i am sure staff and the port will look at them as well. any other comments, commissioners? thank you for those who stayed late. >> what do you want to do with the next item? president fong: is it fast? let us hear the next item, a 10a. >> a request approval of the first amendment to the memorandum of understanding between the port of san francisco and the san francisco municipal transportation agency, extending for two years the ports contract for services regarding multi-based pay stations on port property. commissioner lazarus: is their emotion? in musty feel like you need a presentation, we do not need to

make one. president fong: any public comments? any opposed? >> item 11, new business. i think you have heard a lot of it. [laughter] see you on august 19. president fong: keep going. >> item 12, public comment. i think he left. president fong: paul bicharte? >> hello, commissioners. i am here to speak specifically about a port aspect, which is dry dock number one. i do not know if you are familiar with that. it is a big tin cans that is currently moored at terminal 80. i consider myself a stakeholder

in the harbor. i own a barge company in the harbor and also a commercial fuel business. i really wanted to commend the port, specifically the engineering department, for thinking outside of the box. i thought i would be able to speak easily appear. i feel embarrassed. i do not know why. you were able to secure for the port a large sum of money to mediate and dispose of this drydock facility. my purpose of coming here today was to urge the commission to provide resources for the port to ameliorate that liability of drydock number one. it is a approximately 600 foot long barge that is in extremely

poor condition. if it were to sink, the cost to the port could be millions and millions of dollars. really, that is all i wanted to say. thank you. president fong: thank you. any other public comment? ok. motion to adjourn. all in favor? thank you. commissioner lazarus: yes.

supervisor chiu: to my right is supervisor elsbernd who has recently joined us as a member of the committee, and we have been jealous -- we have just been joined by the vice chair of our committee, supervisor mirkarimi. are there any announcement today? >> yes. all persons attending this meeting are requested to turn off cell phones. should you wish to submit documents to the committee, also provide a document to the clerk. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a speaker card, place it in the container to your left by the rail. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda july 27, 2010, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chiu: thank you. please call item 1. >> item 1, resolution authorizing the san francisco public defender's office to

accept and expend a grant in the amount of $119,034 from the state corrections standards authority for the purposes of implementing local juvenile justice accountability measures through the juvenile accountability block grant. supervisor chiu: let me ask if there is a representative from the san francisco public defender's office to discuss this item. assuming there is not, why don't we hear public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi, you have a motion to send this out of committee with recommendation for consideration tomorrow. is there second to that? without objection, this item will be sent to the full board of committee for consideration

on july 27, with recommendation. item two. >> item two, a resolution authorizing the airport commission to retroactively accept and expend funding in the total amount of $700,500 from the transportation security administration for the airport k-9 explosive detection team program. supervisor chiu: is their representative here from the airport commission? ok, let me ask if there's any public comment on this matter. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion on this item? supervisor elsbernd has asked us to move this forward as a recommendation. it has been seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. without objection, this item will be moved forward to the full board. item three please. >> item 3, resolution approving san francisco's child and family services review system improvement plan, a strategic plan that outlines how san

francisco will improve protect outcomes for children, youth, and families, says as the operational agreement between the county and state, and includes plans for utilizing child abuse prevention, intervention, and treatment, community-based child abuse prevention, and promoting safe and stable families revenues to prevent child maltreatment. supervisor chiu: are their representatives here from hsa du mal provisions? if you could please step up. -- and juvenile provisions. if he could introduce yourself. >> i am a program manager with the human services agency family and children's services division. whitney is a representative from the juvenile probation department. we are here to introduce the system improvement plan for our two departments. in response to federal mandates, the state legislation shifts

child welfare services to a more outcome-based system and mr. implement key reform, such as gardening more actively with the community, sherri responsibly for child safety, strengthening families and assuring the fairness of equity service delivery and outcomes. it also requires county to engage in specific planning process every three years. and you may recall that in january, the public safety committee review our self assessment plan, which is a key component and provides an assessment of the entire continuum of care for prevention and intervention in the child welfare and juvenile probation department. based on that assessment, the sip prioritizes specific outcomes and a device strategies for improvement in these areas. it is basically a strategic plan implementing what we found in the self assessment. board approval is required, is mandated prior to our submission to the california department of social services.

development include a date cooperation a public-private partners and consumers to improve outcomes for children and families. this sip focuses on three outcomes for child welfare and one for juvenile probation. the three child welfare at comes are reducing the occurrence of maltreatment for children in care, in the home, reducing reentry for children who come back into foster care within a year, an increase in timeliness to adoption. for juvenile probation, the focus is the utilization of these restrictive levels of care in the system. there are key themes that characterize the priorities, and they are expanding use of purchase of the tory case planning strategies, including families and partners more in our decision making processes, sustaining and enhancing permanency efforts across the life of the case, so that if we cannot return the child to their family, we can find a family they can grow up with, enhancing and expanding caregiver recruitment training and

support, sustaining and expanding staff and supervisory training, expanding options and creating flexibility for services and support to meet needs, and strengthening the implementation of statewide safety risks and needs assessment tools. in san francisco, we need to view the strategies improvement efforts from the ones of this proportionality, given the significant over representation of african-american children and families in our system. we would be happy to answer any questions you have. supervisor elsbernd: so this is a three-year plan? >> yes. supervisor elsbernd: the funding to do the work is predominantly state funding, federal funding, local funding, what is it? >> state and federal funding, and there is some general match to it. that is required as part of the funding. supervisor elsbernd: i have a bigger picture question. the three-year projections are far from positive for the general fund. certainly not very good for the

state fund. do not know when a federal government is. is there a recognition of that? were you thinking? >> there are specific and excel spreadsheets. it is based on our state allocation and required a county match for the funding, so there is no new funding expected in this, and we realize there may be changes over the course of time, said the strategy is developed with that in mind. some of these we are required to do. and we have to submit an annual report to the state set things change in the interim and the annual report will revise accordingly. >> any additional comments call it? -- supervisor chiu: any additional comments, colleagues? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. supervisor mirkarimi, i understand you will make a motion to send this out with recommendation. seconded by supervisor elsbernd. without objection, this item will be sent out of committee with recommendation. thank you, colleagues. madam clerk, please call items four and five. >> item four, hearing to review statistics from the entertainment commission a police department regarding violence and public safety incidents associated with -- associated with entertainment venues and to receive updates about the entertainment commission's review of relevant complains. item five, ordinance amending the san francisco police could to expand a grounds for revocation of place of entertainment permits, extended hours premises permits, and onetime event permits to include public safety considerations were operation of the permit poses a substantial risk of

physical harm or injury to individuals and where the pretty's persistent action or inaction causes serious or continued problems that amount to a public nuisance -- the permitee's persisted action. supervisor chiu: we have two items in front of us that have to do it public safety issues. the first is the regular quarterly update from the entertainment commission, having to do with statistics surrounding public safety incidences' related to nighttime violence. this quarterly report came out of the legislation that we passed last year concerning entertainment where we had heard from numerous members of the public that there had been many complaints brought by neighbors and by the san francisco police department that appeared to be going into a black hole where there was no follow-up by the entertainment commission or other city agencies to resolve

these complaints. last year's legislation required the entertainment commission every three months to provide to the public and to the board of supervisors and accounting of specific complaints brought and how the entertainment commission was resolving those issues, and i'm happy that we have the acting director of the entertainment commission here to present the second of these quarterly reports. what i like to do before i discuss the legislation -- for the committee to consider is to discuss the status of various plants, where things are, and i know we have commander crenshaw from the police department, the point person from sfpd in reviewing and addressing both proactively and actively various complaints that have come up. i would like them to discuss the latest report and for us to talk about the report as a committee before we speak to other items that we've got today. >> thank you, supervisors.

i'm here on behalf of the entertainment commission. bob davis is usually before you, but he is out this summer. on personal leave. what i did was i gave you a lot of paperwork. i hope you had a chance to take a look at it, but there are two memos. i put them up. the first one is the databases you have asked us to provide regarding complaints, ongoing enclosed implants, notices of violation as well as our ongoing list of venues we have done various suspensions on, those are at the back of that. the memo also goes over two recent incidents where we had some violence outside nightclubs and with the entertainment commission did with the help of the police, obviously, to respond very quickly, and i can go over those

if you would like. i also attached those quarterly reports that you talked about under separate memo because i thought was important to make a distinction. so those are the -- the memo is sitting in front of the extended hours premises permits that have been applied for, and i went back even further tests to indicate to you the very small number that we get in the outcomes at the commission, and in terms of onetime events, i did the same thing. i listed those from the quarter april through june and gave the balance from everything this year, 2010, to also show you the numbers, the objective numbers to give you a sense of how many we actually received and approved or denied or are

withdrawn throughout the year. those are the two things before you. i would like to, for the sake of clarity, go over a couple of instances, maybe in advance of your asking me about them. one of them was el rincon where we did have a shooting in june, and that was on june 19 in the early morning. early morning, there was an incident outside, and an officer was shot in the foot, so we did a 72-hour suspension immediately. the entertainment commission was able to do that on june 19, that same day, at 5:00 p.m., and that went through june 22 at 5:00 p.m.. they voluntarily suspended entertainment for seven days. the next day, jan 23, which took them through june 30, and during

that time, we got new information in an attempt to mediate and bring this permit up to current requirements, and so that came to us two days later on july 2. they came in front of the entertainment commission in an open public hearing with the community invited and the police department invited, and the commission imposed 13 new conditions on that permit at that time, and today is the 19th of july. i do not believe they have had any entertainment at all since that time. the other one that has occurred, recently, was a shooting on pier 50, and that happen on sunday morning july 11. at 1:40 in the morning. monday july 12, the owners and

jellies, came to the office of the entertainment commission and were issued a seven-day perspective suspension that took them through today at 5:00 p.m. so we have been able to, with the tools you have given us, do very swift response as it is required when violence occurs outside of a nightclub. jelly's is on calendar for the 27 for a full permit review as well so that we can talk to the community in the police department at length about how they would like to see remediation take place, and moving forward, obviously, not have any problems at that location. lastly, i wanted to talk a little bit about how we are not just being reactive, but we are trying to be proactive. as you know, on the 30th of

june, we held a night life safety summit in conjunction with the mayor's office and the police department and the small business commission, and over 150 people came from the industry as well as a lot of police officers. i was really happy to see a lot of interacting with the police apartment and command level staff. so not to take up too much of your time, however, that, i felt, and i think commander crenshaw can tell you was very successful. we're moving forward on outcomes, including some training that the commander can talk to you about for security from the police the farm and in conjunction with the police apartment, and promoter permitting and licensing, as you talked about, we are moving forward on as well. we would like to focus on not just being reactive but being proactive so we do not have

violent outside nightclubs. i would like to point out the majority of 99% of nightclubs are safe. people come in san francisco from all over the world and from close by go home safe and have a great time. obviously, there's occasions where that does not happen, and we believe we have done exactly where you have asked to do and been swift and consistent about how we manage those nightclubs going forward. supervisor chiu: thank you. first, i want to compliment you and your staff. i know you are using some of these new authorities for the first time and continues where we have seen sheetings and violence, and obviously, that is exactly what we intended and something i certainly support. had a couple of questions related to materials you provided to us, first of all, from a high-level perspective. i appreciate that it has taken a lot of work to get all this raw data in front of us.

one thing that i think would be helpful for the public and for the board would be to receive a little bit more aggregate information, similar to what the san francisco police department does with comstat, tracking trends. it is unclear, for example, how many complaints total have been issued by neighbors or police departments over the past three months, and it is just hard to go through the raw data to see trends, and i'm wondering if you would be able to, at least for this report and for subsequent reports, help to aggregate that data so we can see and compare quarter by quarter how we're doing. >> now that we have obviously three quarters, it would be certainly easily enough to compare. -- easy enough to compare. we do not have the funds to have a system like that, so we will take our xl spread sheet and do a little some asian if you will. i just also want to add that it is sometimes difficult to

compare one venue to another or numbers of complaints. i do not have a problem accounting of how many complaints, but because they are relative to different kinds of issues, whether it is sound coming from the venue, music, or people being let out and being too noisy or the sorts of things, we will try to collapse as much as we can without losing information. then, the news of issues, if they rise to the level of some kind of violence, we also want to indicate that as well, but i appreciate these sheets are a little hard to look at, but it is everything, and for the purposes of being really open and transparent, we want to give you everything, and if there is something particular you want to get more data on, i brought files with me, but yes, absolutely we will do that now that we have three quarters, and

the next one we will be in friday will be the fourth quarter. supervisor chiu: that'll be great, and obviously, given the expertise of the police department, i think if he would work with them to provide information to the public that would help us better their trends moving in the right direction or the wrong direction or otherwise, that would be helpful. in particular, i think if we were to see -- it is one thing for a venue to get one noise complaint. it is another thing for a venue to have a certain set of complaints in a certain type of area that you can address, and i think that is the direction we are trying to achieve here. i know that the entertainment commission, according to your report, is doing the first full permit review of jellies since the permit was issued in 1994. could you talk in general about what current situations would trigger permit review like this? because it seems to me that there are probably a handful of unused that could use additional permit review.

rather than making a decision to do this after a shooting, after a tragedy, are you thinking about having more proactive reviews of certain venues to make sure we catch problems before they literally blow up? >> yes, in fact, this is your idea. part of the legislation you approved late in 2009 includes the review primarily to acquire security plans on all the permits. as you know, we took over in mid-2003 from the police department, and probably 1/3 of the permits or maybe more that we regulate, we did not issue. that means those files did not have security plans because those were not required back in 2003 or in the 1990's, so one of the things that we have to do and so we can call that a permit review and that we are in the

process of doing is getting in touch with those older permits and at a minimum requiring them to make security plans, so i think that is a long lines of what you're talking about, going, based on data issuance, not based on whether they are at a violent incident, obviously. supervisor chiu: 1 other follow- up question i have is about the regency event that was recently reported. all of us and the public know about the tragedies that occurred regarding the rape there some weeks ago, and there were significant concerns about a new rave that was being planned. i had sent a letter asking for the security plans related to that, and apparently caught the party promoter decided to pull back on that from now. the question i have for you is -- what kind of steps is the entertainment commission thinking about to deal with -- again, violence, drug overdoses,

raves, and how would you address the situation from your vantage point? >> i think the way we have to treat all of our parameters and users with the tools that we have and security plans, i think, are the way that we would review any concern, let's say, that we might have based on any event, but it is not the promoters necessarily. we do not have the ability to do anything with them, so we are concerned, so for some reason a venue is doing some events that trigger some concern, whether it is some community or the board of supervisors or anything else, we might go look at the security plan in do what you suggested earlier, which is impose a new security plan for a particular event if we felt that that event seemed out of the ordinary for

the club, and that is what we were doing with the regency. we had one version of an additional security plan that we would impose for that one night. however, it did not come back for review because the regency canceled that event. does that make sense? supervisor chiu: yes it does. thank you. colleagues, questions? supervisor mirkarimi: good morning. we had a conversation sometime ago about this issue, and one of the elements about the conversation was about the security plan. how are security plans evaluated? >> at the moment, we rely heavily on the police the foreman, and we use permit officers to see, obviously, a lot of them, and we have staff to take care of a lot of our

complaints and review the security plans and all. supervisor mirkarimi: the private security guards that are hired typically in many of these clubs, other than, i guess, the accreditation that they are allowed to be security guards -- is there any kind of review of their abilities, other than just that accreditation itself? >> the state requires guard cards, which is what i think they're talking about. the distinction, which in terms of a guard in one or more places or only in one particular place, but either way, there is a certain level of -- if you college accreditation for that. we do require lead training, which is an abc education around alcohol service, but other than that, what we are really looking forward to is what i mentioned briefly earlier, which is commander crenshaw