it's like you were never arrested. the limits with pretrial diverse is normally first time offenders and certain specific charges, not all misdemeanor charges. if someone for whatever reason is not eligible for pretrial diversion, this legislation would give the possibility of a judge to review their history in custody to determine if em would be a good alternative. >> and those would be the individuals that would be waiting for trial. >> correct. >> okay. and we can't presume that a person is guilty or not guilty, but there's enoughevidence to bring it to trial? >> well, i personally presume they're not guilty, they innocent ub 'til proven guilty, but for the purposes of setting bail, the judge looks at all the facts.

in this particular instance the obviously the next step is not to see whether or not they comply with the court rules or the court program in case get dismissed, the next step is determining how the case is resolved. >> i think in listening to what this legislation is proposing at the committee meeting twice, what i like about it is really -- and it doesn't really -- as other supervisors have reported now, it's not about whether or not our jails are overcrowded at this point. it's matter of for those that are deemed not necessary immediate threat and it goes through a process that they

could get -- be reintroduced to the community as soon as possible and for them to be away for a length of time could do more damage than not and yet, they're going to be more in this monitoring system so they're -- and i ask the question what's the track record on that and the answer was that 93%. and the other thing i ask for as amendment for this legislation -- because there's always a possibility that maybe this subset of folks may not be as good as your present program, we would have an annual evaluation that would be reported back to the

supervisors so we could assess whether or not we want to continue this. and i guess when the da -- the first hearing wrote a note, i believe, indicated they have some concerns that's when we asked for a continuation and this last hearing we had, da representative was there and they articulated some concerns and it was answered pretty thoroughly. that's why we're here today. what's new to me is the concerns supposedly from the police department and i would be very supportive of continuing this because i want to hear what their concerns are and to see if there's something that all of us should be

worried about or not. i thought it was okay because i thought i saw some representative from the police department at the second hearing and there was no indication that there was any concerns so -- >> okay, thank you. thank you, supervisor breed. >> thank you. i appreciate supervisor kim's line of questioning and i wanted to get some clarification in. you can't necessarily separate anything out to provide specific parameters as it relates to the cases that you de side o bring forward so if it's a violent misdemeanor or felony where there was somehow violence involved in a case, it's not that -- you can't separate those cases out from misdemeanors or felonies separately. >> as i said, whether a case it's violence or not is defined by the penal code.

242 misdemeanor, if i sock you, it's violence to you, but not considered a violent offense under the penal code so we really need to make some considerations with regard to what these definitions are. any misdemeanor charge, felony charge, would be eligible for review. the serious and violent felonies not eligible. >> but there could be situations where there could be eligible cases that are considered those of violent? >> that involve violence, sure. >> and there's no way we can separate those things out in terms of categorizing them as it relates to this particular program? based on what the state gives us flexibility to do, right? >> right. i think what it comes down to is -- i think it would be pretty unmanageable to make a

list of qualifying offenses, to the extent we're saying it's only misdemeanors or low level non violent felonies is as crop as we've got it. if there's a concern about cropping it some more that could be a discussion if it gets continued, but right now low level offenses means non violent non serious felonies as defined by the penal code. >> thanks. >> any further discussion, kolg leagues? supervisor campos? >> i did make a motion earlier and, you know, what i'd like, if people are open to it, is simply an opportunity to get more information. i certainly would like to hear from the chief of police. he has identified some concerns

and i'd like to know what those concerns are and i'd like to give the sheriff an opportunity to have those conversations with him and whoever anyone else who has concerned. we have meetings september 9. i know that -- i don't know if there's a particular date that works. i don't know if that gives people enough time to kind of have these conversations, so maybe i'll make the motion to continue the item to september 9. >> supervisor campos has made a motion to continue this to the 9th of september. seconded by supervisor kim . i want to ask the mayor's representative who i know's been in touch with the chief this afternoon about his thoughts on the idea of a continuance and whether there is conversations that could reconcile the difference in policy perspectives that the police department has with the sheriff's department

>> >> thank you mr. president, jason elliot from the mayor's office, again, representing the comments of chief who can't be here because of what happened in the bay view today. his indication is that he is opposed to this and the san francisco police department is opposed to this ordinance and for the reasons that were mentioned before. >> supervisor campos. >> i guess the question is, like, i'd like to hear directly from the chief on what the basis of what his opposition is because if the chief of police is categorically opposed to a program like this, why wasn't he at the neighborhood safety committee, not once but twice that this hearing was held to discuss this issue? i'd like to know what the specifics of that opposition are. why isn't he hear today? >> again, supervisor, i don't know the answer to the question. he was here, intended to speak

and was called away for the reason that was mentioned before. >> for the record, i did see chief here for probably the better portion of the hour and hour business took longer than we all expected. any other comments? okay. colleagues, on the motion to continue, madam clerk, role call vote. >> supervisor kim i, mar i, tang i, wiener no, yee i, breed no, campos i, chiu no, cohen no, farrell no. there are five is and five nos. >> motion to continue fails and with that, unless there's any further discussion let's take a role call vote on the

underlying ordinance. there is no public comment. we already have committees on this where you could have made public comment. >> on item 50 supervisor kim >> you do have comments, supervisor kim? >> i wanted to explain my vote prior to. i think if we had more time i would have come to understand from the parameters of being comfortable to vote for this item. i think given the information that i have now if we are forced to take a vote then i'll have to take a no vote, but i don't want to take that as being perceived as me being against an em program that could work, i have some questions i'd like to ask and get a better understanding from the chief in terms of his categorical opposition, instead of hearing it is. i'm sorry we're not going to have an continuance today, but i have to vote no today not having all the questions to be

-- all the answers to the questions that i have. >> supervisor campos. >> i'd like to ask that we move this item to the end of the agenda. i'd like to hear from the chief of police what the basis of his opposition is. so i would like to ask that he come and tell us what his -- what the basis of his opposition is. i think this is important stuff and i think if he's opposed that he should let the board know what the basis is. >> any further conversations? colleagues. supervisor campos, i take that to be a motion to continue to the end of this meeting? >> yes. >> is there any objection to that? supervisor cohen. >> the sheriff actually made a very articulate point about if the police chief was going to be coming to speak, shouldn't adult probation be coming to speak or the public defender who's always in favor of this

particular matter. if we're going to do balance in hearing from all law enforcement then we should be balanced and invite everyone. >> well, that's why i had made a motion to continue. >> which i believe had failed so i don't know where we go from here. >> again colleagues, we could take a vote on whether to continue this to the rest of -- through the end of this meeting. >> supervisor farrell. >> i would say on this discussion around continuing, i appreciate the comment, i don't have a problem with it, but there's nothing i'm confident enough the understanding this enough that would change my vote so i'm prepare today vote on it today, but right now if it helps to punt it 30 minutes or so, i'm fine with that, but to drag this on, you know, i will say from my perspective, i reached out to police department to ask for [inaudible] and so i was able to hear from the chief because

of that and so, you know, i appreciate not everyone had the conversations that i have wanted and i get that so if it takes time here so be it, but i will say in terms of my vote on the continuance and why i'm prepared to vote on, there's nothing to change my mind on this so i'm not going to support -- again, end of this meeting, but i would like to vote on this today. >> we had a motion to continue beyond this meeting, that vote failed, but unless there's any objection we hold this over to the end of the meeting and hopefully i do understand that the cheer is in the middle of a homicide investigation, but if he has -- >> i'm sorry. there has been a shooting in the district and i'd like to go to the district so holding this meeting longer than needs to be -- >> we hearing today not going to hold it. as soon as we come to the end of the meeting we'll all just have to make a call on how we

feel about this ordinance. >> fair enough. >> we'll continue this item to the end of the meeting. >> there's an objection. >> we have public comment, we have role call, other items on the agenda. call for the question, let's vote on it. >> call the question. >> mr. president, if a question has been called, you're terminating debate, you would need two supervisors to second that motion. >> is there a motion to second call in question? >> second. >> okay. so -- >> you would need two seconds, mr. president. >> two seconds. is there a second to that? okay, there's not a second to calling a question so again, unless there's an objection, why don't we vote on this meater matter at the end of this meeting. without objection that would be the case. with that, let's go to some far less controversial committee report item, item 51. >> [inaudible] public premises

located at 365 11th street. >> on item 51, supervisor kim. kim i, mar i, tang i, wiener i, yee i, breed i, campos -- on item 51 campos, campos i, chiu i, cohen i, farrell i. there are ten is. >> the resolution is adopted. item 52. >> resolution to determine that the issuance of a type 42 sale beer and wine public premises license located at 854 geary street will serve the public

convenience. >> same house same call. item passes. >> [inaudible]. >> same house same call. this resolution's adopted. item 54. >> item 54 through 62 were considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on thursday at 2:00 pm and to authorize the settlement of a lawsuit filed by jashgs against the city for approximately 4 million. >> supervisor wiener. >> we're just voting on 5 4 right now? >> correct. same house same call? this ordinance is bassed on first reading. item 55. >> item 55 ordinance to authorize the settle oment of lawsuit filed by [inaudible] development corporation against the city filed on august 19. >> same house same call. this ordinance is passed on first reading. next item. >> item 56 is ordinance to

authorize settle m of lawsuit by miss crocker. >> same house same called. ordinance is passed. >> item 57, ordinance to 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