restaurants would be able to benefit from that. i have as well as my colleagues have mixed use corridors that were sensitive to that and are always looking for a break and relief by the city that we can provide a benefit in a small business kind of way to give it a leg up especially over the downturn nationally, state, and locally. and we think we may have found that response to give them a foot in the door to be able provo vied some -- to provide some added enhancement to magnetize more business in a way that, one, the city would like to see greater compliance with and who establish and do not legally permit and still have entertainment anyway. and therefore causing law enforcement, entertainment commission, or our own offices to have to field complaints. and two, provide an

infrastructure that institutionalizes a regulated process that legitimizes what is part of an ongoing practice but not one that i think is certainly regulated or acknowledged. therefore, creating great confusion amongst the city, family, and law enforcement. and so by doing this, we think that we actually answer a larger question that has remained unanswered or at least unnoticed for a great many years. we've had conversations like the one that we are having with you here today with the small business commission who unanimously passed their recommendation for the legislation, as well as the entertainment commission, too. we have generally complied with the previous law put in place where there had already been permitted as of right for the larger establishments and respected the areas where there had been prohibitions in certain parts of san francisco, like in parts of south of market or in the west portal.

and i made it clear to the businesses in those districts and those vicinities of san francisco that if their supervisors, my colleagues, would like to see our legislation amended so that it could be amended in, then i am more than happy to do that and through that grass roots response, my colleagues who we originally did not include would like to be included in the legislation and this has been well vetted throughout the city and county of san francisco. and attached to that obligation and responsibility and making sure this is managed is sensitive to neighborhood needs and concerns of the residents who within ear distance of any particular business is our insistence there be the compliance with san francisco's ordinance and on noise and excessive noise. we will continue to -- well, we

will amend the legislation so it is completely reflective of the noise laws that are already in place. and that requires a small tweak which we'll do at the land use committee of the board of supervisors. but right now i have to tell you, we were surprised and thought this might be a little bit of a sleepy piece of legislation, but i have to tell you that there's been dozens, to put it lightly, of businesses, restaurants, and cafes who have come out of the woodwork where word has traveled well that this is in the queue for consideration by the consideration by city government. some representatives who were here earlier like miss ethridge and i know in north beach area and remy who owns mojo cafe and sodero. and these are the kind of places of all different sizes who found it very difficult to navigate

around really the high bar of cost in san francisco who really are eager to adopt this kind of law. we're very happy to comply. i would like to thank the entertainment commission, joycelyn compa joycelyn cane, for her good work in helping to build this legislation and reaching out to the community and the small business commission and my staff as well, too. and to the large and very decentralized merchant community through all of our 11 driks who have -- through the 11 districts who have and the our shoulder to weigh in on the legislation to refine it where we think it's a good piece of law that creates ap opportunity that there hasn't been before. more than happy to answer any questions. president olague: thank you. department and staff at this time. >> i'll wait. president olague: thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. sophie hayward, planning staff again.

i will try to summarize as briefly and thoroughly. what is outlined in the case is the way it is now and the way it would be. the way it is now, the police code defines entertainment broadly. and the planning code in turns treats any use that requires a place of entertainment permit as an entertainment land use. and entertainment land use cans not under any circumstances at this time be considered an accessory use. in practice what that means is that a restaurant with a live guitar is treated as the same manner as a warehouse rave with a d.j. for hundreds of people. regulations for entertainment uses vary between zoning districts. entertainment uses are permitted in some districts and are conditionally permitted in others and are not permitted in the third category of districts. with the proposed ordinance, the police code would be amended to create the limited live performance permit and the planning code would be amended

to allow entertainment uses that receive the limited live performance permit from the entertainment commission to be considered an accessory use. this opportunity would be available in areas of the city where entertainment uses are allowed, either as principle or conditional uses. i think what's most critical for you to consider and to remember is that the proposed ordinance includes very specific parameters for what may be considered a limited live performance. and as the supervisor summarized, that is essentially the area devoted to live performance is limited to 250 square feet. the live performance must be subordinate to the primary use. and the live performance permit is only available in specific areas of the city. the live performance is permitted until 10:00 p.m. during the first year and may be extended to midnight in subsequent years. d.j. performances are specifically excluded. and audible noise is not allowed

outsited of business when the doors and businesses are closed. and as noted before, as with any noise-producing activity in the city, the city's noise ordinance is in effect. once these parameters are confirmed, the limited live performance permit can be considered an accessory use. and then the second piece of the legislation involves the cost. the current places of entertainment permit fee is close to $1,700 if the application is for a location where entertainment is permitted as of right. if entertainment is only permitted with a conditional use, that is an additional $2,000 plus or minus in fees and with the new ordinance, the licensing fee would be $385 and no conditional use application fee associated with it. the planning department's recommendation is that the

planning commission recommend approval to the board of supervisors with modifications. the modifications of the planning department is that the westport and pacific avenue be included despite the fact right now entertainment as a primary land use is not permitted and the planning department also recommends that the use districts be included in the ordinance. as proposed t restrictions built into the limited live performance permit would prevent the accessory entertainment use from creating a disruptive noise nuisance and creates a wholly new and limited definition of entertainment that is inherently different from larger, potentially more disruptive forms of der tanment such as -- of entertainment such as concert venues. the department's position is

that the limited live performance is an appropriate mechanism to provide small-scale entertainment and neighborhood serving establishments. at this time planning staff has received five letters in support of the proposed ordinance including four letters from west portal merchants and one letter from a constituent within a district requesting that the districts be included and staff has received a single phone call in op stoigs the legislation as a whole. she asked me to let you know her name edith mcmillan. included in your pack set a leter from the small business commission and is here to speak as well. the small business commission voted unanimously to recommend the board of supervisors approve the ordinance with modifications with west portal avenue and be included and small business

association went further. and the district there and also voted to the board of supervisors. and i request that with the modifications and the permit and that concludes my presentation. president olague: thank you for that. and if you have anything to add or like to share with us. >> thank you. the director of office of small business. and i think what i want to add and express my appreciation to supervisor mirkarimi and the commission is around the cost of the fee and if you look at the map in the packet, the neighborhood commercial corridors and the place of entertainment is required conditional use and this the

areas we heard from most with the cafes wanting to have this and many of the businesses have talked about daytime music and not necessarily nighttime and sunday afternoons and weekend afternoons and that that perspective brought in and utilizing it. and also the entertainment commissi commission. >> good afternoon. joycelyn cane. the director of entertainment commission and discussed on 20th of june and to support the legislation. and enforcement the process

after the legislation if it is there. president olague: thank you. i have three speaker cards. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name the paul wormer. i have a letter i sent to supervisor mirkarimi's office way back at the beginning of the process addressing some concerns and i would like to have that entered into the record and distribute it to them. this when you look at frem mis, the -- when you look at the premise and the intent of the legislation, it is wufrl and there's strong support. when you look at the language that executes it, it ends up falling short in meeting the intent in many ways.

a significant issue is the visibility from the street requirement. we are talking about neighborhood commercial districts and active street fronts. and yet the language in the legislation requires that nothing be vizable from the street and doors and windows be closed so it is not audible. is that really what you want in a commercial and neighborhood district? this is not, as has been pointed out, a rave. this is where the entertainment should invite people in and right away we have the key piece in the legislation that contradicts that. and we requested they add a community liaison if there are problems for many of the conditional use programs and that is not part of the language. i am not sure why that is not something the entertainment commission would support. that helps reduce concerns.

we're concerned about the premise for extending hours of operation in the evening because what's permissible before 10:00 a.m. is not after 10:00 p.m. if i recall the noise ordinance and we're setting a test condition to extend it late when the test condition in the pre-10:00 p.m. is not an acceptable condition in the after 10:00 slot in many case. i think that is a weakness that really needs to be considered. and there is a lot of talk about supporting other types of activities, bookstores, art galleries, as mentioned in the preamble. are they going to be required to serve food? to have a poetry reading? it's not clear. the language suggests yes.

there are a lot of issues of that sort. we are extremely concerned about making a variety of entertainment permissible in areas where there's conditional use and i want to get back to the point on location, location, location. if you are on the ground floor of a multiunit building, the vibration through the build iin with noise is dramatic. i live next door to what has been a musical neighborhood -- [bell ringing] >> any other speakers who were called? not here? michael wagner. >> i am michael winger, president of the san francisco recording academy and the organization responsible for the grammy awards. we represent music kree yaytors and music professionals and feel this is incredibly beneficial to

some of the smallest businesses which is working musicians and will create jobs and more work for the communities. there is nothing that gives an area more local flavor than the local live musicians. and this legislation is incredibly important in allowing more people to perform music live legally. and music is a magnet of culture and brings people into the city and keeps people in the neighborhoods. and if we allow more music into more neighborhoods in a setting which is not necessarily loud rock shows but a great diversity of music that is currently unheard to have a place to perform will be incredibly powerful for san francisco as a city and keep musicians in town. we have lost a lot of the music community to east bay and other regions due to the expense of working and living in san francisco and with a permit that is low cost and allows

businesses that don't necessarily generate massive amounts of revenue to hire a flute player for a small afternoon brunch or a guitar player on the corner or a jazz band in north beach, all of these are music generas that have a difficult time finding places to be heard because of the cost for the venues. so we strongly support this and appreciate you taking the time to listen. commissioner miguel: thank you. alex walsh. >> i am here to represent the views of the musician team 6 and of the united states and canada and we represent approximately 1800 professional mu sooigss in the san francisco area from all walks of musical life include the symphony, ballet, and various regional and metropolitan orchestras and touring broadway showses and major retail theaters and sky

walker ranch, recording film, and video games, musicians who play for celebrity shows and more to the point of the legislation is musicians whose livelihoods come from working in the many restaurants, clubs, and cafes throughout the city. these are extraordinarily hard times for musicians. we constantly hear of orchestras filing for bankruptcy around the country and government support is virtually nonexistent and not keeping up with the capacity and business and what we do not often hear about is the last category that we mention and the club musicians who count on the availability of venues to piece together a living. what the local musicians and singers give is inmeasurable in enriching our lives and culture on a daily basis and live at a subsistence level. they need advocacy for the work. the union has little ip influence and regard the club mu

situations falling through -- the club musicians will be left out of the statutory benefits they have sought to make available. they need the city to provide incentives and live music districts and tax breaks for live as opposed to cancelled music and minimal restrictions on the ability to find venues to play. what they don't need are the high entertainment fees and which have a net effect of reducing the opportunities. and to support the legislation and restricting the venues and organizations and the burdens there and we need to expand opportunities for the musicians to live in our city to keep them here and attract the new talent to keep san francisco in the forefront of the destination and arts and entertainment and urge you to join us in restoring san francisco as a musician friendly

city and where musicians and singers can prosper and rely on the flourishing cultural can benefit and where both residents and visitors can enjoy the gifts musicians bring to our lives. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i appreciate your hearing this issue today. my name is scott kieper. i am on the business task planning force and the selma area is being considered to potentially expand allowing this permit into and i wanted to advocate on the s.l.i. districts that are not currently considered mix use and we are planning on allowing entertainment within the district and would be a natural extension of a trial with this form of permit. i think at the heart of sit a

lot of fantastic and wonderful ideas and fully supportive of it. and there are some of the concerns that the first speaker brought up that are points that can be massaged before the legislation is finalized and formed. i am hoping there is still some opportunities to engage with mr. mirkarimi's office and others working on this. and certainly regards to the independent arts category, it is off the grid and we have challenges and fire marshal occupancy ratings is out of reach in regards to those thick and i am not sure how to approach resolutions on those fronts. if this was allowed in the western selma area, it would last until the western plan is approved and then it would be negated based on the mixed use category being ruled out. and because i think what is now basically the s.l.r. is that it would be allowed in and the event would not be in that final form. i am hoping there is opportunities to change this.

certainly a lot of events and working on an accessory use classification similar to this but say, for example, does allow d.h.a.'s to be aware of the modern times that d.j.'s are not just about rave culture or large parties and there are many restaurants that we are trying to bring into compliance that have a d.j. providing music for a restaurant that is the more sound controllable than live bands. i am hoping there might be some further exploration of how that particular classification of entertainment can be brought into this code. so definitely along the sixth street m.t.c. corridor and many businesses feel they could use any leg up on creating an environment that attracts people to the area and is one positive step towards achieving that. in short t heart of this is fantastic as an as independent artist, i think it is ridiculous to have a performing permit to bring in a guitarist while

people are eating food and i understand permits are here and public safety is key and hopefully there will be a chance to massage more issues. and i would be happy to engage them how this affects western selma and include the s.l.i. also because it is slated to allow full entertainment permits. lastly, i really like us to look at the examples of the valencia which does allow entertainment for the full entertainment permit with a conditional use. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stefano costeloto and this is the city of live music and also a city for influgs, not exclusion. and i would like to see this ordinance adopted citywide. i want to thank supervisor mirkarimi for having the vision

and foresight to fill a void in which the definition of entertainment in san francisco for a long time is a broad definition. and what happened there is there was no tier that filled the void at the bottom where we have a lot of cafes, restaurants, art galleries that either were discouraged from offering music because they couldn't afford it for the permit process and to go through the process and then we had some calf fays -- cafes that felt they were taking a chance and now we have a level field where everybody can participate and contribute to the city. the other aspect is when the city had the dot com we lost a lot of the musicians to the east bay. now what's happening is unfortunate thing with that is we lost a lot of our soul. many of those musicians had to

reside in east bay and now we have an opportunity for more work, frequency of work, and businesses now that can offer a better experience, more value, and to be more competitive. people are looking for an experience and may want a coffee, but they also want to be entertained. i would support the legislation and am very grateful to the small business commission and everybody that participated in bringing it to this fomc. president olague: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner fong. commissioner fong: thank you. i am fully supportive of this legislation. and san francisco has a rich history of music and poetry and musicians and maybe just want to become a standup comic some day and perform many a cafe. i am also the uncle of someone who started out performing in these small little cafes and just finished a national tour sand on a budding career and i

think it is the starting grounds for a lot of folks. i want to hear from other commissioners prior to making a motion to the group. president olague: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i also think this is overdue. we have seen cases about smaller, less impactful type of music and it was ironic that others legendary for poetry readings couldn't legally do it amplified in a lot of venues throughout the town where they used to be when they were around. it is long overdue. i do think both mr. ki kuiper a mr. wormer brought up an interesting question and making the music not visible from the street and the window thing. i think that is right. i think it shouldn't be a requirement that it can't be visible. to have it more open would make a lot more sense because there is something appealing about seeing a guitarist playing somewhere and deciding to walk

in. you think about other cities in new orleans and places like that and think about music waiving from a restaurant and -- wafting from a restaurant and in terms of windows, i didn't see anything about windows, but particularly during hours where music -- where a noise ordinance is more liberal, you should haven't to close the windows on a warm day to keep your entertainment noise in. i don't know if anybody wanted to comment further on that. >> thank you, commissioners. supervisor mirkarimi. i quite agree and i think there is a little bit of a gray interpretation of whether there would be a requirement of having closed windows or not. that was borrowed from old legislation that the deputy city attorney had put into our law and questioned the necessity of that. but that is something that we have also spotlighted and i would go ahead and correct that to make sure that indeed would be mandated. >> great. and would you also upgrade it vizable from the seat that seems

feasible. >> absolutely. i think we are just looking for that sweet spot of making sure we are sensitive to the surrounding residents in the area and staying in accordance with all the laws that protect their particular interest, but at the same time we don't want to overregulate where it subverts the very intent of the law. commissioner borden: absolutely. and this is great. and such a lack of a lot of cafes being able to have a full schedule of poetry readings or whatever. and we feel like we see that a lot now. and not as much in san francisco and because of the lack of affordability of these permits. it is kind of ridiculous that you would have to get a full entertainment permit which is kind of ridiculous to coming to the planning commission and smoe months and hours time. and i would move to approve and with the staff modifications and add the additional modification

that we strike -- recommend they strike the lack of visibility from the street and also make sure that language related to the windows be that as long as it is within the permitted noise hours and the proposal of the noise ordinance, that windows could be open. it shouldn't be that people are suffocating ip side the venues. president olague: commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: i would like to thank supervisor mirkarimi for this legislation. unfortunately or fortunately, commissioner borden brought me back too many years. i was actually there when ginsburg and cariwack were reciting poetry to the accompaniment of music. it was san francisco. and aside from that, i have really only one question. and i was con