Supervisor kim, no. Supervisor mar, no. Supervisor tang, aye. There are 7 aye and 4 no with noes being Avalos Campos Kim and mar the duplicated file motion passes and the duplicated file will be sent back to committee. That you can r thank you and on the under lying item can we have a roll call vote madam clerk . Item 20 there wasnt any amendments so just on the under lying item, wean [inaudible] breed aye. Campos, aye. Christensen, aye. Supervisor cohen, aye. Supervisor farrell, aye. Sfr visor kim, aye. Supervisor mar, aye. Supervisor tang. Aye. There are 11 ayes the item passed on the First Reading. Madam clerk item 21 ord noons amendment the planning and public works code for Development Project to shift authority from Planning Department to public work to require a permit on a street tree within a disance of a advertising plan to [inaudible] to adopt a fee to impose penalities for violation jz for public work staff [inaudible] sequa determination supervisor wiener colleagues we have been working very hard a Broad Coalition to try to improve the cities approach to the urban forest including street streets. We have over 100 thousand street trees and the policy dumps responsibility for the trees on the Property Owners guarantees inconsistent maintenance and is just a very bad approach of having a robust urban forest which is important for our environment and quality of life so need to make a change in the policy. The legislation before us today is one piece, one small piece of improving our approach to our urban forest and it will help us to have a healthier set of trees and reduce the number of trees that are basically muteerated under the guise of maintenance. I want to thank supervisor christensen for cosponsorship and [inaudible] and my office on the work of the legislation thmpt legislation does 3 things, first it transfers over provision squz planning code providing tree planning for new development to the public work code. This will stream line the pros, remove bureaucratic delay and insure new developments contribute to a greener city to plant required street trees next to those developments. Second, the legislation will help insure that billboard owners are not destroying existing street trees in order to maintain the visibility of the ads. Now home owners are not permitted to destroy a healthy street tree to maximize the view and Billboard Companies shouldnt be able to eerkt. We have seen a number of circumstances will Billboard Companies go in and report to maintain a tree or trimming it back in order to increase the visibility of the billboard squin the process they mute erate the tree and sometimes will. The legislation will roir if you perform maintenance on a street tree within a short distance around a bill board you need a permit to do that. This allows public works to monitor that condition on maintenance mptd finally the legislation will strengeen the requirement to protect street trees during construction. The legislation will require a tree Protection Plan to be submit today the department of public works prior to the the commencement of construction. This is a simple and straight sfrward requirement and help insure as construction happens in the city whether it is a small or large project that street trees are maintained and not destroyed so colleagues i ask for your support thank you. Seeing no names on the roster can we take this item same house and call . Roll call vote supervisor wean, aye. Yee,i aye mpts avalos, aye. Breed, aye. Campos, aye. Gistiancon, aye. Cohen, aye. Farrell, aye. Kim, aye. Christensen, aye. Tang, aye. The ordinance passes unanimously on the First Reading item 22 the title on the agenda is incorrect and specifically the land use and Transportation Committee on june 15 aapproved a [inaudible] legal and illegal were removed and new title for item 22 should have been sent to thugenda. The pact material is correct. It should read interm zoning control to require additional use authorization for existing units and make thg appropriate findings including findings of consistency with the priorities of planning code section 101. 1. The item is legally before you today as the amendment didnt expand the scope or authority of the resolution, it reduce td so you can consider it today supervisor avalos thank you president breed. Colleagues in 2013 and authored a ordinance to strengeen the protection of [inaudible] through demolition. Last month i introduce adordinance tostreen the protections and today we consider the resolution to establish enter umcontrols to require [inaudible] this limits the lauz of housing we see at the top and bottom of the marx. The planning code doesnt require a cu for unit that are not affordable but in the current [inaudible] Housing Market it doesnt make sense of merger of higher end units. There was a merger of [inaudible] that were considered demonstrable not affordable. The other area we see loss of housing is with the elimination of unpermitted inlaw unit. We have seen landlord move [inaudible] remove from the home to remove rent control from the building. We also [inaudible] and turn around and rerent the unit at a higher rent. Requiring conditional use permit for removal of earn permitted unit could put Property Owners in a catch dwoo. The deparchlt of building inspection may say to remove a unit but [inaudible] i hope to work with dbi to [inaudible] with the new program to legalize inlaw units there is no reason we should continue to allow these units to be removed. Land use last week we amended the controls to oonl apply to urge merger of legal unit and ask for your support on this resolution today and look forward working with the dbi and Planning Department to work with unpermitted unit many which are in district 11 seeing no other names on the roster, colleagues can we take this item same house, same call . Without objection the resolution sudopted unanimously item 23 is a resolution to establish a board of supervisor policy that Police Staffing levels be adjusted to account for population and neighborhood growth supervisor wiener thank you madam president. Colleagues today before us is a resolution and authored along with altogetherers supervisor cohen and supervisor farrell calling for a increase in the Police Staffing level to take population grouth and staffing into account. By any measure colleagues our Police Department is understaffed. Over the past decade the city has grown by 100 thousand people. We have neighborhoods that didnt exist a decade ago. We have more people working here and more cars on the road, more transit and more Traffic Safety needs. Despite that growth we have nearly 300 fewer Police Officers than we did 5 years ago. [chanting] [inaudible] colleagues we are going to take thousand people. We have neighborhoods that didnt exist a decade ago. We have more people working here and more cars on the road, more transit and more Traffic Safety needs. Despite that growth we have nearly 300 fewer Police Officers than we did 5 years ago. [chanting] [inaudible] colleagues we are going to take a recess. [supervisors in recess] excuse me just a second. One second. Having too few Police Offers has impact on Public Safety. We all want Community Policing and this requires having enough to member thofz public, we are conducting a meeting and would like to get 3 this item so if you dont mind madam president actions prohint during board meetings include standing in the chamber and vocal expression. Supervisor wiener if i continue to get outbirs i will recess the meeting. Supervisor wiener we all want strong Community Policing and Community Police requires having enough officer working beats which we dont have. Having too few officer means less Traffic Enforcement. We have a epidemic of street collision including pedestrian, cyclist and drivers and we need more Traffic Enforcement. Having too few officer means less focus on property crimes. San francisco has experienced the explosion of property crimes ranging from autobreak ins to vandalism and burglies. We need more Police Officers and need to work hard to get there. San franciscos charter sets 1971 Police Officers as full staffing and we arejected to meet that number by 2017 or 18 growing from the 1700 officers currently. Thanks to strong collaboration among the mayor board of supervisor and [inaudible] we funded [inaudible] after a number of years without any academy classes. 1971 number was established in the chart rb in 1994 when we were a smaller city. Our population has grown by over 13 percent since then colleagues excuse me. Clearly we will not be able to conduct business with continued outburst from the audience so either you allowtuse conduct business or we can take a recess and not continue with this item. Sfr visor e supervisor wiener if you increase 1971 by the 13 percent population growth you exceed 2200 and that is wie we propose 2200 model San Francisco is continued to grow by another 150 people by 2040. If we dont modernize the staffing goals the shortage of Police Offices will get worse. The 2200 number isnt just adjusting the [inaudible] or the fact we have neighborhoods that did not use today exist, other analysis comes to this same conclusion. In 2008 when we were a smaller sit a the Police Executive resuch form published a report of staffing police goals [inaudible] come including Staffing Levels up to 22 50 office. We now have the controller report that looks at the staffing level compared to other cities for example chicago philadelphia and washington dc, the average staffing was 271 officer per 100 thousand residence. Chicago has 440 and philadelphia 418 and washington dc has [inaudible] we have 239, below average. If we increase San Francisco just to the the average per capita of cities that put our Police Staffing level at 2279. Those are just 3 metrix showing more than 2200 officer would be a appropriate Police Staffing policy goal for the city. If anything the number is conservative. The need is there. We have the second highest rate of property crime of cities. Oakland is the only city that is higher bases on residence and day time population. I want to be clear, we all want to make our Police Department as efficient as possible. We all want to make sure that we are appropriately training our officers. We all want the highest standards of conduct for our office by prioritizing and achieving the goals doesnt mean we shouldnt be adequately staffed. Colleagues i for years have been hearing from Police Captains in my district when asked why there are not more beat officers on the street and more Traffic Enforcement and the answer is the same, we have a shortage of Police Officers and need more Community Policing and more officers on the beat and need more Traffic Enforcement so i ask for your support. I do want to note there are some amendments being proposed by supervisor cohen and breed and myself and im supportive of those amendments and i also just want to thank everyone who has expressed both support and opposition to this resolution. Public safety is a incredbly important issue and know it is one that many many people are passionate. I bow there are many people in the city that feel they need more safety and we need more Police Staffing to achieve that thank you supervisor wiener. Supervisor cohen good afternoon everyone. Recently i introduced legislation that would increase the transparency and the reporting requirements for police and sheriffs who stauf and detain residence and you may recall there was a time when [inaudible] considering implementing stop and frisk. One thing we have in common with this body and also in the chamber is we are all in agreement stop and frisk wasnt the correct way and policy to be implemented in San Francisco. And i use this as a example of how we have come together and been able to address our policing issues. I want to remind you todays resolution is not about addressing all of the root causes of violence. I agree education, access to Quality Health care and jobs and police brutally all have a roll to play but todays resolution is not about just addressing the root causes of violence but it is also about recognizing our approach in determining Police Staffing levels and recognizing that it is outdated and it doesnt meet our needs. I think we need to begin to change our approach and base it on what the data and what other constituents are continually telling us. The focus of the resolution is on Police Staffing and what our city needs are. The goal is not to have a comprehensive resolution about each and every component of violence presirenss. We are focused on Police Staffing. If orelt members of the board of supervisors want to [inaudible] that is their choice and look forward to that discussion. By focusing on this issue i want to remind you we are no way limiting or dismissing all the other work the city is doing. [inaudible] thank you supervisor cohen, supervisor avalos thank you president breed. Colleagues all of us are united by the fact that we want our residence and neighborhoods to be safe. What we disagree upon is the path way to get there. In this next years budget our funded 5 Police Academy classes with additional 3 classes the falloge year. I dont believe there is opposition to these classes Going Forward. There could be discussion about how these classes are trained that i think is still in process but those classes are actually Going Forward and because we are trying to get to the 1971 number of minimum staffing that is elusive for us since 1994. There was a time when we achieved the staffing level in 20 o9 i that was a year we were able to establish beat officers in the excelier on 2 different tracks on the excelier dist rict. This ruzlution isnt recognizing the great [inaudible] that exists now to reaching the 1971 staffing level. We have had a lot of retirement in the Police Department and the aggressive plan we had with the Police Academy classes is about get toog the 1971 number. It doesnt make any sense to be lichting the cap on 1971 number that we have to demonstrate how effective that 197 1 number is. We base that on anecdote aal date data. It doesnt add up to conclusion we need a larger police force. This resolution isnt about next years budget it is about tying the plans of a city on a [inaudible] approach to setting Police Staffing levels based on pop ylthss. Basing staffing level on population growth ignores the factors that contribute to Public Safety cht this ruzlution ignores a large body of evidence and i would like togo over some of that now. My staff member jermmy pollack is here. I also propose a alternative resolution which calls to question how ready we are to set a [inaudible] what Police Staffing should be. Starting off, there are other reasons for establishing or established a multidisciplineary process for establishing Police Staffing levels with. What we have now brought before us is a process that i talked to at least one Police Commissioner who didnt know there was a resolution before the board of supervisor saying that we should actually increase our Staffing Levels to 2200 Police Officers. What kind of process to establish Staffing Levels exclude the Police Commission . It makes no sense to me. So here are my major concerns. Statistics show crime has actually gone down as population has increased. You will see one of our slides coming forward that will show that and based on department of justice data. We also believeit is true there may be a correlation between have agPolice Department and the level of crime but there was no direct correlation between Police Spending and crime rates. You can make anecdotal connection but there are so many other factors that lead to what our crime rates are. Basis Police Staffing solly on population isnt good public policy. Lets go to the next slide, slide 3. Population increase does not mean crime increase. If we look at San Francisco our population in 1994, the population was 742 thousand. In 2013 it is 825, 111 people. If you look that crime rate in 1994 for both Violent Crime and property crime it was higher than it is now. It was higher even though the population was about 80 thousand people less than what we currently have right now. Does it make sense it is base our growth of the Police Department on population growth . Are we actually seeing a rise in Violent Crime and property crime . I dont believe we are. The evident suggests otherwise. Are we basing our push for the larger police force on real data . Also in the next slide on slide 4, there is no direct correlation fween Police Spending and crime rate. If you look at Police Spending per capita compared to 2010 crime rate there is a wide variation between spending and Public Safety. Slide 5 you see San Francisco is somewhere in the middle on per capita Police Spending but we also have a Violent Crime rate that is much lower than other places even places Like Washington dc that have a much higher per capita spending for Police Officers. If there was a direct correlation between spending on police and crime rate, we would see less of a scattered shot group of dots here. There would be much more ord toor what we have here, so it is clear Police Spending doesnt have a direct relationship to what our crime rates are. You might make a anecdotal connection, it is possible to do that, but it is not clear they are making a direct connection. You will see the slide before was on Violent Crime and you see property crime, San Francisco is pretty much in the same place while there is a raisk of how effective spendsing can be linked to actual property crimes in our different cities around it country. Next slide, basing Police Staffing soly on population is bad policy. This isnt a opinion, there are studies done on this. You see from the International Association of police of chief rfx ratios such as officers per thousand population are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions. Next study, from the department of Justice Office of Community Oriented policing service and Michigan State school criminal justice. Basis Police Staffing on population is bad policy. Disadvantage of a per capita approach to staffing include failure to address how officers spend their time, the quality of their effort, and community condition needs and expectations. Given these disadvantages and others expercents strongly advisece using population rates for determining Police Staffing needs. This is out of the department of justice. Colleagues are we really approaching this in a sound way . We excloud the Police Commission members, we actually dont have a real strong process that involves other departments that are doing a lot around Public Safety. This seems to be a singular iproach that is about responding to possibly what the Police Captain and police cheech say and not surprised about saying they want more officer all while we look at bringing in Police Academy classes that will go forward uncontested. Yesterday in the Budget Committee we tried to put on reserve still allocating the mun a for the classs but putting on reserve [inaudible] and that wasnt supported by the Budget Committee. We dont use the leverage we have to deal with the influence of the Police Department, the police staff and association. That isnt what we should do. We put mexers in place to make sure the policing is better qualitatively. I appreciate supervisor cohens legislation last week to collect data. That is a very useful tool and want toill cosponsor your legislation. I
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.