please come forward. >> good afternoon again supervisors [inaudible] eric burke representing san francisco green party [inaudible] and also san francisco clean energy advocates. so, specifically to what supervisor tang was just asking about, the key-we heard the details technically of what renewable energy credits are. the key with the measure being promoted by pge alleys is not whether renewable crediterize good or bad, the key is that ballot measure states that the sate city of san francisco can't buy those credits but

pge. that is just ridiculous and think pge alleys putting this forward should think about what it makes them look to the public. let me get to the other important aspect of the ordinance ballot measure and that schnookler issue. i have done work on clean power sf for 11 year jz a big part is knocking on door squz calling people on the phone and i explained this to thousands of people and the number 1 comment and get from people i have to convince is, i got the thing from pge and see in their advertising that they are the greenest utility in the country because they have over 50 percent green house gas free

electricity. the reason that pge is able to get away with that is they claim nuclear power is green house gas free and clean. green house gas free it isn't true. anyone who knows the energy industry knows that a nuclear power plant because [inaudible] a lot of other inputs, even given nuclear power plant produces from 15 percent up to fifen 0 percent of green house gas emissions over the life time of a gas plant. the measure you have before you will make it so that the public is able to get a actual honest accountsing of what is clean and green and end decades pgebsing the public about whether it is energy-- >> thank you very much. any other member of the public like

to comment? >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is hunter sturmen with [inaudible] we have 20 thousand members working for 28 different utilities in northern california. in san francisco it is pge and muni [inaudible] we are sponsoring the truth in energy initiative measure placed in the qualified ballot. frankly if supervisor or the chair had been interested be would have participated in the presentation and gave information about the measure. as for the issue in front of the committee today we have no position on this measure at this time because we understand there has been some changes and may be changes in the future.

there are 2 aspects that need to be changed and strongly urge you to amend them. the first is the measure promotes the use of renewable energy certificates and they are a failure. it is something we oppose frd years whether pge uses them or smud or palo alto or any other energy including clean power sf. r they do not produce renewable and promote renewable projects. they cover dirty fossil fuel power with pieces of paper. that is a rec. this changes a calculation. state law is very clear and the measure in front of you is not. nuclear power ist norenewable, no one said it

is renewable kwr no one want tooz relyoon it, but it is green house gas emission 3, the state of california says so it continues to be that way. it will continue to be that way until nuclear power plants are retired. we ask you to consider-- >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none we'll close public comment and colleagues i would like tamotion to have this very small amendment accepted into the ordinance and it is on page 3. it is adding the language, and resources set forth in the rps under public utility code 399.30. that will be the

amendment. supervisor cohen >> i would like to second the motion if that was the motion. >> okay. thank you for your second and colleagues we take that without objection? the sponsor of the ordinance is not here, supervisor-prez president breed but we have pr visor wiener christensen and myself back the measure. this measure wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the ibw meser mr. sterns talked about that we talked about here in committee today. we would rather not have to go forward with it but we feel in order to protect the clean power sf program and be clear about the type of energy provided and what people who provide energy in san francisco should provide

so there is consistency this measure is going forward with your support colleagues. like to motion that we move this motion to >> july 27 >> july 27, special rules committee meeting. >> it is amended to the monday meeting. >> okay. >> just to clarify on supervisor avalos amendment, i believe you circulated paper copies to the other members on the committee but to clarify the for the public, the amendment also strikes the words, and from large hide roelectric facilities including but not limit today the hetch hetchy facilities page plea line 12-13 and in the very last line of that section 2102,

correct the typo changing, does to do. >> thank you for pointing that out. that is the amendment we have aurmd taken just to clarify. i did kind of make a motion so think have visor cohen may be seconding and supervisor tang. >> i'm fine with the amendment. i just want to make comments before we take the vote on the measure. i brought up the question that i did because ultimately i want to insure we are able to laurch clean power sf in 2016 and it is a competitive program where we offer rates and they crum petitive and we provide clean power. i don't want to do anything that would harm that launch so will support the measure but think there are valid concerns but today i'll support the measure before us. >> great, thank you. so

supervisor cohen. >> i don't have much to add other than i will support the measure today and seconding the amendment and i do think it is interesting one of the benefits of the democratic process is when a initiative comes on the ballot we have a opportunity to counter and offer different perspective but the thing that is consistent is it allowstuse talk and drill down to the issue. i think that if it were not for the measure that-the pge measure, the issue that mr. hunter stern spoke of, i appreciate the level of advocase and sounding an alarm to educate on your concerns. >> okay, great. so, we have a

motion, seconded to move this item to the july 27 special rules committee meeting. continue to july 27. we'll talk that without objection. next item >> item 6 a ordinance amending the requiring the police and sheriff department to report data regarding detention and traffic stops. >> may i jump in? good afternoon everyone. i'm excited because today we bring forward before you a trangz apparent policy ordinance which is a ordinance which is a benefit to san francisco especially the minority communities as well as helpful to the sheriff and police department. i have several remarks i want to share with you this afternoon. so, the reason why i suppose this

ordinance that will require both the sheriff and police department to collect data on race and gender and gender identity during traffic stops or detains for questioning or performs a consenseual or non consenseual search of a individual. this is a expansion of the information that the police department is already collecting and as of now the department only collects data on race, age, sex during traffic stops. what i'm asking and proposing is we expand the data to include detentions, search and gender identity related to complaint. the ordinance requires each respective department not only

to collect the information but analyze and report the data on a quarterly basis to the board of supervisors as well as mayors office and the human rights commission as well as the police commission. this information collected will include a couple things. first, it will include the name and badge number of all officers involved. the result of the contact so for example, if the contact ended in a arrest, a citation or warning or incident report. there are 3 things that this ordinance focuses on in the spirt of preventing. we are look to prevent pretextual stops based on race and pretextual stops based on gender related

characteristics. also reporting the use of force that the results yield in a unknown injury. over the last year or so we have seen many horrific events were police officers have been abuseed their power either killing or seriously injuring mostly african american or minority men. as we sit here today [inaudible] other men involved in the [inaudible] scandal still have not been terminated. african american are arrested 19 more times more often than any other race for drug crimes in san francisco. studies show

transgendered people across the u.s. experience police violence than non transgendered individuals. a study released in 2015 by the national coalition of anteviolence program showed transgender wemb experience police brutlety of 5.8 percent greater. for transgender of color that is 6.2 times greater. i use the data and information to anchor what i'm trying to accomplish here. i'm not making this up. across the nation there is a movement to reform police practice after the tragied and out cry we have seen in [inaudible] i'm glad we haven't seen this level of outcrine san francisco and think that speaks to our police department. in

response, president obama convened the 24th century police task force that produced a report can w a number of improvements cities should make to improve police relations in the community. many task force recommendations emphasize the opportunity for police departments to better use data and tech naumg to build trust. the police data initiative is helping accelerate progress around data transparency and analysis toward the goal of increasing trust. these 2 areas within the initiative focusing on first, using open data to build transsknaerns to increase community trust and second, to create internal accountability and effective data analysis. at this time-at

the same time i introduce this ordinance assembly woman shurly weber from san diego introduced a similar piece of legislation on the state level and made minor adjustments in this ordinance to reflect the language within her legislation. passing the ordinance will make us the first mu nis palties in california and quite possibly in the u.s. and reporting requirement of the law enforcement agency t. is trully my hope that the rest of the country will begin to follow our example. i'm proud to work community advoicates on the ordinance and would like to thank each of them for their input. first of all, the office of justice has been tremendous as is the transjendser law center. committee united against violence, human rights

commission is unpair lled, the office of citizens complaints thrks youth commission and of course the sheriffs department and police department, we worked collectively hand in hand. colleagues you should have before you received the latest version of theords nns with additional amendments that we made. most of these are clean up language, but one of the most significant changes we made was to the gender identity collection section. this is a interesting prudickiment. in working in sth transgendered community and the police department they felt that requiring police officers to ask a individual for their gender identity would lead to more harassment so we said

complaints filed or a individual self identifies a transjoneder and experienced bias policing based on that fact. i want to acknowledge 2 letters that we received from the youth commission and the new crimial justice task force thf bar association of san francisco which acknowledges the importance of data collection when it come tooz law enforcement and transparency in the respective departments. colleagues, passing this ordinance some of the goals we hope to achieve are reducing unintentional and disproportioninate numbers of detention, arrest and target of minorities and of the transgendered community. it also important creates a bench mark analysis of where we are with bias that may exist in the law enforcement department and hope of laying a path for the

future we will begin to be free of these biases. introducing additional transparency and ofernsight to the police department and rebuild the trust the community has had in the law enforcement department by making this information available for the public to review by again, requiring quarterly reporting to the mayors office and board of supervisors and police compligz as well as human rights commission. avenue wn has their own biases and i want to gater the data to make sure everyone in san francisco has a safe place to live and thrive free of the unintentional targeting by officers. colleagues i hope to have your support on this item as it continue tooz move forward. at this time i would like to specifically acknowledge lutenent carl [inaudible] from the san francisco police department and ask him to come

up to the podium to tell us more about the type of data that is collected and the new tech knowledge coming on line >> before you end i want to add a comment. for me when i saw supervisor cohen coming with this ordinance i immediately cosponsored and want to thank her for bringing this forward and think it is a useful tool for insureing police accountability and stronger community police relations by insuring transparency in the work that the police does and think it is one step and tool related tools we can use to actually build trust between police and community so thank you for your work on this >> thank you for your cosponsorship >> my name is carl [inaudible] my current assignment is a lieutenant assigned to the chiefs office. prior to this new assignment which started 4

days ago i was in crime analysis in the police department for a year and a half so it gave a opportunity to get to know what data the police department has and where does it originate from and what we can and can't dee for data collection. i just want to [inaudible] we have commander bob mozeer who is the command er of the metro division here with me today. after looking over the ordinance that supervisor cohen introduced we started to go through that and put together a quick team of people. susan merit who is the chief information officer for the police department as well as brad rusy who is kepty city attorney. the 4 of us have met and discussed exactly what information we are collecting now and what we would be required to collect pursuant to

the ordinance. having done that, there is areas such as arrest which we already know the break down of race and sex of everybody we arrest. as far as use of force included in there, we know that already also so we don't need to change existing systems to gather that. as far as traffic stops we have been doing it for years, gathering traffic stop data of the race, the reez frn the stop, whether they were searched several areas we track. the ordinance will require we gather more on traffic stops, such as what was the [inaudible] of occupants of vehicles and things like that. as far as the obligation to collect initial information we are not already collecting it

is detentions and it is detentions that currently do not result in any paper such as a police report in the crime data ware house, citation. under our policy we are not always require today write a report and that maybe if you cut to the chase we have to figure how to track the data required in the ordinance in those type of incident and that is what we are currently working on. if you have any questions i'm happy to answer them. >> thank you very much for your brief presentation in support of the ordinance. i don't have questions at the time but see supervisor tangs name on the roster. >> thank you. i don't know if it is a question for the author of the legislation or

lieutenant but as mart of the amendment page 3 line 19. we struck out [inaudible] one of my questions is why are we strake thg portion out about the officer allowing the ask the individual because there may be cases where the individual may be mixed race or not tell the race they are. i understand it may be offensive to ask however sometimes that they be the only time to get the most accurate information and the purpose of the legislation is collect accurate data and want to see the reason for that amendment was. >> typically when we stop somebody and unclear about race we go by the general aparence of the person which sin the language of the assembly bill. i don'ts think it is a issue for us to ask that question

especially if it is documented in policy that we can ask the question. it is up to supervisor cohen and your board if you would like to do that, i don't think the police department would object to that >> thank you supervisor kim for raising that question. asia imag ine race is a sensitive subject in our country of course here in our city and it is-there are concessions that i made in drafting the legislation. i too would like to see it in the language in the body, but i also feel it is important that our legislation sync up with what is happening on the state level and currently that language isn't on the state legislation. perhaps there is a opportunity for [inaudible] legislation in some time. i'mope toon the

conversation but i wanted to be respectful and thoughtful as possible. as of right now, for example if someone were to be detained or stopped and the officer identified the person as asian it is broad embrella. it doesn't speak to their cultural identity being chinies or fill filipino and the person can assert that during the part of the question that -the interview-what is it called, the field interview? there is really no synced answer i can give at that time. >> sorry. >> i would say that if we

remain open and find there may be issues with the acrace of the data i appreciate supervisor cohen said we are open to potentially relooking at this because as i mentioned to her my partner gets confused for being latino and he is asian so in my own lifer i see just by looking at observation it may be inaccurate so that is all i get at. if we seek to collect data it should be correct. >> my apology for calling you supervisor kim. >> i'm fairly comfortable with it being broader and wider open than it is. i think we are trying to track behavior that is looking at people in a broad way and that is what we try to measure. if you are [inaudible] how a officer may

interact with someone who is asian or white or black versus white, those are broad. we are trying to look at the initial appearance is what we try to address. i think if there is another thing that happens when there is a interaction with a officer and someone when they learn what their cultural or racial background is that can change behavior but the legislation is looking to do is what is the reaction that we want to be able to document and measure of interaction between a officer and the appearance of someone rather than what they say are and that appearance is what we try to be able to say is being measured and can be shared publicly about what the actions are, what the interaction is like based on appearance rather than what they say they are.

>> i hear the feedback and happy to take a look at it and make additional amendments to it next week at the board. i do want to tell you this and free to take into consideration, i think asking someone how do they-what is their ethnicity and how they identify is a very simple question i think for every day people but when you add in the complex power structure sometimes that can make a person uncomfortable. you are right supervisor avalos, that is what we try to the capture so we can create a policy. i believe if you are not able to count and document it it doesn't count. this is just a struggle-this is exactly why we

have removed language fwraum the transgender community asking din field interview what is your sexual orientation. we herds from the transjendser community that could be perceived as a violation and beepal can be uncomfortable or interpreted as a threft or different bias being put on them. it is sensitive, but i am as the maker of the ordinance i'm happy if you would like to work on crafting the language and incorporate and continue the conversation. >> i'm not inclined to do that at this point but think it is something that can be addressed later. i don't believe the accuracy of the determination of someones race is as important as what is the