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 eligible for 21-and-over events. we got that changed. all right. so while i was on the commission we did a number of things. we declared a state of emergency in san francisco due to the lack of entertainment and recreation options for young people, particularly under 21. the youth commission as you probably know represents ages 12 to 23 so that was a big issue for us. we have this hearing in the board of supervisors' chambers, we had the department heads, we had many supervisors there, we had lots of media and we

provided a platform for the community to come and voice their concerns from all sides, from the police to neighbors to the young folks, to people from particularly bad neighborhoods where recreation and entertainment options are crucial in order to keep them away from, you know, getting involved with gangs or other problems that can plague young people. it was a great time, i think, for san francisco, for entertainment, for youth, for youth activism, for the community. a lot of things were happening. since that time, it seems like there's just been a steady decline in youth events, in events in general, especially for electronic dance music. a number of things have happened. the port no longer holds electronic dance music events. bill graham civic no longer holds electronic dance music events. love evolution was no longer possible last year.

even doing events in golden gole park is very, very difficult. so basically it's halloween in the castro, another thing. it's been a lot of stuff happening and as i'm sure you're probably aware, fiona ma introduced state legislation recently, a.b. 74, to ban events with prerecorded music, squarely aimed at electronic dance music events or raves as some people like to call them. so this has sort of been the straw that broke the camel's back. basically, the electronic dance music community is enormous at this point. i mean, even most pop music now is based on electronic dance music and the community is very, very upset that all of these sort of events have been deteriorating over time and to the point that there's bans

being put forth on a statewide level. it's discrimination, you know, straight up. so, i mean, we acknowledge that there's issues and our organization has formed not to be a lofty political idealist sort of organization without any basis in reality. we understand there are health issues, harm reduction issues, people are dying, people are going to the hospital. we understand. and we want to work on those issues. there's young people, there's people of all ages that care about this music, this culture, and we want to find real solutions so that we can enjoy a vibrant and lively entertainment community in san francisco and california. so, anyway, this legislation has sort of, like i said, been the straw that broke the camel's back so the community is in dire need to speak with their

representatives. so we went to the youth commission a couple of weeks ago, presented to them our idea, is that the youth commission and the entertainment commission hold a joint hearing so that we can all get together and talk so the department heads, the police, the folks from the community, the supervisors, the mayor, we should all get together and just sort of talk about what's been going on and talk about the problems and talk about solutions and really start working together again because i think it's time. thank you. president newlin: thank you. commissioner joseph? vice chair joseph: hi, thank you for coming. i just want to clarify some definitions. by youth, you're talking about people who are under the age of 22? 21? >> youth commission represents 12 to 23. vice chair joseph: so under the age of 23? >> yeah, sure. vice chair joseph: and by electronic dance music, you mean

prerecorded d.j. music, music d.j.'s would play? >> even that's not a perfect definition because a lot of performers perform live electronic music, as well, so it's hard to define in a way. but it's dance music versus a concert or a show where people are sitting or maybe just standing. vice chair joseph: so if you threw a party, liam, that played disco and it was done by a d.j., would someone consider that electronic dance music? >> probably. vice chair joseph: probably. o.k. we'll tell gloria gainor that. i agree with you that there is a lack of opportunity for people under the age of 23. i agree with you on that. and do you propose that this meeting between the youth commission and our commission will serve to in some way set some criteria to establish

venues for people under the age of 21, primarily? is that what you think? is that your goal. >> i'm sorry, say that again? vice chair joseph: in your goal of having a joint meeting, your goal is to address the fact that there is not enough youth spaces? >> correct. vice chair joseph: and how to correct that possibly? >> and that there has been in particular -- i hate to use the word discrimination against electronic dance music events, but there's been a serious decline in the city's support for those types of events. and they're the number one event that young people want to go to. the main demographic if you go to these events is 18, 20, 21, 22, 23-year-olds. this is a big thing for a lot of people, young adults, who can

vote and go to war. we need to start talking about solutions, you know, education, outreach, harm reduction. there's a serious lack of education. on one hand it's to sort of send a big message to everyone, you know, that this is really important and there's a community out there that is rising up. i mean, we've sort have been sitting quietly for a while. all this stuff has kind of been happening and the revolt, so to speak, hasn't really come forward and hopefully it won't have to. so this is a way that we're trying to reach out. president newlin: in that vein, what i'd like to do is call item five since we're talking about it anyway and commingle the two items. vice chair joseph: i don't have a problem with that. it seemed like maybe, liam, you have folks that want to speak, as well. president newlin: since we're covering the same topic. item number 5 is discussion of

possible action items to agendize a joint meeting with the youth commission on issues regarding youth entertainment opportunities so we're combining item 4 and 5 for discussion. is there anybody else in the group that has anything they'd like to contribute? >> hi, i'm the chair of the san francisco youth commission and i'm here with my colleague, joshua zuckerman and we're representing our commission's arts and culture committee and, like you say, our staff sent you a memo requesting a joint hearing with the entertainment commission in hopes of kind of shedding some light on youth after-hours activity for young people, whether it's allowing young people to have raves or things like that, just really tackling that idea and it would be great to partner with another commission, as well, that you work with entertainment and it would be really cool to have the city family working together, we

feel. and, so, yeah. >> instead of creating more laws that aim to prohibit underage partying, we need to aim to create laws that create environments in which teenagers can safely party. we have seen over and over again the tragic consequences of draconian laws such as federally mandated drinking at 21 years of age. we need to move away from such laws and move in the direction of creating laws that are conducive to ensuring that youth engage safely and with that, if the youth commission and entertainment commission were to forum a hearing, we could address how to make underage partying in san francisco safer for its youth. >> to be clear, yes, the youth commission represents the unmet

needs of young people ages 12 to 23 but for young people to have access, it may be the older youth, ages 18 to 23 or even like to 21 -- 26, sorry. so it's more clear so we won't worry about having young kids going to parties because that's not o.k., obviously, but for us older young people who want to place to go and want something to do aside from studying and things like that because we're on top of our work, we really want something to do, like, in the evenings, until, again, i strongly urge you commissioners to support having a joint hearing with the youth commission. we hope that you guys do take a positive action on this and we look forward to working with you guys and it's great to see you again, commissioner joseph. president newlin: thank you.

o.k. if we wanted to make a motion to. vice chair joseph: i'd like to make that motion. i move that staff schedule a joint hearing. commissioner meko: i think we should have public comment. vice chair joseph: you're right. president newlin: anybody from the public wishes to address this issue? o.k., very good. >> hello. hi. as i stated before, my name is john goodwin. i am now 28 years old and i would like to tell you a brief story from my childhood. i had a very troubled youth. i come from a broken home and when i was 16 years old and suicidal, one of my good friends, another troubled youth, gay, still questioning his identity, named chad, helped me out an awful lot by inviting me to one of my first elecic