all the commissioners at the start were responding with another fee, and they are going to pay money. but by the time the end of night came, they began to feel that there is something in this, and there is some merit to what is going on. i can reintroduce you back up with a question. i would like to ask you to come back up for a question. can you introduce something that is not going to be so cost prohibitive financially. this is an issue we need to address. >> yes, certain locations, certain nightclub and venues. it depends on the nightclub itself, what kind of people it draws, and the performance that is happening that particular evening. certain types of venues draw different types of crowds that tend to party after, and some venues don't have any problems

whatsoever. i bring up the example of yoshi's, a jazz bar. people that go in there don't cause any issues or problems. it depends on the type of venue, who the performer is, who the d.j. is, and the type of people that come into these nightclub. that is one concern. also if it is a busy night, the friday and saturday evenings, yes it is possible that we could make enough money to staff them until 3:00 a.m. again, though, i have concerns about my attendant being out there at 3:00 in the morning. he is not a policeman. they are not trained to handle violence or crime. i don't know what he is supposed to do, maybe push a button, and i don't know what good that is going to do. there is that issue as well. this requirement is seven days a week until 3:00 a.m. for places that don't have any nightclub business. it has to be moderate fight and restricted.

it is too overreaching. >> thank you. commissioner dooley? >> it seems to me the betts solution to this question is to -- the best solution to this question is continue on the path to have the police chief waive this requirement if there is no history of problems. it seems like that would be a fairway to go about this. because clearly there are many parking lots -- living near broadway know that every parking lot on broadway has a history of problems. so if we could possibly narrow it in some way, if that is possible, to have it have the non-problem causing people waved. if they started having problems, then they would need to be reviewed. >> commissioner? >> i have to say that at our

last meeting, the public comment, the testimony that we heard about public safety was compelling. i mean it was compelling. we are looking at legislation that would require that lots be either staffed or that they close, that they be fenced off and access not be given. because when cars park, things happen in the cars, people drinking and partying in their cars through the night, that is just not acceptable. there is expensive public safety costs and fall-out. but beyond that there is just the personal safety of people in the neighborhoods, and even in the downtown neighborhoods. i will actually go back to the original legislation and say that i don't see that it is onerous for the parking lot

owners to work with the police department on developing security plans, and to work with the chief of police. who will you be working with? you will be working with the district station venue people and the operators to come up with a credible, workable security plan, what it really looks like. i would just recommend that the industry take that proactive step. our commissioner that is missing, michael owe connor. it is interesting you brought up a hot dog staff. he asked what is staffing. does it have to be an employee of the parking lot directly? can it be a vendor or food trucks? maybe there are creative solutions. again, i'm sympathetic with

using data to drive these plans . i think that is absolutely appropriate. one size fits all does not work. it is not necessary. but at the same time i am in favor of actual people being out there. i am. i mean we are automating, we are taking people out of the equation as much as we can. people are too expensive. people are different to -- difficult to manage. at some point we are going to have to say you know i have a person out there because it is good to have a person out there, and that is a job for that person, and there is somebody willing to do that job, and that is a job worth having. i am sympathetic to that argument, having people. again, there are a lot of ways to work on this legislation with fencing, with closing, with staffing, and also with

working with the police department. so i am in support of it. >> commissioner dwight? >> i might suggest that we look to universities who have addressed this problem. this was a big problem at stanford yifert, and then i stalled all over campus this motion of a panic button. i'm talking about the same thing we have on street corners, which is fire alarms and police alerts. this would be a publicized infrastructure which says if i am in a lot, and i feel threatened, and i hit this button, i can expect that the police are going to respond, and especially that the police will be on a heightened alert knowing it is friday night. if we see one of these things go off, we know there is a potential problem. i am also surprised that surveillance cameras are poo-pooed.

i will say when i see surveillance cameras at 10:00 on the news, i feel good that about 10 to 100,000 people are going to go i know that guy. he is my neighbor or something. today you really can't get away with much if you are on a surveillance camera. the internet allows the prop gation of that foot -- the prop gation of that footage in an instant. it gets on television, youtube and all over thes place. i think a combination of technology to address places where staffing is expensive and onerous, or on nights where it is more onerous than other nights. there is probably a combination of efforts that can be taken to

provide security in the places and venues that are known to be more post. >> can you address that, supervisor, about having the technology instead of having life human beings there? >> sure. first of all. i want to thank you all for how hard you are working. you should be on the board of supervisors. we are all working into the night. i know my aid had gone into this a bit, but i have over the past almost four years legislated several pieces of legislation to deal with different aspects of nightclub violence. for example, we have passed several pieces of legislation to require nightclub owners to have security plans. in fact, they are required to have security guards as a ratio of one security guard to every 50 patrons in a place because it requires that level of human interaction to sort of keep

folks from doing things they would otherwise regret the next day. then we move to a piece of legislation to address party rooms. the crowds they create have often led to issues. now we have continued to see a pattern of violence happen in and around parking loss. i know my aid had gone into some of the crime statistics. we were able to obtain some stats, and i want to show you. these are the crime statistics in three parks lots. at the 470 broadway lot, there were 21 total incidents, including assault, theft, robberies. if we move on to the next site at 425 broadway. we have a similar number,

aggravated assault, attempted homicide, burglaries, larceny and theft. then there is a third parking lot, just down the street again. four incidents again involving assault, burglaries and larceny. this is a really problem. anyone who suggested it is not, i would certainly dispute that. i am open to an amendment that would give the police chief the discretion to decide exactly which parking lots are 1,000 feet of a place of entertainment have been creating trouble. if there is a parking lot that has a record of safety, i will not insist that that parking locality have a security guard. but i do think that while i have thought about technological approaches to this, as we all know, technology is often reactive. it doesn't prevent a crime from happening, particularly after a long night that may involve

drinking. oftentimes the fights that happen in these parking lots are crimes of passion, as well as other crimes of opportunity. but if it turns out that there are effective ways of dealing with this in other parts of the country, i am very willing to consider technology, but i think there is a difference between the stanford campus and what is actually happening on the streets, on broadway. commissioner, you have one of these businesses, and you see what happens on broadway on a daly or nightly basis. so i am open to considering tecau nodge cal approaches, -- technological approaches.

>> the path of appealing a decision that was made by a permit officer? that was the piece that actually spoke to me. what i would like to do is give the police chief that discretion. i don't know what the appeals process is if the police chief makes a decision that a party doesn't agree with, but i am happy to explore that. >> in fairness to the parking lot operators, sometimes we have more sympathetic people in the police department -- i don't know. you know that the relationship between the police department and places of entertainment has at times been very difficult

and not as collaborative in problem solving as we would like to see. now we are in a really positive period with the police department. however, having a path of appeal might be a good thing. >> i'm happy to look into that. my assumption is if we create some sort of wafer process is if the -- waber -- wafer process, there may be prima facie issues. but if there was something that created an issue and that gets bumped up to the board of appeals, i would consider that. >> i am not talking about a waver. >> i am happy to look into what that entails. >> thanks.

>> this doesn't mandate attendance in all circumstances. >> no. >> it leaves some discretion. >> with the police chief, and i am fine with that. >> i am too. >> i would like to make a motion that we recommend approval of this legislation with the direction that we would want the police chief to have the discretion to allow lots that have no problems, have no history of problems, to be given a wafer -- waver. and i would like to add that the decision is appealable. i don't know if that is -- that there is some process in the legislation, a path to appeal.

>> to include an appeals process? >> to appeal a decision, that a decision could be appealed. >> after the motion? >> yes. >> to include an appeal process? >> yes. >> do we have a second? >> i second it. >> could you read that back, please? >> just one moment, please. >> commissioners, i have a motion by commissioner collide, seconded by commissioner riley, to recommend approval with direction that the commission recommends that the chief have discretion to give a waver to lots with no history of problems on the staffing requirement, and recommendation

to have an appeal process implemented. >> role call? >> it passes 6-0. >> supervisor chiu, since you have returned and we have not done the recognitions, we were wondering if you would like to take the opportunity at this moment? >> i am happy to. >> i am very happy to have made it back for this, in part

because janet collide is someone who has not only served this body well, but she has been a wonderful business leader in the heart of my district in norton beach. she has served extremely well. i have only gotten positive feedback about the work of commissioner collide. part of what this certificate refers to is not just her service with the small business commission, and not just her work in helping to formulate key legislation and recommendations, but we want to thank you for helping to create programs like the small business recognition program and in really ensuring that the small business community is well-known and receives the kudos it should for helping to contribute to the vitality of our city. so with that, as i told janet about 12 hours ago, i'm sorry to see her leave. but i know and understand that she has many other things and duties that she needs to attend

to. but on behalf of the city and board of supervisors, i want to thank you for your service and look forward to continuing to work with you in the years to come. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. you know, you would just like to thank you all for the opportunity to serve with you over these four years. i actually have just been really proud of the work of the commission, particularly proud of the work of the director, the office of small business, the staff, chris, jane. they have just been wonderful. and i don't know -- i think commissioner dooley, you were here when -- we came on about

the same time, and this commission, what we started with was actually the elimination of the office of small business. it wasn't in the budget because the economic crisis, along with the $500 million general fund deficit really put us under the gun. so our first big fight was actually for the office of small business, the continuation for our secretary, and we really advocated. thank goodness we did, because i think we have a really strong office. at that time the small business community, i am very proud, was the shock absorber in our economy. if you remember, interest rates were doubling, tripling for consumer and business credit. if you could get it, credit was completely dried up. people were losing their jobs. their holmes were being

foreclosed on. in the middle of all that, the small business community of san francisco kept working, providing opportunity for small businesses. the numbers spoke for themselves. the people served by the office of small business is something to be proud of, and san francisco should be proud of the legislation and not the work of this office. i just want to take one moment to thank steven, scott, and pat particularly, small business leaders who came to this commission and advocated the work of this commission over many years. they have been working, i believe it is 20 years for the small business community to really get the recognition that it deserves. i would like to thank the bebs of the board of supervisors who have supported the commission

through the years, and particularly during my time on the commission. i think it is really important that a member of this commission, a former member of this commission is now a member of the board of supervisors. that speaks to the work of the commission. the fact that he came from this commission, i am very proud of that. with that, i just want to thank you, my fellow commissioners, and i hope as we go forward with very important small business legislation before us, things like the payroll tax, things that really need to be looked at in the future, that you continue to give the small business community the attention, work and recognition that it deserves. the last thing i will say is i want to thank all the city employees who presented over my four years, who really educated me about the city processes. i hope that the city employee

recognition goes forward as well because i think it has been a great time for building bridges in city departments, particularly when we really need them. the work of the city is very important, and the individuals who keep it going. i really want to thank them as well. thank you. [applause] >> commissioner, we are now on item number 10, discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors five 120049, appropriating $1 million for the small business rule opening loans program. we have a presentation by the

office of work force development. >> do you want to call for the overhead? >> we will have an overhead or computer press tigers in just a moment. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is holly. i am from the office of economic and work force development. i am here to present on the small business revolving lone fund and the proposed ordinance to appropriate $1 million of

prior year's general fund to recapitalize the revolving lone fund. just a little background. the revolving lone fund is modeled after other lone funds that provide low interest rate loans to persons that do not qualify for traditional financial services. as its name suggests, it is a self replenishing pool of money. as borrowers repay their loans, it revolves back into the lone fund. so it creates the opportunity to lend to new projects. the proposed ordinance to provide -- to proipt $1 million of general fund would be in addition to a wells fargo lone to the city -- lone -- loan to

the city. it is a loan to the city and only eligible for capitalization of lending. repayments from a previous small business lone program >> it gives available capital of $1,283,075. the need to recapitalization, sitting on the small business commission, you know that banks are still holding tight to their money. they are still having a lot of restrictive underwriting. the funding of the recapitalization of the revolving loan fund has been

lent and out the door. so that amount is already spent. that was in 2009 when the revolving loan fund was launched. so the demand for capital is apparent. working solutions gets about 20-25 loan inquiries a month. each loan is for about $25,000. so each month we are looking at $550,000 in inquiries. this need for recapital station is a critical component to our commercial district strategy. we need $1 million because of the volume of capital to relaunch is significant. in 2009 when the revolving loan fund launched, over 283 inquiries were asked of working solutions. if we only set aside $700,000 or so, that wouldn't be enough. we definitely need the $1.5 for

small businesses. as you know, access to credit is critical for start up for micro enterprises and small businesses. our office has an outreach play. we will be working with the small business assistance center, as well as the neighborhood economic development organizations, the renaissance centers, urban solutions, sbdc's, as well as the new job squad. they will be reaching out to the neighbors across the city. getting the word out.

the revolving loan fund's requirements and tournament are flexible. the business must be located in san francisco, have limited or no access to bank loans. then they will be able to create or retain at least one full-time job per $25,000 loan made. that job must be made available to a low to moderate income person. the terms of the loan are up to $25,000 for start ups, up to $50,000 for existing businesses. it would be a five-year term and the interest rates are between 4% and 6%. only working solutions offered loans for this size with such favorable underwriting criteria and terms in the city.

>> loan uses are just as flexible. inventor, capital, purchases, machinery, start up costs and lease hold improvements. a little about our working solutions administrator. working solutions was expected in a competitive r.f.p. process back in 2009 to administer the loan fund. working solutions pretty much handles the entirety of the lending process, for deal flow, loan writing and loan services. also having the loan fund in the non-profit bank's balance statement gives an added benefit. they also access lobe guaranteee program such as california, capital access program, they are an insurance for loan funds. if the loans