authorize settlement filed by [inaudible] against the city for 250,000 filed on january 5, 2012. >> same house same call this ordinance is passed. >> item 58 is an ordinance [inaudible] set toe against the city for 225,000 filed on july 1, 2012. >> same house same called. this ordinance is passed. >> item number 59 [inaudible] filed by conly against the city for 3.5 million filed on january 27, 2012. >> same house same call. >> mr. president, i believe supervisor breed is asking to be excused. >> colleagues, can we have a motion to excuse supervisor breed. can we do that without objection. that shall be the case. item 59, supervisor kim i, mar

i, tang i, wiener no, yee i, campos i, chiu i, cohen i, farrell i. there is 8s, one no. >> the ordinance is passed in the first reading. next item. >> item 60 is ordinance to [inaudible] libraries and the coalition for a better north beach lie briar and playground filed against the city. >> role call vote. >> kim i, mar i, tang i, wiener i, yee i, breed i, campos i, chiu i,

cohen i, farrell i. there are ten is. >> the ordinance is passed. item 61. >> approve the settlement of the unlitigated claims filed by the regents of university of california on december 15, 2010 and june 24, 120 #20 13. >> role call vote. >> on item 61 supervisor kim breed i, campos no, chiu i, cohen i, farrell i.

there is nine is, one no. >> this resolution is adopted. item 62. >> rose lugs to approve the settlement of the claim filed the war ton school of pennsylvania against the city for approximately 66,000 filed on march 13 #20shgs 13. >> colleagues role call vote. kick i, mar i, tang i, wiener i, yee i, breed i, campos i, chiu i, cohen i, farrell i. there are ten is. >> this resolution is adopted. item 63. >> item 63 was considered by land use and economic development and regular meeting on monday july 21 and forwarded to the board recommended with the same title by adding

chapter 53a creating local procedures to implement the local agriculture [inaudible] incentive zone. >> i appreciate your consideration in this item. with this legislation san francisco would be the first locality in california to implement the urban incentive zones act. this is to address the fact that our urban farmers throughout the state and here in san francisco noe that there's just not enough space to farm particularly in san francisco given the expense and scarcity of land in our 7 by 7 city. this ordinance which was crafted with significant input and city staff of ab 5511 is a an important step to addressing this issue. it would use for their land, allowing them to pay more property taxes in exchange for committing for at least a five

year period, exclusive agricultural use of the land. i want to thank supervisor cohen for her cosponsorship as well as lands use committee for their recommendation and ask for you support. >> any further discussion? madam clerk, role call vote. >> item 63, kim i, mar i, tang i, wiener i, yee i, breed i, supervisor campos i, chiu i, cohen i, farrell i. there is ten is. >> this ordinance is passed on first reading. why don't we go to role call? the >> supervisor kim will submit. supervisor mar. >> thank you. i have a couple of items.

i'd like to thank supervisor david chiu for address r dressing these issues with a stakeholder group he's been working with for some time now and look forward to coordinating my efforts with his as well. as the miller bill moves forward in congress this year, the schedules at work act is expected to spark a national conversation about fair scheduling policies for workers similar to the broad public

dialogue about raising the minimum wage policies locally but also on a nationwide level as a much needed and common sense approach to addressing the growing inequality in our city and income inequality in general. for their lead ir ship on thesish shies i'd like to commends congressman miller and the worker advocacy groups that have been working for years with including the law senters popular democracy, the national [inaudible] wanted to announce that in parallel with these efforts on the national level i've been working for the last several years with a coalition of community organizationings and i'd like to announce that next week i'll be introducing legislation at this board with similar goals as the miller bill. i've been working with a broad based coalition of community, labor and small business groups to develop the proposed ordinance and we're calling it the retail workers bill of

rights. this local san francisco ordinance seeks to promote full-time employment, discourage on call scheduling practices and large retail businesses in our city. i'd like to thank supervisor chiu for his leadership on these issues and tune into 88.5 fm tomorrow morning for congressman miller and i'll be joining him on the forum radio shoi as well. coming through san francisco this coming sunday is the san francisco marathon, sunday july 27, and the marathon is really an amazing race. san francisco's known for its seenic views and this marathon will bring some of the most incredible global athlete in the world.

it starts at the [inaudible] and runs along the embarcadero over the ridge along the coastline, through the richmond district and through golden gate park and the ash bury district and past at&t park before finishing in front of cupid's arrow along the water front. the marathon events a full marathon, two half marathons and even a double marathon. we're expecting 26,000 runners to participate. to help with planning, whether a runner trying to get to the start line or a resident trying to get around the city on race day, see sfmarathon.com to view the race map and impact on your neighborhood. district 1 will be a tected [inaudible] should be expected

delays on [inaudible] and check the website that i just cited and sfmta.com for the muni routes to get around as well. >> thank you supervisor mar, supervisor wiener. supervisor yee. supervisor campos? we will move to supervisor chiu. >> thank you. i just want to comment. i appreciate the work that supervisor mar's been doing on issues around predictability and i want to thank the members of the task force that have worked with my office over the last year or so to address

these issues. i hope -- i haven't had a chance to see the legislation, but hopefully there's ideas that overlap that we can work on together. the issue of predictability in scheduling is one i've been working on for a couple years now and certainly with what congressman george miller is proposing, this is an issue that's gathered a lot of attention with good thoughts and ideas around policies to address it and look forward to conversations we'll be having about it. >> with that -- >> thank you mr. president. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. thank you. already ladies and gentlemen, i'm trying to make this as brief as possible, but i have several items that i want to talk about. first i want to acknowledge and thank the planning department for their unparalleled leadership and commitment to helping me get the development agreement passed. i was remiss and didn't have an opportunity to thank them last

week during our fifrs reading and introduction. today i'm introducing a filming notification and this will require filming companies to provide at least 24 hour notification to neighboring businesses and residents should their filming obstruct traffic or public parking spots. we've recentsly seen an increase in film productions across the city. my neighbors are extremely sensitive to the inconveniences often that filming can create in the neighborhood. while it's a great thing to see our city highlighted in movies and commercials seen around the world, it's important we provide notification for businesses that might be impacted by the production. many of these productions result in closures of heavily utilized streets in areas that can cause unnecessary

disruption in everyday peoples' lives. i've heard from many about the lack of outreach and notification to neighboring businesses and residents when film productions take place in the neighborhood so it's my hope this legislation will bring the information they need to aptly prepare for any disruptions contain -- which

has resulted in spills and contaminations. the port and department of environment have both shown leader ship on this issue and willingness to work together and bring a poll say forward to board of supervisors to restrict the transport and export of these armful materials inside san francisco. the port has also consistently rejected proposals from companies who are looking to use port property to export coal and in may, the policy committee of the commission on the environment adopted a resolution asking staff to work with the port to develop a policy. this resolution expresses the board of supervisors support for the collaborative efforts

of these two departments and asks for them to bring forward to us a set of recommendations on how we can address the significant environmental issue. and finally, i have three in memoriam i'd like to introduce today. first is recognizing the life and times and contributions of ruth coalman who passed away last wednesday and miss coalman was the wife of the infamous doctor arthur coalman, who was the first african american physician in the bay view hunters point neighborhood she was excellent and dedicated mother as well as community member and she was known by many in the community and will be dearly missed. i'd like to uplift and recognize the life of mr. willy james howard. mr. howard recently passed away. he and his wife opened up

wendy's cheesecake which many of you may be familiar with on third street. it opened up in 1982. it's a brakely that's extremely popular for people in the neighborhood and serves some of the best cheesecake in town. he also will be sorely missed by many people. another in me more e her name was miss pree ya haji. she passed away unexpectedly monday july 14 and she was only 44 years old. she was a single mother to two very young children. she was born in detroit and raised in texas. she pursued her vision of improving economic opportunity and equality by cofounder three companies, all based here in

the bay area, including one that was i most touched by, and that was her company called free at last. the other two were called world of good and save up. save up was the last company that she was currently serving as ceo at the time of her death. free at last is a national model program for substance abuse treatment and hiv aids intervention within the african american and latino communities. she was recognized nationally for her work with this organization and her legacy fortunately continues to live on. so mr. chair, thank you for an opportunity allowing me to recognize these three great souls that have departed from this earth. and the rest i submit. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor campos. >> thank you very much. i want to talk about -- i think

a number of us this weekend -- think it was supervisors wiener, chiu and i who were at the aids march this weekend and it was definitely as always, very moving. and i just sort of wanted to say that it was very moving, but it's also very moving to hear about what happened with malaysian air. it's just tragic how life works sometimes, you know. but i'm very excited about the prospect of the city honoring

the memory of those individuals by continuing the work and with respect to aids and hiv i'm very proud of the fact that we are exploring becoming the first city that is actively distributing or increasing access to prep, which i think prep has the potential to radically eliminate the risk of aids and hiv in our community. the second point is i have a resolution that i'm introducing today and it's the resolution that talks about the fact that that there was a very unfortunate lawsuit that was filed by the state lands commission, essentially to deny the voters of san francisco the

ability to be have a say over the future of the water front. for many decades land use involving san francisco's water front have included voters and whether it's elected leaders or appointed leaders they have to deal with the voice of san francisco vote rs and this is not something that is new to san francisco. the fact is that following the enactment of the burton act in 1968, san francisco voters have voted on at least 18 water front related bat lot measures, including measures to rehab historic ferry building, create water front parks, create open space, to build giant water front ballpark and it's

interesting that this whole time we have not heard a peep from the state lands commission as to their claim that voters did not have a legal right to say anything about the future of the water front. and it's only because more recently in june san francisco voters approved prop b the water front height limit right to vote which which was passed by the way with majority of 59% of san francisco voters. the fact is that if the state lands commission is going to make this argument they should have made this argument a long time ago. i through this resolution want to acknowledge the work of san francisco who immediately

responded to this lawsuit by noting that this resolution that i am introducing today, and i want to thank supervisor avalos and march for their cosponsorship, but the san francisco big soda on record as supporting the city attorney's decision vigorously defend san francisco pa par tis pa toir water front process which respects the will of the voters, not only in passing prop b in june of this year, but in having a say more than -- in at least 18 instances in

the past on -- through measures that address the future of the water front. you may not like what the voters have to say, but i think that even though who disagree with a specific po six should support the right of voters in a democracy to have a voice. the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor campos. seeing no other names on the roster that concludes the introduction of new business. >> thank you. since our chief is back and i know he has a lot of work on his plate i'd like to go back to the item about home detention so we can go to item 50. i know there are a number of colleagues who have a number of questions, but thank you for rushing back. if you want to take a few moments to explain your perspective, we heard it secondhand through jason elliot, but if you could share

with us why you have issues. >> sure. i really apologize that i had to leave. i never want to be disrespectful. i knee how busy you are and how long these nights go but i wanted to come back because i feel it's important. the legislation as proposed or when this additional electronic monitoring home deteng was posed at the state level it was to alleviate jailover crowding which was a problem. we don't have that problem here in san francisco. as a matter of fact we're at an all time low and i sit on the [inaudible] reentry counsel, we constantly talk about how we're a model city for such a low jail population. i don't think there's anybody any place that would ever say that we're tra cone yan in the way we keep people in jail one day longer than the court believes that they should be in jail. and i know we have former

public defenders and many attorneys here on the panel. last year property crime in san francisco was up 13%. much of that crime was committed in your districts by recidivist chronic offenders who just would not stop breaking into cars, doing burglaries, steeling bicycles, this sort of thing, so at some point in time in court the current process made the desix that these folks should stay in jail until there's a trial that can be adjudicated. this is something that's a by-product of the ab 109 where we are now responsible at the county level for our custodies. the court is responsible and there is a very sound process in place that determines when a person should get out and when a person should stay in. for instance, on most misdemeanors the person can be cited in maybe a gun case. on most property -- on pretty

much all crimes, save murder, that's usually in all cases a bail and then there can be bail hearings, and supervisor campos i know i'm preaching to the choir. we actually petition the court and the court makes that decision so to add another layer into the process and have the decision on who stays in or out of a jail fall with the person charged with their custody and then go back to the judge for a review and/or approval seems to add another layer or to question the judgment of the court which i have faith in. i think this is something we don't need. i think it's something that we have a process in place that works. i have tremendous respect for the process. i am not a chief that believes in trying to arrest our way out of crime, but i believe some people need to be kept in jail

to give the community some relief and if the court decides that folks should remain in jail until trial then i trust the judgment of the court and i think that those folks are better served there until they can be -- their case can be adjudicated so the officers don't have to keep dealing with them. there are certain people we've arrested time after time and i know i've been on the phone with many members of the board about what can with do about this person and that person, and they've been arrested time and time again, oftentimes at the same place, which is very frustrating for the reportees and officers so my opinion is to say the system in place is not broken, no need to fix it, we dwoent have a jail over crowding issue. >> thank you for being here. i apologize that you have to

come back here given [inaudible] but now that you're here, i want to ask the question, so i think the way the original home detention program and em program was written, i think i had some concerns, but with the amendments, specifically that if the da objects to the sheriff referral it would overturn, i guess the potential for the inmate to go into home detention em. and it if then the sheriff objects to that it would go to the court. i know that's an additional layer, but say there's this exceptional inmate that has proven themselves why shouldn't they have the opportunity to -- >> well, again, the mechanism in place -- again, mr. niko's great defense attorney.

in such instance the petition would be made to the court and then again, the court would make a review and make that determination. there's already a mechanism in place. right now if the da wants -- if they argue in front of a judge now to determine whether who gets in or out or doesn't get in or out and so if there's a person they can appeal it, they can -- again, all the decisions are petitioning of the court. it would be like saying okay, if i asked somebody to introduce legislation so i could hold people in after the court decides they could go out, the court should be the ultimate determiner and there's already mechanisms in place to appeal decisions and/or to petition the court for changes if you think there are

exceptional circumstances. >> already in place there are opportunities for the inmate or the sheriff's department to appeal -- after 30 or 60 days. >> not the sheriff's department's department, the court. >> you're saying there's already a process in place. >> yes . >> so you feel that this is unnecessary because that opportunity already exists for that -- this quote unquote exceptional person that's been -- >> yes, we're taking it out of the hands of the court and -- >> what would that process be because i'm not aware of what that is. >> for? >> you're saying the process already exists for that person to appeal. what is that process?