are small, may not currently have staffing, and operators have invested tens of thousands of dollars on automated payment machines. since our recommendation was made, president chiu has amended the proposal to allow the chief of police to waive or alter requirements if the chief has determined that the law in question has no history of criminal or public safety issues. it is in line with the commission was a recommendation, so the small business commission supports this ordinance. the commission calls -- often has to balance important policy decisions with and that small businesses. in this case, the commission determined that there recommended modification, which was accepted, strikes a balance and will allow flexibility by the police department in implementing this new law. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much.

just a question regarding the waiver -- conditions can change. if a lot that has had a waiver because it had no incidents is in that area, and the start to become unsafe conditions, how do we get back into making sure those same standards apply to that law -- lot? supervisor chiu: i think the answer is pretty clear. the chief of police can waive or alter their requirements, but my reading is on the flip side, if there is a criminal nuisance or public safety incidents, the police chief can take away that we've -- that waiver and require the permit holder to ensure they are meeting the minimum standards laid out in this legislation. i assume, looking over to the police to parma, that is what you would do.

i guess the question is if you provide a waiver and it turns out there's a public safety incident, what will be the process to make sure that the parking lot is appropriately addressed in the future? >> let me say that i am not sure of what the process would be. i have analyzed this legislation from -- at the time you request to permit, the security issue would be evaluated. the question is if, let's say, there was a waiver given to staff that parking lot and subsequent to that waiver there was a criminal incident there, the question would require a little research to see if the chief can then seek to revoke the permit, and i would have to research that and get back to you. supervisor avalos: it seems clear that if you are looking at trying to resolve issues that have been frequently that you would want to apply different standards, so i feel if the

sponsor feels comfortable that there is language here and in the course of the work of doing your investigation and problem- solving that the permit would naturally seek to apply the standards, i am comfortable with that. >> i think there's a rule of reason. if we have a high crime area and a high crime lot on one hand, but let's say we have one that has had more activity for a long time, and then there is a separate incident, i do not know exactly how we would approach the in terms of the permit process revocation. the way that the legislation was before, it was quite a long tail for an operator to -- let's say if you had an incident seven years ago, you could still be -- and to the way it was before it was amended -- you could still be required to staff that lot,

and i think that was an unintended consequence. the corollary now being -- what if there is a subsequent event? i do not think this legislation addresses that. there certainly may be something in the ad man code that would allow us to deal with that, but that is a research question. supervisor avalos: thank you. thank you very much. do you believe there is a need to tighten that up? supervisor chiu: i was actually about to ask the deputy city attorney. if we were to include language that stated something like the following -- "if a criminal nuisance or public safety incident occurs after a waiver by the chief of police of minimum requirements, the chief of police may" -- something to the effect of -- "reverse its decision and subsequently impose minimum requirements" -- what would you think about that? >> what about section 121 5.3 which deals with revocation?

it is on page 111 and says the chief may revoke or suspend a permit after a hearing on the matter if he or she finds -- and it lists a number of things such as the committee has failed to operate the parking garage or lot in compliance with the security plans, or they have created or contributed to the creation and maintenance of a public nuisance? supervisor chiu: do you think it is important to specifically address this question? if there was initially a waiver and alteration and subsequently a criminal nuisance and public safety incident, to make it clear that at that moment, the chief of police could then revoke or suspend -- should we carved out a separate section? supervisor avalos: i think it makes sense to align it with the waiver idea. otherwise, the amendment should be about revoking a weaver, rather than revoking a permit.

>> cut our offer of -- it would be starting on line five, page 11, subsection 5, which seems to be the chief the authority that there was a connection between a criminal act and the operator for the operation of the law, that the chief could move to revoke -- operation of the lot. it seems that language is already in the existing legislation. supervisor avalos: that is revoking the permit to operate? i was referring to the waiver. we issue a waiver weather does not have to be staffing at a lot because there has not been any criminal activity or nuisance activity in those places, then if that happens to be something that is actually activity related to the locked not handling appropriately the

safety, then i think that waiver should be revoked. if we feel that -- my questions earlier were that there did not seem to be a mechanism in place to make that happen, so i would like to add that. that is what you're sorry referring to. supervisor chiu: -- that is what i am referring to. supervisor chiu: i think there are not two issues i'm seeing. if the chief of police officer requirements, i think we could all agree that there is a subsequent criminal nuisance or public safety of that, that waiver should be reversed. it seems that -- i would ask the deputy city attorney if we could include language on page 8 to essentially say at the end of the sentence that ends on line 19 that if there is a subsequent criminal nuisance or public safety incident, the police achieve they essentially reverse its decision -- the chief of

police may essentially reverse its decision. i think it does make sense that if there are these instances, we also may want to consider whether a revocation or suspension should occur. we can imagine if there is a shooting, something quite serious, and it was clear that there was not enough security, that the revocation or suspension might be appropriate in some circumstances. there already is language here that says if the permit the or employer or agency caused or contributed to the creation or maintenance of a public nuisance in the operation, a parking garage, or parking lot -- that language is already clear. i also wonder if we want to say that there is a criminal public safety incident, that the police chief has that discretionary power. i would suggest that as a possibility. why don't i suggest the following -- i know we have a

number of folks who are here for public comment. i will huddle with the city attorney to propose some language, and we will propose at the end of public comment. supervisor avalos: i appreciate your taking the time. i like that direction to make it clear. we will take public comment and give you a chance to work up the language. we are now open for public comment on item one. folks can come up to the microphone. i have a few cards i can read as well. [reading names] we will do three minutes each. >> good morning. i am the president of voice of broadway and also a club owner. the issue that i see, from what i see from the parking lots not

having security or attendants is there's a lot of times that i see the bigger parking lots have miners gathering in the parking lot and basically drinking, doing other stuff -- miners -- minors gathering. they are not allowed to get into the clubs, so they gather and harass the patrons that go there. the second issue that i have is also some of the smaller parking lots are not open during the week. they do not have any parking attendants, and they also do not have the machines that you pay, so what happens is the parking lots, the lights are off. people gather there.

if a customer parts there, a tow truck comes by. so, basically, we are not providing parking, which is part of our package when we applied for entertainment permits. we are asked to provide parking for the patrons, and not having attendeds -- and attendant -- attended -- not having attendants, we are not able to provide parking. supervisor avalos: thank you. the speaker. ben i am the executive director of the california music and culture association. we represent a broad coalition of nightlife and entertainment industry -- businesses and individuals. as an organization, we fully support this legislation. our members, especially venue owners, are fully committed to the safety of their patrons and

the broader community. the legislation gives us another tool to take a proactive approach and actually prevent a lot of the crime and sometimes violence associated with the nightlife industry. this legislation makes sense. it is there, and it is actually probably a little overdue. thank you very much, and i hope you support this. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors, and distinguished committee members. i am here on behalf of our members in support of this legislation. we appreciate the inclusion of the language that grants card- sharing companies access to these spaces at all times. we are eager to work with our parking operator partners to develop security plans to testify how our members can

access this integral mobility. thank you for your time and i am happy to answer any questions. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. i am a board member of cmac and also the current entertainment commissioner for industry. i am a nightclub owner for 15 years. the parking lot situation has been a preventive measure. the proposal for the cameras and lighting is good for the safety of our patrons and also for the restaurants that share the same lot. having an attendant after 10:00 has always been an issue for our particular lot. it is a very huge a lot.

it is wide open. there is no fence. we used to have a lot of people coming who had no intentions of coming to the club, but to engage our customers when they are leaving. at 2:30 in the morning, the noise is waking up the neighbors. we do not want anybody hanging out there. my particular club has 15 security guards, and approximately at 1:45 to 2:00, i send at least seven or eight of them to go to the parking lot to make sure that the noise is mitigated and people get into their cars and try to leave. when they are engaged with non- patrons of hours, then we have a little problem. then we start engaging with them. these parking lots are private

property. we have no actual jurisdiction to be in their lots policing them. 911 has to be called. we try to prevent all the calls that have been. there's a lack of police resources right now. we tried to do these things on our own, but we are not police officers. we are just tired of being the only responsible person at the 12:00 to protect these lots, especially after they have collected the money from our customers and have taken off -- tired of being the only responsible person after 12:00. there have been times when they leave the lot, a lot of cars do get broken into because there's nobody watching. the second thing is there have been imposters posing as parking lot attendants and collecting the money as well. i think as part of this plan, we

all support it. supervisor avalos: thank you. that last bit of information was interesting. supervisor chiu: i would like to take a moment to thank commissioner lee and cmac for the work they have done. their input was particularly helpful in helping as kraft this legislation, so i want to thank them for that. >> good morning, supervisors. we represent priority parking. i understand the intent behind this legislation, but we do have a few concerns that i would like to bring to your attention, one of which has been addressed in part. the first is under the proposed legislation, as you are aware, the chief of police would not be able to issue a commercial parking permit unless the cheap first approves the security plan. even so, the chief of police would have the discretion to disapprove the required security

plan even if all minimum requirements are met. the problem is that there is not any enumerated appeal mechanism for the chief of police's denial of the proposed security plan. that determination should be appealedable. - danny is the small business commission agrees with that, although i do not see that amendment having been discussed. we do appreciate the amendment proposed by president chiu. again, we have not seen it, but it sounds like it addresses the primary concerns. we urge that a security guard should not be required in all instances, in particular when the definition of an entertainment establishment is so broad. i hope you have had a chance to review that, and i got copies for you, but it does include places where they play or fashion show is held, it is quite broad. i would like to add that i would like you to consider whether or not it is necessary to include

an additional amendment that would allow the chief of police to revoke the waiver. again, the commercial parking permit cannot be issued until the security plan is issued, and those are on an annual basis. of course, in the meantime, if something egregious happens, you can look at suspending a permit. so thank you very much. supervisor chiu: i just had a question -- you suggest we should not adopt the language that i think we are just debating, which would allow the chief of police, if he is initially provided a waiver, but then there was a subset -- subsequent news since or criminal incident -- nuisance or criminal is a, you say we should not allow him to revoke that? >> i do not know if it is necessary because these plans are reviewed on an annual basis.

supervisor chiu: so your client does not have a history of violence for two years, and then there is a shooting in the parking lot because of some defect in security -- you are saying we should wait 11 months for any review? >> right, so, i think that is why i made the point. if there are egregious circumstances, you could look at suspending the permit and reviewing it at that time. i am just pointing out i do not know that it is necessary to allow for further revocation of the waiver because of continuous review. supervisor chiu: we might respectfully disagree on that, but i hear your point. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, and any other person who would like to speak on this item can line up in the center aisle. >> good morning. member of the parking association of san francisco and california parking. i just want to bring up one --

we have several problems with the staffing issue, but i want to bring up one point in particular. that is staffing requirement at 3:00 -- when does the staffing requirement begin? it has to go until 3:00, but what time does it begin? does anyone have an answer for that? as i read the ordinance, it says "at all hours of operation." if that is the case, we will have serious problems with it. for instance, i will give you one example -- we have a parking lot on the corner of san some and pacific street, which is about a block away from broadway, and we have had that what -- that what has been in existence since 1954. it has about 50 stalls. we do about 75 cars during the day on the surface portion. monday through friday, we have staff 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and that is the bulk of our business. nights and weekends, we do about

$5,000 a month. if the staffing requirement is all hours of operation, like i said, nights and weekends are on a self-part basis with a machine. is that requirement -- $5,200 would not even pay for one week -- the staffing requirement, $5,200 would not even pay for one week. my question is when does that start? if it starts all hours of operation, that it virtually eliminates all self-park parking lots. i cannot afford to have this particular lot with a 1,000 feet of and entertainment establishment, they come saturday, minutes, two sets -- the only time it does any series night club business, which is not very much at all, is friday and saturday night. that is my question. that is a real problem with this ordinance that we have.

thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. any other member of the public? >> good morning, supervisors. i am speaking in support of this ordinance. i think it is long overdue. i would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone here that the first world trade center attack occurred in an underground garage, and we should not forget that, even though it was not that long ago. we should be ever vigilant since san francisco is such a high- profile city. i would like to make the suggestion that in terms of dealing with staffing for the new ordinance, i have not heard anybody mention the use of control special officers. i know there is a rumor that they do not get along notsfpd, -- they do not get along with

sfpd, but i think when it comes to protecting the citizens, both organizations should put down any hint of dispute and cooperate. maybe it might be easier and more flexible and less costly to hire the patrol special. according to my information, they have been highly successful at diamond heights shopping center and also in glen park and maybe in a few other small areas of san francisco, so maybe there should be some sort of discussion, whether there would be more flexibility and less cost in having the patrol special officers doing that type of work rather than sfpd. i am sure most of the officers would rather go after the hard- core criminal than look over the shoulder of suspicious people lingering in parking lots. in regards to this legislation,

it is pretty obvious that a lot of the troublemakers are not residents of san francisco, and i think that since they are from out of town, if they see a uniformed officer, they would have second thoughts about making trouble. let's put it this way -- when i'm out late at night, and i look at security guards, i do not think that is much of a deterrent, no matter how big they look or no matter how mean they look. when you see a uniformed officer, you know that they mean business, and anyway, at night, it is pretty hard to tell the difference between an sfpd officer and a patrol special officer. all you see is the uniform, and then you make a decision -- maybe i should be a. i think that is an idea that should be discussed. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. any other members of the public

would like to comment? seeing none come forward, we will close public comment. do you have amendments ready, or do you want a little more time? supervisor chiu: it would be great if we could have a few more minutes. if we could go to a couple more items. supervisor avalos: we will continue this item to another time in this meeting. let's go to item four since the author of the legislation is here. item four, please. >> item four, ordinance amended the san francisco administrative code by adding section 2a.74 to

set policy regarding police the part of participation in federal counterterrorism activities, require a public discussion at the police commission before the execution of any memorandum of understanding with the federal bureau of investigation regarding the joint terrorism task force, and set an annual reporting requirement. supervisor avalos: thank you. the author is here, jane kim. supervisor kim: thank you for hearing this item again. i will not go into debt that the history of the ordinance because we have heard it already, but i would like the community to come up and address what has happened, and of course the background of the legislation before us today. as many of you know, our previous civil rights ordinance was vetoed by the mayor, but following that action, the mayor's office actually did work very diligently with many of our community advocates and leaders to ensure that something was put

in to ordinance to address three of the issues that i know our community members are concerned about. the first bucket is racial profiling of our residents in san francisco based purely on religious or political beliefs. the second bucket is around the sun shining up any mou that comes before sfpd with our agencies including the fbi, and the third is about how we do reporting on this type of surveillance work. i am happy to say we do have a compromise ordinance before us today. i know both sides really felt like they work really hard to come to middle ground, and i know that it is not completely to everyone's satisfaction, but i do think it is important that we are addressing these issues because they are so important to our community members here. so i would like to ask several -- i guess at this point, if we could just open up public,

through the chair. if i could call up some of our community members to top a little bit more about the ordinance itself. supervisor avalos: great. we can open up public comment, and i had a few parts of folks who are ready to speak on this item. [reading names] ok, please come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors. supervisor kim, avalos, and olague, and respected community members, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. i am the immigration program coordinator at the arab resourced and organizing center,

which is a founding member of the coalition for a safe san francisco. as you may know, our coalition works to protect the civil rights and civil liberties challenged by it over broad national security policies. since 9/11, our communities have lived in fear due to the creation of these policies that infringe on the civil rights of all u.s. residents. as a collective, our arab, muslim, middle eastern, and south asian communities saw a need to organize in order to create a culture that will not tolerate discrimination or profiling, and to mitigate the various civil and human rights violations that grow out of the bias law enforcement perspective and policies. for over two years, the coalition undertook the hard task of working to achieve this goal. our efforts culminated to produce in part the six produce in part the six entrances the civil rights