we may skirt the law and serve something before 6:00 a.m. the bookmobile, where are they? >> i have my cheat sheet here which i cannot find. the library has been here after great disasters. there has -- is a special book that won an award this year. here is the book. i downloaded it on my kindle. it can check out copies of the book mobile. nex>> thanks for being here.

start walking slowly. welcome to san francisco, everyone. ♪ supervisor avalos: good morning and welcome to the public safety committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. can we have a motion to excuse supervisor mar?

we will take that without objection. madam clerk, can you share with us your announcements? >> all persons attending this meeting are requested to turn off all electronic devices. if you wish to submit a speaker card, please put them at the container by year rail in front of you to your left. if you wish to submit materials to members of the committee, please submit an extra copy for the file. supervisor avalos: thank you. if you could call our first item. >> item 1, ordinance amending the san francisco police code sections 1215 through 12 15.4 and adding section 12 15.7 to require a security plan as part of an application for a commercial parking permit, said requirements for security parking plans, authorize the chief of police to suspend or revoke a commercial parking permit for violation of approved a security plan,

authorize the chief to promulgate rules that set requirements for security plans, and authorize imports meant by the city attorney in a civil action. supervisor avalos: thank you. this item is sponsored by president chiu and supervisor wiener. i will turn of the microphones to them. supervisor chiu: thank you for considering this matter. i also want to thank supervisors wiener -- supervisor wiener for his part in this as well as the city attorney. as you may know, we have had issues of violence around our nightclubs, and since i was elected a supervisor in 2008, we have moved forward and passed a number of pieces of legislation to address different aspects of public safety related to nighttime violence. we have asked our nightclubs and club owners to employment security plans.

we have also passed legislation that would allow the entertainment commission to shut down clubs that have had a history of public safety issues. we also passed legislation last year to for the first time create legislation to require party promoters, particularly those that have been involved in issues of public safety, to further beef up what they need to do. this particular issue has to do with night live-related violence that is taking place in parking facilities near entertainment venues. last year, and number of individuals, including some club owners, came to my office and requested help in addressing this longstanding issue of what happens when parking facilities that are not staffed late at night when the bars and clubs let out, that often do not have the best lighting or other security features allow for individuals to gather where they can sometimes get involved in

activities that create public safety or other illegal activities. we know that these are parking lots that have benefited financially from their proximity to the late night entertainment industry, but there operators are not always working to make sure that the premises that they are supposed to manage is contributing to the safety of the industry. at this time, the police department permits all of our commercial parking lots. the legislation we have in front of us would require operators of commercial parking lots and garages to provide security plans as part of their applications. also, if the facility is within 1,000 feet of an entertainment venue, certain minimum security requirements would be applied. to insure that lighting is adequate, that entrances and exits are secured when the facility is closed, and that the facility is staffed until 3:00 a.m. this legislation spent a couple of months with the small

business commission. we had staff briefings as well as two meetings at the small business commission, and i appreciate their support of this legislation. i do want to mention that because of conversations we had with the various stakeholders including parking lot operators, we did make an amendment to give the chief of police discretion in determining some of the minimum security requirements, particularly around whether or not a facility needed to be staffed. if a particular lot has a spotless record with regards to public safety issues in the previous two years. colleagues, i have circulated to all of you a brief clarifying amendment. it is noted in one place in this legislation, the two-year requirement that i mentioned, but we also amended the legislation, and i would ask you to make that amendment today to make sure it is consistent.

with that, there are a number of city staffers who have worked with us on this legislation, and i hope we can and buy up the captain, who helps manage the san francisco police department 's entertainment issues, to say a few words. supervisor avalos: by all means. i believe supervisor wiener would like to make comments on this as well. supervisor wiener: thank you. this has been a very collaborative process. we are very quick to blame nightclubs or violence in this city, and there are certainly times win nightclubs have not done what they need to do, and, of course, we need to always hold then use accountable when they do not have proper security, when they do not take the action that they need to take, but we also have to be

careful not to place all the obligation for nighttime violence in nightclub areas on the night clubs when night clubs do not always control everything that is happening. this is one example where we have some parking lots where violence has occurred, and sometimes it gets placed on the nightclub. we need to be very clear that public safety is a partnership. in this case, it is a partnership among the city, the venues, and the parking lot operators. this legislation is an attempt to make sure parking lot operators are playing their role in the collaboration. i think it is strong and important legislation, and i look forward to seeing it through the process. supervisor avalos: ok. supervisor chiu: if we could hear from the commander, and i want to thank you for the works -- the work you are doing in our

neighborhoods. >> thank you. i want to say i think i came to the first meeting on this when the stakeholders got together. it is interesting to hear those early discussions and see the legislation that really picks up the nuances and concerns of all the folks in the room. i will offer just a quick remark. in policing, in trying to control crime, we look at the victim, the perpetrator, and the location. from that, we can attack any one of those. we can spot issues in any of those three areas and and the crime pattern by either making a location safer, maybe spot a particular m.o. that leads us to a suspect or to educate the victims -- how to avoid becoming victims of a crime. on the issue of activating

parking lots around entertainment venues with staffing makes those parking lot safer. we get lots of information about car break-ins. the department supports the legislation. we have reviewed it. i think that the security measures talking about lights and cameras and mirrors are all good ideas and things we would recommend that currently i think are more ad hoc. for everybody in the industry, it seems the 800 parameters out there, it seems to verify with the obligations and responsibilities are. i am glad to answer any questions you may have. supervisor avalos: if you could just share with us -- what was the main input the police department gave in crafting this

legislation? what were the areas you wanted to address? >> activated areas are safe -- the main one would be activated areas are safe. it fills up, and the operator leaves, and it is gone for the rest of the evening. our concern was we felt that those should have an operator there to provide at least a sense of safety and keep it activated when the patrons are away. it is interesting -- at 2:00 when people are going home, there's lots of folks around, and maybe it is not as an unsafe at that time, but when it gets to be 2:30, to look up 45, we wanted someone still in the parking lot. if they are going to be releasing cars, we wanted someone in there. that was the main concern. second was the areas around the

parking lot where folks are walking to the -- from nighttime been used to the parking lots. we wanted some way to have -- increase both the sense of safety and a real safety in the areas near the parking lot, and i think those things are addressed in the legislation. supervisor avalos: superliner wiener -- supervisor wiener addressed the collaborative process in this legislation. could you address your role in the process? >> i think the first meeting was just 15 people in a room from the community -- members of the public, members of the -- sort of largesort ofgarage -- a large, corporate -- large, corporate garage owners.

the evolution of understanding the responsibilities we all had and how we could all work together on this. i thought it was a great collaborative process. so interesting to me to see it on the first day when people came in and work a little guarded about where it was going, and to see it designed in such a way -- even the chief's discretion to look at a place has not had a problem in two years -- it seems to address the needs and concerns of a lot of folks that were there on the first day. and i think we will be safer because of this legislation. i cannot think of a better, more collaborative process i have participated in. supervisor avalos: thank you. president chiu, the main sponsor of this legislation, can drill down into the specifics. supervisor chiu: it is it pretty simple piece of legislation. i have addressed many of the elements. this issue was brought to my attention by neighbors and

owners of various entertainment venues, and we did outreach to the various stakeholders, including parking lot operators. in addition to meetings here at city hall, we did have a number of public meetings at the small business commission with these issues continue to be vetted. in particular, the requirement or allowance for some level of discretion for the police department to determine if a parking garage or parking lot has had no history of criminal or other public safety incidences' within a rolling two-year time, that would allow for the waiver of some of these requirements, but the idea that every parking lot to have a security plan, and for those parking lots within 1,000 feet of an entertainment venue, that those specific venues insure that they have adequate lighting, adequate locking up of entrances and exits as well as a security guard until 3:00 a.m. -- this seemed like a good way

to balance the different issues we are trying to address. as always is the case with legislation, it is impossible to make everyone happy, but i think this legislation really tried to strike a good middle ground. supervisor avalos: just a question for the sponsor, and that is -- how does this legislation impact publicly owned garages, city-owned parking lot, and are we creating a standard that is shared between our publicly owned garages and our private lots? supervisor chiu: that is a good question. this is legislation to deal with commercial parking permits, but that said, it is - standing that with a lot of our public lots, we have a lot of security measures that are already part of this. i'm not sure, commander, if you have anything to add to that. supervisor avalos: i guess my

question is -- do we already have a lot of these measures in place in public lots that we want to apply to private lots? >> they tend to already be in large, commercial lots. mirrors' to look around corners, barriers, cameras, activation by employees the old time it is open. those tend not to be the problem areas. however, an assessment of security is a good idea no matter what. supervisor avalos: [inaudible] earlier time as well, right? >> excuse me? supervisor avalos: public lots close at an earlier time as well, then some of these public lots? >> that was our concern as well. they tend to fill up and leave the lot and basically wait for it to clear out and come back and do the same thing next day, but i guess to answer the question, the larger, commercial lots tend to have the security measures in place, and of the

800 lots in town, the smaller ones, the ones that are just vacant lots that have been paved over tend not to have them. previously, we have approached these things from a planning perspective. building inspection, fire department -- is it lighten up? what else could they do to make it safe? this goes a little farther and inspects how you get to safety. cameras, lighting, and the like. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor chiu: we also have another city staffer who is here representing the office of small business, unless there are any other questions for the police department. i like to thank the commander, as well as some of his folks who are here. unless there are questions, i would like to invite chris to say a few words on behalf of the small business commission and the conversation we had. supervisor avalos: thank you,

cmdr. i think this legislation has great value, and i thank you and your staff for crafting it. >> thank you, president chiu and supervisors. the small business commission held a hearing on this ordinance and voted to continue the ordinance to the february 13, 2012 meeting and presented a number of questions to the supervisor's office. at the february 13, 2012, meeting, the commission held a second hearing and voted 6-0 to recommend approval with the modification to be the chief of police the authority to waive the staffing requirement when the parking lot has no history of public safety issues in the previous two years. in making this recommendation, the commission found this ordinance was a pragmatic public safety step. the commission determined, though, that staffing requirements, which would mandate staff within 1,000 feet of an entertainment venue, could provide a hardship to somewhat.

especially those that do not cater to the entertainment-going crowd. in addition, many parking lots 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 attendants, and they also do not have the machines that you