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 entrances the civil rights ordinance. it was at the time that we first came before the board of supervisors, and subsequently, this body, on march 1. will have liked to show our deep appreciation to each of you for your brave leadership and this unified stance for passage. and to ensure the protection of the diverse community whose members are against police harassment and excess of policing. they have long struggled to create policies that ensure our right to speak, organize, practice our religion, and work free of fear from law enforcement. there is still so much work to be done, and we come before you today to ask of you continue standing with us by endorsing the new compromise ordinance

that we have successfully negotiated with the mayor's office. it comes as a disappointment that the mayor chose to override, and we need the board to continue to stand up strong to ensure that not only the original version is there, but even stronger protections against racial profiling. the coalition views the compromise ordinance as a strong step forward to secure the dignity and rights of the citizens. we look forward to the passage of this legislation and continue to work with our allies with your valuable support. this includes full and implementation and strong civilian oversight.

the way, our rights won't be trampled on future government that target immigrants and people of color. a the city of san francisco doesn't go toward this type of profiling and harassment. >> i am the staff attorney at the asian law caucus, a member of the coalition for safe and francisco. i wanted to thank the supervisors for their opportunity to discuss the support of the ordinance before you today, had to discuss the major differences that came before you on march 1. racial and religious profiling, secrecy in a transparency. the mayor's office contacted us because there was an aspect of

the organs they did not support but they want to consider and respond to the community concerns. we worked with the mayor's office to develop the compromise ordinance before you today. like the one that came before you, it accomplishes three of the major goals. headdresses racial and religious profiling and by requiring application of the stake in san francisco laws. it requires future agreement to be submitted for review before they are entered into, and that addresses oversight and accountability by requiring reporting of the joint terrorism task force. there are couple of differences in between the original and the compromise ordinance. it highlighted specific provisions of laws that we believe the fbi would work to frustrate. the laws apply under the new ordinance, but they are not specifically highlighted. it will have to work to make

sure the fbi understands those limitations. it affirmatively require that the police commission be the body that approved or disapproved future agreements. it is neutral on the body that is affirmatively required to approve or disapprove. the existing relationship between the police commission and the police department on this particular point, we believe it does a good job of addressing our goal. the mayor has shown his support for articles and our community. the are co-sponsors of the compromise legislation. he we plan to work closely with the police commission, the community, and other stakeholders.

>> a good afternoon. i am of pastor at bayview hunters point. i am proud to work with this collision, and the compromise ordinance. i'm aware of the hard work that is been put in their, and having worked in the bayview hunters point community for the past 20 years, i am aware that it has been isolated for decades. and one bad day in, the isolation does, they isolate the community from the main screen, and we misunderstood. people in general have a

tendency to fear someone or something, policies that they don't understand. we are not opposed to the fbi, the san francisco police working together to bring about safety in san francisco. but as we all know, san francisco is a multi-cultural community. it is probably the understatement of the year. being that we are also multicultural of different religions and different people from all over the world, if they are going to be isolated, it is very difficult for the main screen to understand them. like to commend the board of

supervisors for compromising and excepting this compromise ordinance for the betterment of all of the citizens of san francisco. we don't have to be disagreeable, and at the same time, we can respect one another. i think this is what the hard work has brought about so we can close some of the cracks of the existing in our system, just like any other system. >> a couple weeks ago, there was a demonstration in front of city ha in denouncing the murder of trayvon martin. a lot of people part of the demonstration went across the street to take part in the

prayer service at a demonstration that was going on in the muslim community that was going across the way. if you were one of the folks that were there, i appreciate the show of unity and the connection between the communities that are facing oppression as well. were you one of the persons there? >> yes. when i attended both. i like the coalition taking place, but with any coalition, the police and fbi, it has to be a memorandum of understanding. we have to understand where one another are coming from. i would like to leave with you this, i learned that 18 years old. it was written about 100 years

ago. i am glad when i need a man who is white. because everybody has color and color is all right. i am glad when i meet a man who is black and simply understands that fact. i am glad when i meet a man of any color that simply understands that is character and not color that makes the man. >> i am with the local 87, representing the janitors. one of the great things about being at the helm of local 87 and treasurer is that i have to be able to represent a very strong and united community that is within our district. i want to be able to thank the

supervisors for being able to take a position and being able to speak for the community. i think compromises are difficult, but sometimes they are necessary in order for both sides to be able to achieve the united goal. in speaking on behalf of our members, i want to be able to thank you being able to maintain your position, and i respect the mayor for having made sure that he was able to bring both sides to the table. we strongly support this legislation, and i hope that in the year, after we have been able to see this under station -- all the different sides would