perspective in 1985, a number of us started working on the small business commission. there is an advisory commission and that is what we started working on, the board of supervisors submitting legislation to select the small business commission. this has been a 25-year project that looks like it is finally coming to pass. just some real quick comments on the proposal. i applaud the mayor, if i understood jason's comments and that will identify whether it impact jobs to the comptroller instead of the president of the board, i think that is an appropriate step. as far as tweaking, you may want to put a provision in the air that is the amount of jobs in

impact. -- it impacts. you may want to put a threshold for that. the most concerning portion is the very last sentence, "the requirements of this section are directly in the failure of the city to comply with them shall not provide a basis to invalidate any city action." i am concerned about that. if i understand it correctly, even if it isn't done, it doesn't invalidate the legislation and that needs to be tightened. all in all, i applaud the mayor. we have seen this could put on the ballot and passed. president o'brien: i thin said both the president of the board of supervisors and the city comptroller would measure the impact on jobs.

>> i can clarify. in the version we are working on now, that determination will be a piece of feedback that we heard pretty universally, that is appropriate for the comptroller to decide and it conforms roughly within the existing obligations anyway. that is the version that will be the controller. [chime] president o'brien: i respect your opinion in you have a very historical perspective. can you help me with the concern of the last line again? >> if i am reading it right, if they don't comply with the provisions, then it shall not provide a basis to invalidate any city actions. if they don't comply, it doesn't make any difference. the legislation will pass.

and that is a concern. >> thank you. president o'brien: do we have another speaker on this item? jason, can we have you come back up, please? there is no further public comment, so we'd like to bring jason up again. >> can you clarify the last sentence that he is referring to? >> yes. no, i can't. yes, i can address that, no, i can't give you the clarity your looking for. it was languages suggested to us by the drafting city attorneys. and the intent of this ordinance, i'm sorry, of this

charter amendment is not to fully halt and kill legislation being conproposed. if we proposed a charter amendment that would give someone the ultimate authority to kill legislation, we would have just done that. we took a more moderated is that -- step, and this language adddresses --- i don't want to expand to much. -- expound too much. i don't think the small business commission we adequateighed -- adequately weighed alternatives, so i will sue to a halt. it was not our intention to create a mechanism like that. this is about public process,

not about killing legislation. >> will this mean that if they don't comply in terms of just bringing it to the small business commission, in this charter, there will be no problems? i am wondering what will make it so that they can't just -- >> as with any board rule or law that governs process for the board of supervisors, what happens if they don't do it? i would refer that question to the city attorney. that is a broad question. it would be the law. president o'brien: does that mean it is standard language? >> i don't want to comment on that because i don't know. >> i did an inquiry within the

city attorney on that. it is becoming standard language. commissioner o'connor: i wanted to make a comment to recommend scott for all of his work. is it ok if i say something? as i enter my last couple of meetings, i want to appreciate all the work you have done to create this commission. the of us would be here without you. you deserve a huge amount of appreciation. president o'brien: director? are you finished? commissioner clyde: well, now i'll make my comments now that i have had some clarity on

issues, and i am very supportive of this. i am happy that it has come out of the mayor's office. we have had problems with things happening a little too quickly for information as expressed by all of the other commissioners. in principle, i can support the concept of this going forward in knowing that the mayor's office will work with the business community to make sure that it is as good a charter amendment as it can be. i think for consideration, i hope the board sees it that way. we have had too many instances in my four years on the board that things were just kind of puzzled through and moved through, and someone had to call a halt either on the president or someone at the committee level in order for legislation to be thoroughly and properly vented. i don't think there is any reason to fear a full, thorough, open vetting of any

legislation that impact people's likelihoods. i would like to thank you and the mayor's office. president o'brien: can we get a motion to -- i don't want to offer one, but i am thinking it would be nice if we could make a recommendation to support the intent of this legislation. i will leave it open to the commissioners to answer the call to maybe meeting another time before january 19. i am not so sure that is necessary. if we have an open dialogue, as he suggested with the director on the charter, we can be involved in the ordinance part later. if we can support the intent, we

would like to be involved. >> i would like to make a motion to support the intent of the proposed charter amendment, and direct staff too closely work with the mayor's office on the issues. >> commissioner, we have the motion and we have a second. president o'brien: do we need roll call? >> can i make -- excuse me. if i can make a point of clarification to give staff and the director to recommend approval. you're proving intent without seeing the language. taking what your intent is and being able to state that the commission approves.

upon the director -- president o'brien: the same thing, they make the final approval of the charter subject to the director's final authorization. >> language accepted. >> i have a motion from commissioner clyde, the motion to support the intent and direct staff to work with the mayor's office on this, to authorize the director to make a final recommendation based on your guidance. to approve, yes. i have a motion from commissioner clyde, i don't have a second. president o'brien: commissioner riley has seconded it. wouldn't we do roll call. >> on that motion. commissioner adams: aye. commissioner clyde: aye. commissioner dooley: aye.

president o'brien: aye. commissioner o'connor: aye. commissioner riley: aye. >> that motion passes 6-0. president o'brien: next item, please. >> commissioners, you are on the item number six, discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors, 111077, police code for commercial parking lots. amending sections 1215-12 15.4. and adding sections will 15.7 -- 1215.7 to set requirements for

plants, to suspend or revoke a commercial parking permit for violation of an improved security plan. to authorize the chief of police to promulgate rules that set requirements for security plans. authorize enforcement by the city attorney in a civil action. in your packet is the file number of of what the legislative digest. we have a presentation from the legislative aide to president david chiu. >> legislative attention, although there has been progress and a number of areas, much of the city's nightlife actually takes place in the parking facilities -- is poorly lit and contains a few other

security features. the unintended and unsecured lots, which sometimes leads to illegal activity. club owners have limited control over what happens and worry about the safety of their patrons. there are many perpetrators of crimes that may even be paying club attendees. clubs cannot be expected to provide coverage. several leaders came to a supervisor chiu and as a result, he joined with supervisor winer and -- wiener and dennis he rrera. the police department currently prohibits all parking facilities. this would require operators of commercial parking facilities to provide security plans as part of their application.

if the parking facility is within 1,000 feet of an entertainment venue, certain minimum security requirements would apply. these are adequate lighting, staffing the facility until 3:00 a.m.. the police chief would have the discretion to add additional security measures as conditions of a permit if it was deemed necessary. for example, having a history of public safety issues. >> the also pursue a civil action against the parking lot and rod sellers that failed to comply with the police cut provisions regarding commercial parking. that concludes my summary and i am happy to answer any other questions. commissioner clyde: catherine, i have spoken to a couple parking lot operators and they have very small parking lots.

they are concerned about this one. it is adjacent to the commercial district, and there is a bar nearby. the parking lot owner is out of her mind because it is this little parking lot. are there going to be thresholds' in place for the district? >> de manila that bar has an entertainment permit? -- and do you know if that bar has an entertainment permit? >> it is in the smaller commercial district, and the parking lot owner, i am really concerned about the cost of the very small parking lot of people, others that may not be as heavily trafficked. i wonder if there have been

discussions? >> that person would be impacted. there has been conversation about possibly allowing the chief to raid of the requirements. that is a conversation that is a topic. >> i am concerned about the pressure, the lead to just selling the parking lot than developing it. we will take out a small business and parking, and not the unintended consequences. commissioner adams: i would like to also agree with what the cl

commissioneryde -- commissioner clyde just said. there are a lot of parking lot owners that this would put them out of business. i have a couple of questions here. there are a lot of lots that have city car share in them. >> i do not think that we have talked to the city car share. there might be ways where the parking lots, if they are secure, they don't have to be attended. they can have the car shares of its unsecured, that might be away. commissioner adams: two more questions. my other question, instead of hiring a security guard, what a>> we had a meeting in

supervisor chiu's office, and there are a number of entertainment venue holders, and at that meeting they expressed more than interested - -of an i -- more of an interest in staffing. commissioner adams: my final question, ouare city lots subject to this? >> no. commissioner adams: the reason i am saying that, a l halfot -- bwe have a lot behind the castro theater. we have gates and everything, it keeps getting smashed down and i would like to know from your office, they are 24 hours for

the most part. we try to limit the hours and we have had problems. the city is going to make private owners do this, why doesn't the city require it for their own lot? the marina is 24 hours. a lot of these people that go to these facilities -- >> that is something we have heard and we are interested in exploring. this is for the permits that private parking and private commercial parking facilities have to apply for. there is the security plan requirements for that process. the city as a whole is a separate issue. it is not something we can always directly change. i think that conversation is happening because we recognize it. commissioner o'connor: let's

see. thanks for adding that, mr. adams. very helpful, to say the least. >> a couple of other points, i'm not sure to how familiar you are with parking issues. i run a parking lot that i keep secret. i don't want people to know that. >> it is not secret anymore. [laughter] commissioner o'connor: i don't see it in all parking lots, but you all by legislative code, supposed to install a computerized money credit card machine. these cost $15,000.

they are not cheap. that is a lot of money to me. that is something that the city has asked of parking lot attendants. i do not know to what degree they are compliant. >> the city takes 25% tax of parking lots. i think supervisor mirkarimi was trying to get it to go to 38% or 35%. i think it lost, shockingly. so there is a lot. those are pretty heavy burdens. i dunno about burton's, but that is a pretty heavy request for the city to make. i would love to have their real

person there and i would definitely have a real person there. with the machine, i don't have an attendant. i think the city auditor doesn't agree with that because they realize that there needs to be a paper trail for people in parking lots. the city has a history of parking lot owners not reporting their income. i think that this sounds like a great idea for broadway and four areas where there are serious nightclub activity. in my case, i don't think we have had any problems with our lot except when we had to hire somebody to clean it all up because it was ridiculous. if a lot can perhaps staff a feood truck or somebody that is

making money selling some type of food item and that person qualifies as an attendee, that is something that should be explored. they're going to have to counterbalance the money it costs for a person to be there. some parking lots might be so busy that they don't care. i am sure that there is a lot on the edge, and it is not very profitable. this would definitely make it probably a money loser. those are some ideas that if it was more curtailed, there has to be a history of problems for this to kick in.

i am trying to think of other examples of how that triggers other types of businesses and other permits. basically, the lot has a history of problems. the ones on broadway are obvious. if we are going to see this through, it should be some type of deal with the attendant is bubbling for some type of leather in come. food b.a. -- maybe a fodo truc -- food truck or something. commissioner adams: commissioner o'connor, i love that idea. that is the best idea i have heard. commissioner o'connor: a permit for a food truck at night time. it is hard to get in and out -- commissioner adams: i think that

would be great. that is the kind of thinking that we need appear -- up here. parking lot owners are already struggling. if you are in the eastern part of the city, you do well. if you are where janet is, you do well on weekends. during the week, and not so well. i like that idea of maybe if there was a way that the parking lot operators can make some extra money, i like that. commissioner o'connor: i think even more important, the parking lot had a history of problems. when there is that history, i am totally in agreement that we should be staffing. commissioner adams: most private lots have attendance.

commissioner clyde: first of all, i agree wihth you, commissioner adams. having a person on sighte in any capacity should qualify for a staff person. if they chose to figure out a fence mechanism or lock mechanism, that is well and good, but for the trouble some lots, people are going to move into the neighborhood and they are going to go to somebody's door way, down the street, we're talking about some areas of violence and misbehavior. issues that are really not the parking lot owner's per view. -- purview. do they have good relationships

with their late night patrols and their station in busier areas? i am going to caution about this, simply moving the problem away and maybe into more residential neighborhoods. and just to caution solving the problem this way, and the implementation of 30 days. some operators will choose fencing over a live person. 30 days is not going to be enough time for them. >> i don't think they would have to have a security plan until the next annual permit. commissioner clyde: thanks for clarifying that. commissioner riley: i have a question regarding the requirement of attendance until 3:00 in the morning. every day of the week or for the weekends?

>> what we heard from the entertainment community in the neighborhood director, there is a real significant problem in parking lots, and it is often the fact that the parking lots create issues because they go, tailgate, they may not go to the club. the parking lot operators can effectively take a lot of money and the left, but it would be like -- they took money at the door, it is not an exact analogy, but they are part of the same ecosystem. the clubs are getting a lot of the blame for the violence that is happening in the nearby parking lot. we have also heard that it depends on the neighborhood, it is every night and that is active. we kept trying to narrow it until thursday through sunday, and we heard back from the

entertainment community, but it is really every night. we invited the police department to speak to this>> cost is goin. >> i am the director of the entertainment commission, and there are also some folks who have venues near the parking lots. gooi can tell you about their experiences. i think the problem is