Board approves parking-lot security rules, keeps employee-conviction declaration after divided vote

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on May 1 approved an ordinance amending the Police Code to require commercial parking garages and lots to submit security plans with annual permit applications and meet minimum nighttime security requirements for lots within 1,000 feet of entertainment venues.

The legislation requires enhanced lighting and on-site security personnel through 3 a.m. for qualifying lots. The board passed the main body of the ordinance on a unanimous roll call during the meeting’s consent/adoption sequence, and then voted separately on a contested subsection that would require applicants to provide a list of employees and a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, certifying that in the preceding 10 years certain named crimes were not committed by those employees. That subsection passed on the separate roll call by a narrow margin; the chair announced the provision "stands."

The measure’s sponsor and co-sponsors framed it as a public-safety step to address violence associated with patrons leaving late-night entertainment venues and gathering in nearby, often-unmanned parking lots. The ordinance allows the police chief to waive some requirements for lots with a good safety record and clarifies the focus is on nighttime hours.

Several supervisors pressed for changes to the subsection on employee convictions. Supervisor John Avalos proposed dividing the file so members could vote separately on the sentence requiring the employee-conviction declaration; he said he would support the ordinance in general but opposed that sentence because it could conflict with the city’s reentry and hiring goals for people with criminal records. Supervisor David Campos and Supervisor Kim also raised concerns that the declaration could exclude otherwise qualified workers and cited local businesses that have hired and succeeded with employees who have prior convictions.

Board President Chu (presiding) explained that the contested sentence originated in earlier Police Code language and that the crimes enumerated are mostly those involving vehicles or vehicle-related theft and tampering. He said the requirement felt "a bit onerous" and that the item had been duplicated so the Public Safety Committee could revisit the language. President Chu said he preferred to move the ordinance forward and work with the police department and the committee to find a balanced alternative language that would not create an absolute bar to employment.

After the split votes, the board directed staff and committee members to continue discussions in Public Safety to consider amendments that would preserve public-safety protections while addressing reentry and employment concerns.

A separate committee review and possible revision was discussed as the next step; the presiding officer said the city attorney had advised that any substantive text changes (beyond dividing and voting on the sentence) would require referral back to committee.

Ending: The ordinance will take effect consistent with the City’s process for newly passed Police Code amendments; the board asked staff to return with committee work on alternative language for the employee-conviction requirement.