with that, if there aren't any further questions from the commissioners, i would like to open it up for public comment. >> i had one question to the president. with the amendments being made, it would be, in terms of the small business commission's ability to offer alternative proposals or legislation at the same time, will that be part of that? or is that part of the procedural elements that would be developed in the ordinance? >> that would be part of the procedural elements. if we want to take a process out, to the extent that this is a piece of legislation sponsored by the mayor, i can assure you

that what he is referring to, mainly the alternative piece of legislation to consider the original legislation, it remains a priority objective. commissioner riley: i have a question for the director. it says here that we have to have a hearing within 30 days. we meet once a month on monday, and the board of supervisors meet on tuesday. if they met tomorrow and had something to refer to us, what we have enough time? >> i think we will, possibly. it now sounds like those procedural elements will be removed out of the charter with a mandate that when there is a determination of job loss by the

comptroller's office, that there is a pause button for 60 days. if there is any other conditions or -- commissions or departments that want to weigh and have the opportunity to do so. this will have the business community have time to read the legislation, and evaluate it, and weigh in on it as well. the procedural elements that are drafted now in this particular charter amendment are going to be removed and worked out. it may look a little different than what this is. >president o'brien: what is your time frame for how long you think this will be to where you say, we have something ready for the voters in june? >> as far as the charter

amendment is concerned, this is on a prescribed time line. we need to be out of the rules committee by with this by the first few days of february. it goes to the board of supervisors and ultimately the board of supervisors with six votes that have the power to place the charter amendment on the ballot. as far as the trailing the ordinance -- trailing ordinance, is like any other produced by the mayor, and it will go through the legislative process just like a ordinance. president o'brien: we would not have another opportunity to weigh in on the charter that we probably don't need to any way, right? >> probably not, and what you can do is take a motion to approve with the authorizing

staff to continue to work with the mayor's office on the final drafting of this. >> mr. president, with this precise issue in mind, we are not done with this, and i tried to describe in much detail as i am comfortable with, if the commissioners were in client, you could effectively vote to support what i have outlined at to the extent that i will share with the commissioners informally and what i share with them, as described here. >> january 19 is the first date the charter could be heard at the rules committee. is your timeline to have the legislation ready for the january 19 rules committee?

>> yes. >> at the commission can come back together before the january 19 meeting to hear this one particular item. either way. president o'brien: all right. i think what we would like here is if somebody was interested in putting a motion forward -- i keep forgetting. sorry about that. if there are no other questions, i will open it up for public comment. >> public comment will be limited to 3 minutes. kindly state your name clearly and you can live up on the side wall. >> from the san francisco chamber of commerce, happy new year, commissioners. we're supportive of the concept of this legislation and the as you know, porop i requires

the city to look at economic impact and beyond what it does in the charter. the ability of this commission to review and recommend alternatives to legislation that can have a negative impact on job growth in san francisco. a second look, a slowdown is not a bad thing. we have seen positive changes out of legislation because of prop i. we have seen positive changes on the initiative ordinance had given a 45-day notice window for legislation being introduced by four or more supervisors and policy statements. we believe this is a step in the right direction. throughout communities and throughout san francisco, on the impact of legislation. san francisco jose elected

officials believe that they are the champions of small local businesses. and you know that the vast majority of legislative actions impact small business disproportionate to any impact on large business. there is the minimum wage and sick leave mandate. it is the fis and requirements, it all impact smaller businesses much greater than they do economically or operationally. this gives the commission and the community a better chance to review and educate supervisors on unintended consequences. we are clearly support oive of e amendments that have outlined and we look forward to working with the commissioners on the implementation of this ballot measure.

president o'brien: next speaker. >> i speak in support of this proposal. a little historical 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.