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. >>

[gavel] >> good afternoon, welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, february 4, 2014. madam clerk, could you call the roll? >> yes. [speaker not understood]. campos present. president chiu? chiu present. supervisor cohen? cohen not present. supervisor farrell? farrell present. supervisor kim? kim present. supervisor mar? >> here. >> mar present. supervisor tang. >> present. >> tang present. supervisor wiener? >> present. >> wiener present. supervisor yee? >> present.

>> yee present. and supervisor cohen. >> present. >> cohen present. mr. president, all members are present. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> madam clerk, are there any communicationses? >> i have no communications today, mr. president. >> and could you read our consent jedv? >> items 1 through 11 comprise the consent calendar. thea items are considered routine unless a member will object. the item may be removed and considered separately. >> colleagues, would you like to sever any of these item? madam clerk, could you call -- sorry. could you call the roll on items 1 through 11? >> on items 1 through 11, supervisor mar? >> aye. >> mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener?

wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. there are 1 ayes. >> those items are approved. [gavel] >> and could you go to item 12? >> item 12 is a resolution to approve an agreement with the nonprofit owners association for administration management of the renewed and expanded property-based central market community benefit district for a period commencing upon board approval until june 30th, 20 28. ~ >> colleagues, can we do this item same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 1 is an ordinance to amend the business and tax regulations code by adding article 15 a to provide for the

establishment of assessment districts to finance public realm landscaping improvement and maintenance of outdoor spaces and to authorize the purchase of real property with the assessment funds. >> colleagues, same house same call? this ordinance is passed on the first read. [gavel] >> item 14. >> item 13 -- item 14, mr. president? item 14 is an ordinance amending the planning code to repeal pro he visions of and establishing new provisions for the 1500 page street affordable housing special use district for the property located at 1500 page street and to amend the zoning map to amend the affordible housing and modified height and bulk limits. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i know there's been a lot of concern ~ throughout our city about affordable housing and a number of the challenges that we face, and many of us are working on legislation to try and deal with that particular issue. but i do want to take this opportunity to highlight this project because this is a great

example of what the city is doing right. this ordinance will create a special use district for a great project in the upper haight and this is a project for housing opportunity for development only disabled individuals. and in this particular project we have mercy housing and the arc working together hand in hand not only to rehabilitate these units and provide them to this particular population, but the arc, which is really the expert organization in working with individuals with mental challenges will be at hand to provide social services. so, this is just absolutely an incredible project. we have a number of organizations that traditionally in this particular area disagree on almost everything that comes out to the public. they actually have all come together, including the

haight/ashbury improvement association, hank, and the hate ark bury merchants, the urban school located right next to this project, they all have agreed to support this project ~ because the outreach efforts were amazing. the communication with the community was amazing. and tim dunn in mercy housing in particular deserves the credit for their amazing outreach. i think this is going to be a wonderful project for the community that provides a great housing opportunity for a community that experiences challenges with access to affordable housing. so, i'm truly looking forward to the day that this opens and just want to thank everyone for their hard work on bringing this together and look forward to moving this project forward. thanks. >> thank you, supervisor. colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection this ordinance is passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> colleagues, why don't we skip over our 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. special orders and go to

item 20, madam clerk. >> item 20 was considered by the land use and economic development committee at a regular meeting on monday, february 3rd, and was forwarded to the board as a committee report with the same title. >> colleagues, would anyone like to discuss this item? item 20. >> yes. >> supervisor kim? supervisor cohen. >> well, okay. supervisor kim, would you like me to go first? >> that's okay. i apologize. i thought this was item 29, so, i'll start. >> okay, supervisor kim. >> this is something really exciting for us to celebrate. many of you know that i've been working for the last year and a half -- year with supervisor kim. you heard me speak about the importance of this legislation when we introduced it last week. this legislation supervisor kim and i have been working on is really borne out of our desire

to provide real employment opportunities and housing opportunities to individuals that have a conviction history. one in four californianses have a conviction on their record. i represent a district with the highest percentage of individuals who have this conviction history. and data tells us that access to housing and employment opportunities are key components to preventing recidivism and supporting public safety in our communities. the legislation is really long overdue and this is -- certainly think supervisor kim agrees, this is landmark legislation and it's long overdue and i believe it will help eliminate the conscious and more importantly unconscious bias that exists when hiring and housing individuals with a conviction history. as a city it's time for us to help change the perception of people who served their time, paid their debt to sew satiety and want to be productive workers in community. this legislation is not

designed to give individuals a preference. rather, it's to ensure they are judged on qualifications, not their previous actions. and there is a long list of folks that have helped to make this a reality. i'd like to take a moment just to thank a few of the organizations that have helped us along the way. all of us or none, legal serve is he for prisoners with children, lawyers committee for civil rights national power, coalition on homelessness, hospitality house, coleman advocates, chamber of commerce and small business commission, and also there are a litany of neighborhood folks that helped gather signatures for us to continue to move this forward. and i hope that you will join supervisor kim and i in voting favorably for this legislation. mr. chair, the rest i give back to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you, supervisor cohen and president chiu. it's always important to