never measure i'm asking that their needs be put at the top of the agenda for this board and the city. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. i'm here to say that i know [inaudible] taking away from here, the anti speculator being shot by a former policeman,

supervisor and [inaudible]. we have a history of not wanting people to stay in this city and you all today are facing a great big dpeel of what's really going on in san francisco. this crown on my head it come from the aids walk on sunday raising $2 million. we found a cure for aids and we cannot live here. you can be black and have aids in this city and you cannot live here. this is the same thing that you are doing with the [inaudible]. aids was a disease that made you age and if you let them take away these things out here it really just go to show that money means everything in san francisco and we can't keep on doing this. you know, you coming next, the richer get rich. the rich eat the rich. you know, so it's amazing that housing in san francisco you got rid of the blacks, you got

rid of the mexicans, now you going for the seniors and disability. this is what it boils down to. you know what? you go on to different levels, but it's not right and i hope the president announce [inaudible] will get here. housing right is a human right. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. with that, item 49 is in the hands of the board. supervisor campos. >> thank you very much. i want to begin by thanking you for letting us have this hearing today and i especially want to thank the residents of the university mound ladies

home who have come out to speak. i want to thank the families of those residents who have been impacted by this. i came into this hearing not really knowing if there would be a vote today simply because of the unique nature of this nature. just so you know, because it is an emergency ordinance, we actually need nine votes of this board of supervisors to pass it. it is my hope that we act as quickly as possible. and let me say this, that the reason why i think it's important for us to act today if possible is because of the fact that people like alice parker, and i see mrs. parker sitting right there, you can see she's waving. they've been facing an eviction notice for the last few weeks and there's a great deal of uncertainty that they have been

facing. alice parker when she was 19, she was a sheet metal worker. she is a real life rosie the riveter that served during world war ii and i think we need to provide as much clarity and finality about the eviction notices they're dealing with and i have to say that i was very upset that when don, who is the treasurer of the board of directors came up here, his main concern was the possible entity that could potentially buy this property, h song, might get jittery. well, jittery, talk about jittery. how do you think the seniors who have been facing eviction for the last few weeks, how do

you think they feel and the interim controls we're talking about do not do anything to change the pocket of h song or anyone coming in and buying this property, taking over the property. what the interim controls simply do is what i think we have to make sure happens, is that this continues to operate as a retirement home for people of modest means. that is the simple, the simple thing that these controls do, nothing less, nothing more. and so so long as h song or anyone else wants to come in and continue to operate this property, along with the intended mission of helping people of modest means, there's simply nothing that will be impacted by these interim controls. we as san francisco have to

send a message today that it's not okay to treat alice parker and others the way they've been treated by this institution. alice parker and so many of these residents have dedicated their lives to making this city a better place. we owe them to make sure they're not thrown out on the street. it is because of her and every one of the other 27 residents that i'm asking you, colleagues, today, please support the interim controls. let's save this institution and in so doing, let's protect among the most vulnerable of our residents. thank you very much. [applause] >> than you. >> any additional discussion? would it be okay to reopen public comment to let miss parker spoke?

>> okay, if we could do this without objection to allow her to speak, obviously we have public comment during our public comment period but is there a motion to do that and to do that without objection that should be the case. >> this on? >> yes. july the 24th i'll be 89 years old and i did mechanic work on the b 25s when they were in the field. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> with that, let me just remind members of the public, not to express support or opposition so please respect that. and if there's any discussion, role call vote. item 49, kim i, mar i, tang i,

wiener i, yee i, breed i, campos i, chiu i, cohen i, farrell i. there are ten is. >> this ordinance is finally passed. thank you for the [inaudible] and with that why don't we go to our next item, committee reports, item 50. >> item 50 through 53 were considered by the neighborhood and safety committee on july 13 and forwarded to the board as committee reports. item 50 was recommended as amended, an ordinance to amend the administrative code eligible for the home detention program and authorizing the sheriff to implement any electronic monitoring program [inaudible] in lou of fail. >> colleagues, any discussion on this item?

supervisor farrell. >> thank you. colleagues, i don't know if -- who the right person to -- i don't know if the department's here or -- sure -- or the sponsors. i guess a few questions. i will just say to be very frank, i have concerns about this program. i'm concerned about a few things. first of all, it was introduced last year. it feels like it's being thrust on the board of supervisors and i'm curious why the timing here and why we had a committee report of a committee that was just at the end of last week. >> my name is mark, good afternoon. i'm the a sis tants legal counsel for sheriff's department legal office. i can address some concerns you have with regard to that. this legislation was introduced last year at one of the hearings of that there were concerns with regard to the

parameters of the legislation and concerns about what procedures were for the legislation to be put into place to make sure those that were eligible for am, what the procedure was to find out if the court or da would object or not to their placement on em. in this specific case, all of the objections that were made and concerns that were discussed at that time were implemented in the legislation since that time so when it got to committee the concerns were addressed. they were one when the person consented or not, we did include in the legislation that it was for people who consent to that placement on am and more importantly, the other issues with regard to the level of offenses that would be eligible for the em placement. we define what low level offenses ments. >> could you talk about that in

mer specificity? >> sure. it indicates low level offenses are of two types, misdemeanor charge, requiring a person being in custody for at least 30 days before review or recommendation is made. and for those on felony offenses, those are what's called regular felonies, not serious felonies, lower level offenses, a person needs to be in custody for at least 60 days before review for evaluation is performed. what that does is allows the sheriff to present to the district attorney those people who, through their criteria, believe might be a good fit for electronic monitoring in lieu of bail. if that person objects then the case will be referred to the

court for them to make a more informed decision about being put on electroning monitoring or not. or saying no, the person should be put on bail. so it is not discretion by the sheriff of who gets put on em, but a tool for finding who is eligible for em to be approved by the court. >> maybe take a step back and talk about the policy rational here. maybe i'll just leave it carte blanche for you to answer that. i had a few questions as to the way it was phrased before and i want to hear it from you about how you're thinking about this . >> well, the legislation originated because of penal code 1203.018, which the legislature has said for local jurisdictions the sheriff has the able to place people on em as they deem feet.

-- fit. so this legislation really originates from state law, which gives the sheriff the authority to do. based upon this vetting process we are addressed concerns from other agencies regarding who would be placed on em and those safeguards have been placed into legislation. low level offenses -- >> i understand what's happened. i'm asking take a step back. what's the policy rational. i get it -- i see the sheriff is here and granted the authority to do. why though? >> we are doing it because most of the people or a good portion of the people pretrial on low level this is one tool for a person who cannot afford bail to be able to be reviewed to determine whether or not em might be an alternative to incarceration to help the

reentry process, to help throughout the course of the case. if a judge determines a person is on em and that person is placed in the community, that person is still accountable to the court, accountable to the em review by the sheriff and the person can be brought back into custody if they violate any of the terms. >> i want to get back to the bail question in a second. part of my question is what we're facing in every single district in our city, we are not only facing with -- before a few of us got on to the board of supervisors a number of years ago city hall didn't fund a police academy over you years. we're seeing property theft and property crimes across every single neighborhood spike in the last few years. i see it in my district, talked to all of my colleagues, we sigh it all the time and the police, when we start to have violent crimes, of course the police are going to be deployed

toward violent crimes, as it should be and we have them here as a city, but what we're doing is having -- from my perspective you're having an increase or spike over the last few years on low level property thefts and i hear from my residents all the time about this. and we have police with inadequate staffing levels to deal with that because they're deployed elsewhere. we're talking about proactively when we have some of the lowest jail counts in history, releasing more of the low level offenders. i'm having trouble rationalizing that and my residents are going to say why are we doing this? >> i think the first point is this, that the court is the ultimate decision maker in anybody being placed on bail or released from custody or on em. that is not going to change. whether the court sets bail today on this particular case of a certain amount, that review in 30 days or 60 days is

not going to change that person's risk,. what we're saying and trying to show is there are certain individuals who have bail already set who have already gone through that first vetting process. the court has said we want bail set at a certain amount. there are some individuals based upon their behavior, their programming, their classification levels and history, that the sheriff is privy to that the da and courts are not privy to, we could take that information to the court and say judge, please take another look at this person. they will be a good candidate for em to be able to be in the community, be supervised, be accountable and the concerns you have about future criminal behavior is going to be reduced. they'll be accountable to the

court and sheriff's department and brought back into kus - >> i don't see how why released on em they're going to be more accountable than they were before. they're going to be released on recognizance, but initially it was talked about lowering our jail population. i understand that's a priority. again, given where we are as a city, what we experience -- the roster's full, so i'm going to stop with the time here, but as we hear from our residents and see in our neighborhoods, property theft up tick all the time, our da have grave concerns here, i'm struggling with this overall program, i'm struggling with all the sudden it popped up on our board calendar, but i certainly wasn't briefed on it and it

came as a committee report last week which is generally something that's something that's been fully vetted and so i have grave concerns about it. i will seed my time right now to other folks, but want to come back to some of these questions down the road. >> happy to answer any specific questions you have, however, with regard to the procedure with committee, perhaps the committee members could give you a background of how soon it got to the board of supervisors. i would indicate that for someone who's put on or, someone who bails out, there's no concern about what accountability they might have. what is their risk factors once they're out of custody? there's really no difference with people who might be placed on em rather than bail. they're out of custody with the same issues anybody out of custody is going to have, whether or or bail, but they'll be monitored and continually

updated with regard to performance on em and less of a risk than those on or bail at that point. >> getting back to the original intent, wasn't it all about overcrowding of jails >> i believe that was the big motivator. >> wasn't it the wasn't that was articulated, not about the people who can't meet bail. >> there's difference parameters to the 1203 section. this specific one is for in lieu of bail. >> thank you supervisor farrell, i'm going to carry on the line of thinking so i can also understand it. and let me also just start with a couple of comments. i don't think there's anyone in this chamber who doesn't think we should do what we can to reduce the number of people incarcerated. supervisor farrell referred to the up tick in property crimes and by the way, i was just

alerted our police chief was here earlier. he wanted to speak today. i understand there was a shooting in the bay view and he had to go down for that, but i understand there's someone here who can provide a couple of perspectives with what he wanted to say.

>> if this policy were to become law, many of the offenders that would be released are property crime offenders and we don't want to seem them released into our communities right now or ever. we need to leave this power with the courts where it currently resides. thank you. >> so to ask you a couple questions about those comments -- i had a chance to speak to the police chief earlier and he raised this issue of up tick in community crimes, and we looked at burglaries around the city and showed that in southern station, burglaries are up 7% year to year, northern station up 8%, park station up 18%, in the mission it's up 42% and my district is up 62%. individuals who may not have used violence in property crimes, but who are serial

offenders in this area, there's more of a likelihood under this policy that those individuals not violent, that there's a greater likelihood that they would not have the attention to make sure they see their day in court and i woender if you can respond to that. >> i think first of all it's important to point out that those low level offenders are going to be the people that the sheriff is going to look at and evaluate to see if they're going back to court. once the court looks at the person's back groubd and history, all those considerations are going to come into play for the court. what's the person's criminal history? what's the person's violence history? what's the person's history for coming to court or dodging court? all those considerations are going to be taken into consideration by the court to say yes or no to em and all those considerations will be placed on the sheriff's list of what to look for to bring somebody forward for a possibility of a court review

for em. this is not carte blanche like i said, for the sheriff's department to let everybody out. this is the exception to the rule so those people who have proven in custody over the period of supervision time that they don't have behavior problems, their history, violence history is not something that would preclude them from em. understand that all em criteria which indicates who can and cannot get on em is very strict. that's not going to change. that's still going to be held in place. what's going to be added to those restrictions is if a person in the legislation has a certain low level offense, they've proven themselves in custody, that might be something the court will want to look at to reevaluate their decision on bail or em the power is still with the judge. >> my understanding of the

system, and this is from some of the my time working in the law enforcement system. when you have low level non violent offenders we have many programs where we do release those individuals without even em. at the end of the day, we have judges who make decisions based on what prosecutors brings to them, as well as the information that a public offender and criminal defense attorney brings to them and those are judges making ultimate decisions on this and you're asking us to allow the sheriff's department to make another layer of decisions after a judge makes that initial decision? is that my understanding? >> i think looking at it that way is not accurate. what we're saying is the judge at the arraignment after a person is first a regged and brought to custody, the judge makes a decision based upon the limited information known at that point, the rap sheet, history, appearance in could you repeat, that type of thing

and nature of offense is taken into account and say bail is set. what the legislation calls for and what the sheriff has are tools and information that the da and court don't have on that first court date. there are at least 30 or 60 more days that the sheriff has to review, including criminal history, including- >> sorry, the criminal history the da has all that >> but the sheriff's office does too and they have ability to look at that -- >> if you could stop there. da has the rap sheet so what additional information will the sheriff's office have? >> performance in custody. >> other a 30 day period. >> 30 to 60 days or more, gang affiliation, programming, performance in custody, those type of issues. the person's history is pretty much known to the court and da

at it is first court date. those cases where there's a big risk or violent history within five years or other types of problems with regard to their history, they're not forwarded to the court. >> i'm trying to understand this. everyone has the information on that first -- you're saying what the sheriff's information is what everyone can observe about an individual in the intervening time period between that arraignment, 30 days later, 60 days later. >> criminal history, no. i'm talking about classification, programming, behavior. >> the oh thing i'm wondering is you refer to these folks as low level offenders.

violent felony or serious felony charges would preclude evaluation under this legislation. >> which i appreciate. i think for many misdemeanors are often viewed as as lower level offenses, but felonies are more serious. >> all right, supervisor cohen. >> i wanted to associate with some of the comments supervisor farrell was talking about. this seems like a meaty and substantive issue that's dropped on our desks and so i want to make sure i understand what we're looking at. the sheriff is making an argument sayinging please give me the authority to petition

judges, petition the court on behalf of folks that i have in custody that qualify and meet an eligibility, and i believe these are the guideline used to determine if a person will meet the eligibility requirements to qual for em, which is electronic monitoring, which is also known as -- >> home detention. >> and also an ankle bracelet. >> correct. >> for the listening audience at home want to make sure we're communicating here. as it stands right now the sheriff does not have that ability to petition the court, is that correct? >> it's for pretrial detain knees, no. >> and so can you explain to me for what reason he does not have that -- the sheriff does not have that power? >> it's statutory. >> it's statutory. and so has something changed between the previous sheriff and this sheriff or has there been some change that we are --

we've par sip >> which gives the sheriff the authority to do that with local board approval. >> so 12.-- >> 1203.108, that's basically em for inmates in lieu of bail or basic legislation. >> this is a state law? >> correct. >> okay. i'm -- see, i'm putting the pieces together. there's a change in the state law locally that will change how we deal with -- >> the sheriff wants to implement that state law locally and it has to be approved by the board of supervisors. >> since this is a state law are there other counties going through this process or others who have already granted this? >> they have the power to do that. i have not become aware of who does or doesn't. >> sure. when did this state law change

occur? >> this is an advent of ab -- >> ab 109. >> good afternoon, sheriff, this is an ab event of 109 state prisoner realignment. there are many counties throughout the state of california and it's not just for overcrowded reasons whatsoever, but because of the immetous that's put on mu municipalities to begin to investigate em for pretrial population because most of our jail populations throughout all urban centers -- i appreciate the newness of this discussion to some of the supervisors here, is that i doubt that the adult probation department or even the