mentioned it, and we want to bring up the captain of the southern district, we just want to make a few brief comments again in the spirit of coming to factual information. we do not want to speak in detail about what happened over the weekend, but we did have problems board at one club. we are not in a position tonight to say where the responsibility lies. we all realize that when you're in this industry, bad things happen, but we will continue to dig into this one, but you will be hearing from us again when we are more prepared to go into it. we did not want to rush into it and not be confident in our position, because we're hearing different versions of what may or may not have happened. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the new commanding officer of southern police station. as you all know, not only did we

inherit a large district, we inherited a lot of nightclubs, and venues like that in the district. i went to work professionally and fairly with all of the owners of the businesses to make sure that the people who attend these venues.note have a good time and go home safely. -- the attendees venues go home safely and have a good time. -- the people who attend these venues have a good time and go on safely. president newlin: thank you, and congratulations. comments? step up to the microphone. >> i am with a group, and i am very pleased to share about all of the good work to keep us safe at nightclubs and parties. i am offended at the use of the

word "rave" to mean any legal party. thank you. president newlin: they keep. all right, good luck to all of you, and especially to you, kitt. in case anyone is not aware, the mayor issued a press release confirm the appointment of joycelyn kane to the entertainment commission, so congratulations. >> thank you, commissioners, once again. some of the points that i want to talk about have been raised, but let me briefly go through my director's report. in the legislative and policy update, i want to on the

registration legislation, and we discussed at the last meeting, which was december 14. it seems like a long time since we were last year. that legislation has now been signed into law. it was signed by the mayor on december 21. we have got the final, final version behind this memo, and i encourage you to take this home with you and read through it and get familiar with the as we are on to the face of implementation at this point. i have some meetings at least two months ago with personnel and dpyf, and this time, it is

probably not fair for me to throw a number out. staff has worked with board president david chiu to make sure that the online registry becomes a reality in the very near future, so legislation itself does not stipulate a date certain, so it gave us enough time to make sure it is on line and is done right the first time. the ordinance amending the planning code regarding the van ness special use district, which i have mentioned in the past, it was approved by the board of supervisors on january 4 and signed by the mayor on january 7. it is one of the many things he did on his last day of work. so that remains to be seen how much entertainment we will see on van ness in that special use district, but given the fact

that neighbor notification is not as onerous time wise as i think as special use authorization is, we could see some applications into time. and lastly, it ordinance that i spoke of last meeting regarding what the department of public works is moving forward, a delay in the changeover of the new board of supervisors, and this is at the committee level waiting for committee assignments. the new board members were sworn in, and a board president has yet to assign committee members, and was it today? i guess they snuck in the port assignment, so those should be up online, if not now, tomorrow, and we will find out what

committees actually exist. we will continue to follow that for you. staff and office update. just briefly wanted to mention that the staff has a retreat on saturday january 8, and almost all of the commissioners were present, and all staff were able to attend. we spent about four hours assessing short-term and long- term goals. each commissioner took their time for their particular interest in projects for the upcoming year, and it will be for the years after that, including such things as updating commission rules and procedures, being involved in the academy classes that will be moving forward this year with sfpd, pursuing art tends to get permits on line, and something

we mentioned previously, a neighbor's summit. we wanted to try something new and create a neighborhood summit, and we are working to strengthen the pre-application process. there were lots of other ideas put forward, and i am really glad that we did that, and we think we will achieve all the things we discussed. i included in your report here is continued list -- hear this continuance list. here this continuance list. it was started to ratchet up again. the weather is going to get better in the next couple of

months. we will see lots and lots more of these. there will be higher numbers, and they will work in the office. leslie, i'm going to go through some of the more recent corrective actions that have taken place and things that have happened after, since we have not been here in almost a month. at a meeting, the commission ordered a new set of conditions be placed on the entertainment permit, as you might recall, and three days later, on december 17, the permit holder filed an appeal at the board of appeals. that is currently scheduled for

february 16. in light of that, they worked with the permit holder and has a voluntary withdrawal of their entertainment permit from operation, which took place between december 23 and january 3, 2007, which took us through the new year's eve holiday. obviously, there were major concerns for public safety, and the conditions for the appeal were set aside kerplunked 32 were set aside, -- conditions for the appeal were set aside. there were safety concerns. the voluntary withdrawal i thought was a victory for us, and since that, staff understands that this was open only for the service of food as

it negotiates a possible sale. at the end of this report, and if inspectors -- inspector falzon is still here -- i will leave that there. i think it is really important that i remind the commission with respect to this club that you might be hearing an appeal, so let me go through this briefly. on december 9, staff issued something to club 181. that suspension would have been effective from december 16 through december 23, 2010. the permittees exercised his right to an appeal, and that was

initially scheduled for tonight, january 11. however, the venue has not been opened since the liquor license was taken away, and they have asked for a continuance of the appeal. they did not ask for a date specific, so i do note -- do not know it this time when that will come. also, as noted in inspector granelli's report, after diligent work by the city attorney and court, suspension was upheld. it is. stating that it has been closed since january 1 for a remodeled at this time. however, those permits still remain valid, so therefore, an appeal may still come before you on that seven-day

suspension, although the immediate threat we feel has been put aside for the moment. so that is 181 for you. and lastly, with not enough time to make it on the agenda, i want to address the issues on temple or zen , down. on january 8 and j.d. re-9, 2 with us 11, there were multiple incidents at several my clubs -- on january 8 and january 9, 2011. there were multiple incidents at several night clubs. we were able to work with sfpd staff to learn about the operation of the permited venue.

in short, there were three separate incidents is inside and outside, and one in bulk -- resulted in an unfortunate death. staff met with the owner and others. this was after discussing the incident. the owner, the permit holder agreed to conditions -- i am sorry, additions to their security plan, and there is a director's order today, january 11. the order is attached to your memo, although i will leave these, because i know there is interest among other parties as to what the conditions are. before i read them, this is an order based on the requirements for, again, the right to appeal. that will become effective on january 26 come 2011. so to that end, there is the

permit holder, who will install id scanners and will examine all patrons and dream the club at all times. -- all patrons and during the club's all-time is. -- patrons entering the club at all times. the equipment will be installed within 60 days of the effective date of this order. the permit holder will discontinue the use of beer bottles to patrons on friday and saturday night. the permit holder will install additional cameras to monitor the inside, outside, and main door of the venue, and the tapes will be maintained by the venue for at least 30 days. they need to cover any possible blind spots inside, outside, upstairs, downstairs, and at all entrances of the venue. there are currently 32 cameras,

and the system will be enhanced to 64 cameras. all the equipment shall be in working order at all times. this is 60 days within the effective date of this order. the permit holder will have staff conduct patron pat-dowbns -- pat-downs, and they will have female officers. again, i want to reiterate that these conditions were agreed to, and i think with exuberance, i guess, by the permit holder, and, in fact, some of these conditions came from them so i want to reiterate that the

venue is working and really well with obviously the entertainment commission and with the police department. i believe that police were out there again reviewing as much recording as possible and as the inspector mentioned, they continued to obviously find relevant information to figure out exactly what happened and what took place in a very short amount of time. so i received acknowledgment today from the permit holder regarding this order, and i will take any questions that you may have. i would caution you, again, that given the fact that there is a right to appeal, there's a limited amount of information that i can discuss.

president newlin: commissioner joseph? vice chair joseph: i have a couple of questions. with regard to 181, who was the permit holder? director kane: . >> the permit holder was drew adelman. vice chair joseph: is that the person who filed the appeal? director kane: an attorney on behalf. vice chair joseph: o.k. on temple, did they have adequate security as far as you know that night? director kane: yes, security was adequate. vice chair joseph: were there any weapons found inside? were there any weapons inside at all? director kane: weapons in the form of things that are typically thought of as weapons, no. vice chair joseph: guns, knives, pipes, none of that? director kane: no guns, no knives, no pipes, no. vice chair joseph: on installing i.d. cameras and enhanced surveillance, do you know if the i.d. cameras and enhanced surveillance, do you know if the

scanners and enhanced surveillance camera will be timed together? director kane: i believe that is their intention and -- vice chair joseph: did they say they were going to give the people who are going do these pat-downs any training on how to pat down? director kane: the security is run by a security vendor, epic event works. vice chair joseph: so, the homicide was caused by not a gunshot, not a stabbing? not anything like that? director kane: not a gunshot, not a stabbing, correct. vice chair joseph: all right. good enough. that's all my questions. thank you. president newlin: mr. amico? commissioner meko:director kane, that's a pleasure. without compromising the possibility of appeal or the details of it, i'm looking at

the increased security plan order and item no. 1, permit holder will install i.d. scanners and will scan all patrons entering the club at all times. equipment will be installed and in use 30 days from the effective date of this order. now, we've been addressing the issue of i.d. scanners in the context of police recommendations regarding conditions that would be put on all clubs of 100 occupancy or more. we received an opinion from the city attorney which remains confidential so i can't discuss that in detail, plus i haven't memorized it all. but the police recommendation was far more detailed and the city attorney did indicate that

there were a lot of problems, very detail-oriented problems with that. now, the condition that you apply here is far more general. is that on purpose so as to not run up against the specific objections of the city attorney? what does this mean? and i'd just like to hear some of your thoughts on this. director kane: the city attorney opinion outlined the legal risks, i believe, for the commission, and we -- and i believe we will be discussing that. however, i think the distinction in this case is that this condition is being imposed after a specific public safety concern, a specific incident that happened as opposed to a

blanket imposition on every nightclub regardless of whether they've had any problems or not. commissioner meko: that's definitely one of the distinctions. and another is the length of time that the information is retained, and another is what is done with that information, and what can the police department do with that information, and that's not addressed in this order to temple club, but is it implied? director kane: i don't know that it necessarily is implied. and i can speak to the thinking from the nightclub itself in terms of agreeing to this condition. >> if i may, commissioner, just to clarify. did not the nightclub propose this?

director kane: yes. >> so the nightclub proposed it so in this case it becomes policy of the nightclub. it is not something that we are, like, forcing on them. this is an agreement. commissioner meko: i understand that and this is perhaps instructive to us as we consider this question further down the line. >> so therefore, the club, when they do it as a matter of policy and they inform their patrons, their patrons can choose to go there or not and have their i.d. scanned or not. director kane: i will clarify that by virtue of this order, this is part of their permit, now. so it is somewhat stronger than simply a policy taken by a venue, but, again, this was discussed and the thinking behind the i.d. scanners in the case of a place as big as temple and i will remind the commission that that club holds upward of 700 people on both floors and

the thinking of the owner was that the size of this club tends to create a feeling of animmity for its patrons, the ability of people to come in and blend in to a very large crowd and then possibly maybe act in a way they ought not to act led him to come to this as a possible solution and having no concerns as to if people choose to not enter his nightclub because they feel there's privacy concerns, then they can choose not to, and so given the size of this club and the distinction also, then, between what the police department was proposing as the difference between 100 and 700 people, this also made sense to staff in terms of it's a test to

see if, in fact, this will do what the owner believes it will do and i feel maybe i believe, as well, in creating a sense of heightened responsibility for patrons' own behavior, and i think that this is an issue that we've touched on in the past but is vital. patron behavior is as much a part of this conversation even though we don't talk about it as the venue and the security and everybody else's responsibility. it's a dance between these two people and there's way more patrons in this case than there are owners and security staff and patron responsibility is more important the larger the venue so this is going to be an interesting situation. commissioner meko: i agree. thank you very much. good explanation. one other question, just with regard to this email from thexd

operations manager of the venue requesting a change in the order. could you explain what he is asking for? changing order number 5 regarding pat-downs to the same as order number 3 which regards beer served in bottles only on friday and saturday night. did you make this change? director kane: the change has not been made. that was sent late today and it's under deliberation. it's under consideration, yes. commissioner meko: thank you. president newlin: any other questions? commissioner benetti: i have a question. president newlin: commissioner benetti? commissioner benetti: is there a history of violations with temple? director kane: no, there is not.

commissioner benetti: with respect to the i.d. scanners, are the owners required to maintain the i.d. information for any period of time? director kane: that is not in the order. commissioner benetti: with regard to suite 181, the report says they transferred their liquor license but they still maintain their place of entertainment license but if they choose to open at some point, they couldn't serve liquor, is that right? director kane: that's correct. president newlin: any public comment on the director's report? >> first off, director kane, congratulations. i think you'll be a great addition to the commission, the department. i'm up here to talk about the temple incident and i'd like to -- just what i've heard

today, i'd like to commend staff and the commission for what they've done here. i think they acted, rather than issue a blanket 72-hour emergency, they really thought this thing through. publicly, i'd like to say that i'm in favor of that i.d. scanner in that particular situation, especially under the fact situation i've heard tonight and i've been against it for privacy reasons but i think the more i look at -- it's been a tough week if you think about san diego and you think about temple and the kids are getting crazier and crazier and i hate to sound like an old fogy but it's getting dangerous and i represent at least 30 entertainment license venues in this city, i think, and it's -- everybody's concerned and i think my clients are freaked out about the need for security, and i think commissioner -- former commissioner and president terrance allen is working on

a -- pretty much an entertainment school trying to get the best brains in this business together to figure out what do we do because you can't -- i don't think temple's to blame in this situation? they're the victim. and i think if you look at a lot of situations over the last two or three years, the clubs have been the victims but they've been beaten up by the police because the way to deal with that is, there's too many of you, we can't handle it, let's go away. so you're basically blaming the victim and i think we as an industry really have to think this thing through because it's getting crazier and crazier. when i first owned nightclubs in the mid '80's, you'd see a shooting or stabbing two or three times in a decade and now it's every week, every two weeks there's something crazy and frankly it's concerning to me and i'm sure it's concerning to all of you. thank you. president newlin: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, we'll move on to item number 4, presentation by

savetherave.org on the state of youth events in san francisco. >> good evening, commissioners. how's it going? my name is liam shy. this is matt caster and ben rotan. we are officers on the savetherave.org committee. so we've come before you today, i think this is actually something that's been a long time coming. i guess a little bit of history first. i'm a former youth commissioner. i was on the recreation and entertainment committee of the youth commission in 2003 and 2004. i worked on the legislation that extended the after-hours permit for 18 and over events. previously, that was only