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? >> the attorney for -- >> the public defender. >> would make a petition to the court that the person be allowed to go on em. >> okay. and that can already happen? >> yes. >> does it happen after 30 days or after 60 days or any point in time? >> as many times or often as an attorney cares to make that petition. >> i didn't realize that. so this change would then allow the sheriff to be able to make that petition? >> right. >> okay. my second question is what are part two crimes? >> non violent crimes. >> so my last question is this email that -- >> i'm sorry, the -- so there's two levels. there's property crimes that are part of crimes like

burglary, auto theft and then the misdemeanor crimes, some of these can be violent, like, assault, battery, and like that. >> part two -- i just want to clarify because you said you're categorically opposed but this e-mail makes it sound like you're okay with the program unless -- >> that's actually christine fountain, she's the office

manager and she spoke with deputy chief, who i must not have been immediately available so they said as long as there's not a rise in crime -- the first i even heard of this was yesterday and i apologize for not being in the committee meetings, but i'm a person who's been in court quite a bit, as again some of the other attorneys here, and i believe we have a good process. >> going back to the e-mail, sfpd doesn't have any concerns with this change? >> unless property crime went up 13%, which it did. >> now post that e-mail you're saying we are concerned because part two crimes did rise. >> as per the e-mail. >> last year they went up 13%. >> now the position -- >> my position would be that nobody talked to me about this before they sent the e-mail.

>> that would have been healthful helpful >> we will now meet on mondays and i'll be briefed on this so that i don't have to do this twice. >> thank you chief. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you chief. again, you know, the reason that i wanted to give you that opportunity is because i think on anything involving something like this we always want to hear from our chief of police and so i appreciate hearing that and i just wanted to note, you know, and we did have a couple of discussions about this at -- in committee and so i think that this is very helpful. my understanding from the sheriff's office is, i mean, they obviously don't want to do anything that goes against what you're saying and maybe i can

ask sheriff to come up in terms of sort of where we go from here. >> thank you. we're concerned too about the disconnects. some months ago i believe it was commander shin thofs representing chief sur when we had a robust discussion about this legislation and concerns were noted then and that was a lead up over a several month process, which our office was extensively engaged in with the das office and others. if there is still questions or concerns that prevail because it sounds like there are, i think that this also is an

incomplete discussion to hear on the fly from chief sur, which i think is an important message that is to be shared here, and i stress the idea that it should also be heard from others that are not party to this discussion who also have a stake in this. in light of that, i would recommend to pool the legislation table because the conversation i'm hearing i think has been confused and not necessarily on point in the way that we would like it to be and if there are members of this criminal justice system that have unresolved concerns then it is only, i think, in the best interest to address those concerns and have everybody back at the table. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. given that my understanding is procedurally if an agency is asking the withdrawal or

pooling of a piece of legislation, that procedurally the best approach would be simply to table the item so i would make a motion to table the item. >> supervisor campos has made a motion to table. there a second to that? seconded by supervisor cohen. any objection to the motion to table? without objection, this item is tabled. and with that, thank you chief, thank you sheriff. and why don't we now go to general public comment? >> at this time the public may comment generally for up to two minutes on items within the jurisdiction of the board including those items on adoption without [inaudible] items which have already been [inaudible] please direct your remarks to the board as a whole at not individual supervisors nor to the audience. speakers using translation assistance will be allowed

twice the amount of time to testify and if you'd like a document displayed on the projector please state to us to sfgtv and remove the document when you'd like to return to live coverage of the meeting. >> sir. >> jesus stood before pilot, pilot said are you the king of israel? and jesus said -- let me put this up. sorry. when jesus stood before pilot, and pilot said are you the king of the jews and jesus said say et vow this thing of now he

answered a question with two questions. these were very probing. in other words, do you believe that i am your king, pilot? do you believe i'm your savior? do you believe i created the world. he was sinless. he was absolutely impeccably righteous. and we see the same thing in john chapter 7 when jesus said my doctrine or teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. if any man will do his will he will know of the doctrine, whether it be of god or whether

i speak of myself. if he speaks of himself, seek his own glory, but he who seeks glory that sent him the same is true. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you mr. president, my name is christopher dal, i live at i rise to comment on the lies progressives tell. please note, mr. president, all references are rhetorical and most basic [inaudible] care as much as they say they do. those who simply wish to present the appearance of concern like mr. wiener advocate policy meetings, situation analysis, and studies of so called traffic combing he might say this is what we can do to increase the pedestrian

planning, but what we need today is the cake. what we need today are officers today issueing tickets today for people running red lights today. right now this very second there is someone running a red light without legal consequence. good job mr. wiener. good job. then there's my landlord randy shaw, he organizes unions among the poor. he sounds so authoritative, he must care a lot. and personally he doesn't care organized services for his tenants. he doesn't do anything to keep drug dealers out of my hallway. he doesn't -- if he doesn't keep the whole down the hall quiet when she has a screaming fit trying to collect monies owed it because he doesn't care and if he tv into the air well,

all night he doesn't even care to care. good job mr. shaw. and by the way, i can't survive on 4.5 hours of sleep a night. that is -- thank you mr. president. [applause] >> next speaker. >> thank you. i'm with friends of the san francisco estuary. we're here to commend david chiu for bringing forth item 67, the resolution urging protection of the estuary. this speaks to the importance of a healthy estuary. fresh water play is a crucial [inaudible] acts as a nursery for commercially important species such as dungeonous crab and [inaudible] helped build san francisco and contribute to the economy even today rely on

adequate fresh water from the sacramento river. fresh water flows from these two rivers are rich in nutrients and other food sources for the bay's e koe system. fresh water carries suspended sediment which is vital to our restoration efforts around the bay. furthermore passed by the board of supervisors in 2010 in which the board of supervisors urged the legislature [inaudible] health of san francisco bay and delta by taking actions to reduce the amount of fresh water diverted from the bay and delta. along with our colleagues at [inaudible] par ner ship, funds of the san francisco eschew air urges passage of this resolution today. hank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> president, supervisors, i want to tha