comment cards, they are pink right up here on the desk and hand them to our staff so you have something to say on the item on the agenda and that is how do you it. and thank you to sfgov tv and the media services for presenting this commission meeting live for the public and we are going to go ahead and start this meeting with a roll call. >> commissioner hyde? >> here. >> joseph? >> here. >> lee. >> here. >> campagnoli. >> here. >> president tan. >> here >> we have a quorum and we have not heard one way or another

from perez or akers. >> as long as we have quorum we can move o >> we have a fairly short agenda and hopefully we can move through it quickly. the first item is public comment, and this is for any items that are not on the agenda but do pertain to the business of the entertainment commission, is there anyone here that would like to make public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and let's move on to item two and approval of the minutes from january 21st. >> do you have any changes or motions? >> move to approve. >> second. >> this is a motion and a second. >> we can take public comment on this? >> is there any public comment on our minutes from our last meeting? i don't see any, so that is now closed. let's move on to voting. >> voting, sorry. >> commissioner hyde?

>> aye. >> commissioner joseph? >> aye. >> commissioner lee? >> aye. >> commissioner campagnoli. >> aye. >> president tan? >> aye. >> all right. now on to item three, which is the report from executive director. >> good evening, as you can see there is nothing in your packet. i was on vacation last week. and so there is only really very view things to report. one is to reiterate that march 29th is our retreat. it will be 9 a.m. to about 1:00 and i have got it narrowed down to two locations in the city and so i will let you know, please put that in your calendars. the last commissioner hearing that was discussion around late night transportation, and there was a request by this commissioner to possibly have a hearing in the late night transportation. but since the time of our

hearing, there has been press indicating that supervisor weiner will be holding, or calling for a hearing at the board level, and regarding late night transportation, and i spoke with his office today and we met for about an hour. regarding that sort of invitees and the content of that meeting and the potential date. and i wanted to let you know at this point, they are looking at march three, because then it will be at land use and so it will be a monday afternoon. and we will be asked formally to be part of the presentation at the front end before there is sort of testimony and public comment. >> so we will not be limited? >> correct. >> but we will be one of a few departments, so i don't think that it is for us to take all of the time on the agenda. but, i think that the... >> with the land use?

>> i think that it is 1:30. obviously i am going to give you guys more concrete when it becomes clear when they actually do agendaize it. but, i just wanted to follow up with you so it did not feel like it was left hanging and there would be repetitive for us to do and i think that his request for the presence of transit and bart and any of the others that they can get to come it will be a much more weighty discussion and will not be last, as far as i can tell, my request is that our office begin a conversation that it will not begin and end with one hearing. because it is a very big obviously important topic for this commission. >> i have a question. first, because they are holding a hearing, why shouldn't we have a discussion here prior to that hearing from our venue owners? at least with our venue owners