so is there anything in this or anything you talked about that might give the neighbors something more to hold on to than simply doing over mitigations? >> it's interesting, we haven't gotten those kinds of responses from neighbors. we haven't heard from one person who has had that concern. but there is a 30-day neighborhood notification as part of this application process. the application goes through a planning department review. it goes for a hearing at your commission. and there is enforcements as i said in your materials and as i have described the permit can be modified, taken away, limited, restricted based on what actually occur there is. we don't -- we didn't believe -- we come -- >> posting -- >> i'm sorry? >> by 30-day notification, do you mean a posting or a mailing?

>> i believe it's a posting. is that correct? >> ok. accessory use. that leads to my last comment on that. accessory use generally applies to something someone having a beauty parlor in their home and the law restricts them to using 25% of their home space. it can't be any bigger than that. so that the primary purpose of that building is a home and -- ru sure, i understand. >> and the conditional use is beauty parlor. >> sure, i understand. >> and the form of

entertainment, it's difficult to say that even if it's on a stage that it's only -- what is it? 25 by -- >> 200 square feet. >> ok. a 200 square-foot stage, you're not confining the entertainment to 200 square feet. the entertainment bounces off all the walls and out the front door that's -- unless somebody tells them to close it. so again, you know, i think, you know i'm positive about this, i have good feelings about this working in general but it's the unintended consequences that i'm talking about tonight and that i'm just hoping stays in the conversation as this goes to the planning commission and then goes through committee and thin through the full board, the

unintended consequences. so in the case of the principle use being a bar, a bookstore, a laundry mat, i don't see any serious problems butt in a lot of these neighbors a bar is a principally permitted use but your average bar that does not have a place of entertainment permit would have the option of getting this limited permit. >> correct. >> principle purpose of a bar is entertainment or drinking or, you know, along those lines. i don't see this being accessory by the rule of law to that use. >> well, if a bar currently doesn't have live performance, the primary use of that bar is not live performance. and it will continue not to be the primary use of that bar, the primary purpose of that bar with this permit. >> but the primary purpose of

the live performance permit is entertainment. we don't need to, you know, to -- to -- to, you know, take the words apart here. the purpose of it is entertainment. and so you have a bar where the purpose is entertainment. if you wanted to add an accessory use for which purpose is also entertainment and that doesn't pass the smell test. that's not accessory. >> well, these are -- they're sort of subjective definitions and they're also sort of academic. it depends what bar you're talking about. some bar's purpose is not quote/unquote entertainment. there are certain people that go to bars to do whatever you do in bars. i don't want to engage in a discussion about this with you -- >> but the purpose of the drinking is to entertain yourself. >> then that's a bit of a subjective definition, i would

suggest. but the bottom line is that places that are not allowed, it could be a bar. currently, their primary purpose sp to serve drinks. that will still be -- or had a television or had, you know, whatever they currently had, that's their principle use. with this permit, they will still have that principle use as reviewed by your commission, you'll find out what the principle use is and you'll have that well established and whatever live performance they're proposing will be reviewed by you and you'll have to determine that it's the accessory use. >> and -- >> and not the primary use. >> right. ok. and i'm close to wrapping up, folks. if you could just bare with me. and we find this frequently, the place of entertainment when people come before us, but frequently they say, oh, yeah, we just want to put new a --

>> sure, i understand. sure. >> we just want to have folks there. they try that out for two or three weeks. it doesn't do any good at all. so they flip their business plan and three weeks from now they have marching bands or heavy metal bands or you name it. the same thing could happen with this as well where it -- in the case of a bookstore, an art gallery, a cafe or a restaurant, i don't see thea becoming a problem. but in the case of a bar, i see it becoming a mini nightclub or a place of entertainment. and yet, the total cost for this permit is $350. is that correct zph -- is that correct? >> 350 or in that range. 350 and then another -- >> $ 385. as opposed to the cost of entertainment and the reason the cost of entertainment is so much

higher is because of the cost of handling the permits and enforcing the permits and because of all the work that vage has to do on following up on anybody's complaints and taking some readings and going through hearing processes and things like that. so i would also have some question as to whether the cost for this live performance permit, if it were to be in a bar, would be not nearly enough to cover the cost of enforcement. i know that's just -- it's a matter of opinion. but i'm talking about unintended consequences. and in some areas this -- >> commissioner, as a point of clarification here -- >> could have things that we're not -- just talking about

unanticipated consequences. last question -- where do you live? >> where do i live? >> intersection, cross street? >> why are you asking? >> because i'm wondering if this permit would be permitted next door to you. >> it would not because i don't live in the neighborhood commercial corridor. >> ok. and what about supervisor mirkarimi? >> yes, i believe it would. >> it would -- ok. >> i believe so. >> ok. then he would be our canary in the coal mine, i guess. and director cain, would this apply next door to you? >> no, sir. >> and colleague, if i could have a show of hands. how many of you live in neighborhoods where this permit could apply next door to you? >> immediately next door? >> no. next door to you. >> no, i done think there could be any marching bands nokse me. >> i live on alabama.

you tell me. >> yeah. >> then that's a yeah. >> so we have one or two. >> ok. you're in a neighborhood commercial corridor? >> pretty close. >> well, i said next door to you . >> commissioner -- >> ok. that's one of my comments. but i am us a -- i understand that everyone in san francisco is all for entertainment, all for a good time, all for a 24-hour party as long as it's in someone else's neighborhood. so would you please take that message back to the supervisor? >> of course. >> questions for the -- >> i just have one -- >> we do have the right to set amplification. we do have the right to say, you can only have one speaker. you can only have a 25-watt amp.

we do have that discretion. >> your question's a good one. i think this commission has the discretion as we now set the levels in night clubs. we have the discretion to limit am -- amplification. so if someone's going to bring in a heavy metal band and that wouldn't go very far no matter how far they played. >> i would like to have an opinion from the city attorney at the next meeting on that because i find that reasonening dubious. >> yes. i guess i'd like to know if this is something that we should put in the actual legislation or if this is something that we should rule on while we're here because if it's from a neighborhood standpoint wattage and sound is going to freak everyone out. so you know, it's just kind of

snag needs to be addressed. as well as kind of just penalties i think would be a good idea. if this is a privilege for these businesses to have and we're sitting here bringing the supervisors in and the small business commission in to put all this time and effort in that they should be able to know what the penalties are if they choose to go further with this. and i think that if they know that, they'll have to try to stay, you know, inbounds because obviously with vage and enforcement, it will be nearly impossible to cover all the green -- all the green on this map with one person. so if you're going to open this up with everybody, how is he going to do that? so i think, you know, having a strict policy for what, you know, penalties are if it's a $350 permit that it's a $350 fine if you violate it in some sort of way that we deem, or that you all deem, you know, the issue.

>> and you'd be interested in having those more explicitly stated? >> i do. >> i feel this is something that's going to be a complete city thing that's going to affect thousands and thousands of people that aren't going to want this next door to them. so if they are going to have a next door and they want quiet and peace, if they're going to have an amplifyier, you know, that's low enough to not even hear if you live upstairs and live next doors then so be it. >> we welcome recommendations, you know, on specific language in the application process. i want to point this out. i think you're aware about it. the math that we showed represents the existing place of entertainment, you know that? >> yes. >> we're not adding thousands of people where currently you cannot get permits that already has a place of entertainment permit.

i just want to make sure. >> ok. >> i think this is great. >> ok. thank you. >> commissioner? >> i guess i have a lot more thought than i did at the start of the conversation. some good and not so good. >> i appreciate the commissioner's point about us having the discretion to limit the type of amplification. but that really only makes sense if we know beforehand exactly what type of music they're going to provide. and we can do that preliminarily but that would be a restriction on bringing in another different type of entertainment. if we don't limit it and they bring in amplified music there's really no noise like night clubs have a limitation. you can't hear any sound outside the building. here, if someone plays amplified music and the windows are open,

they're not in violation. if you can hear the noise outside, regardless of how loud, they're not immediately in violation. how would somebody violate this? >> can you clarify that because i thought the ordinance says that they can emmit the sound outside -- >> that they cannot? >> yes. >> i don't know. if the sound should not be heard outside, if the windows and doors are closed, trying to allow for a circumstance in which someone wanted to have an open window in the way you hear music piked outside of a restaurant currently -- oh, sure, absolutely. >> in regards to the discussion around that, i think, again, sort of allowing the commission to have criteria is that if we're looking at sunday brunch daytime use, it's a warm day, having the windows open is

likely not going to be an interference with the neighborhood. but if you're talking maybe about 10:00 at night, then, you know, that's why we said that it should not be audible in our discussion around creating that definition audible and when the doors and windows are shut. because again, we're from -- a lot of the businesses that we talk to, their interest is in daytime -- you know, daytime, you know, before 7:00 p.m. use. >> i fully appreciate that. but the way i read this, if music's being performed -- if music's being performed and the windows are open, now we can hear music on the street. the only way we'll know if someone's noncompliant with that level of amplification. we close the windows and you can't hear the music. but it's almost like, it's like if the violation occurs an we test for it. where it's

>> can clear for a nightclub when they're in violation if you can hear anything on the street, then they're in violation. the music's heard on the street is the only way we test for that and closing the windows and seeing if it's too loud. am i reading this wrong? >> yes. but the 10:00 p.m. is sort of the benchmarker and again with nightclubs, you're talking about a time of day where, you know, it's a -- a lot of people are still asleep with the 10:00 in terms of from our commission and discussions from our perspective is we're talking most -- a great amount of use, you know, ex-september with bars prior to 10:00 p.m. and the other point i want to bring up is especially with our cafes and our restaurants, these businesses require that people

come back and purchase their business of what their business model is. they want them back when they're not having the accessory music. so to upset the neighbors and the residents is not going to be a successful business model for them. >> yeah, i think the concern is with successful business is with failing businesses who try to increase their bottom line by bringing in live music. and you know, the business of a bar, i mean, you can say the business is entertainment. our business is selling alcohol. no matter what type of entertainment you have, if you don't sell enough alcohol, you're not in business. it's selling alcohol and food regardless if you have entertainment or not. i'll let it go. but i just think some of the definitions here regarding noise and accessory use, maybe it's impossible to define. i think the intention behind the

legislation is terrific. i think there are some definitions that we can't write around and i guess the proof is going to be in the pudding. and we can do what we can as a commission to address things, you know, at the outset but we're really living it -- i don't really -- i think this legislation is a great idea. i'm certainly not going to do anything, you know, -- anything to stop it from going through. but i see some problems. >> ok. i appreciate that. i recognize that in a situation like this a piece of legislation can't account for every possible outcome but i think i can safely speak for supervisor mirkarimi, we'd be interested in any input and any specific suggestions, we'd be happy to hear it. >> hi. with respect top the definition of minimal level of live music,

does that mean it's not that fine -- is there a way when people apply for it so it does not cross over the threshold. >> where are you talking about? >> minimal level -- >> limited -- >> limited level -- >> yeah, limited. >> how many people does that mean? >> how many people who are performing or how many people in the venue? >> how many people are performing. >> the limitation on per mormmanses is the two major limitations are the amount of space that it can occupy in any venue. and the time limitation, the 10:00 p.m. time limitation and that it would be live music. those are really the three -- >> it's limited in that group of performing artists necessarily.

>> not specifically, no. >> so they can have a 50-person choir? >> if they're all really skinny or children or something, yeah. we did what we could to accommodate what we thought was a reasonable amount of space and did not go with a percentage because a percentage would really vary depending how big the venue was and that was impossible to do. if we said 10% and the place was 1200 square feet, that would be pretty big. you know what i mean? we had to go towards something that would accommodate a relative amount of people. >> but they think it would accommodate 3-5 at the most? >> correct. i mean would co map it out but it's not a lot of space. >> we're welcome to take suggestions if you is a suggestion about that issue, please forward it to our office.

>> anything else? >> yeah -- >> do you have a question? >> i just want to make a comment to ms. andriesi. i have grave concerns about whether we could punitively limit any location to a little tiny speaker or only one speaker or anything like that because i would think that they would have mr. reny have us and the board of appeals in no time flat at all because we're limiting a first amendment-protected right, entertainment. we have no discretion other than what the legislation gives us. so if the legislation does not set a sound standard for us other than this thing about can't be audible outside if you

close the doors and the windows, if the doors and windows are open, it doesn't say anything about how much -- how loud it can be. so, you know, you're sort of grasping at the straws. and there's nothing that tells people to just do this music for brunch, nothing that tells them that you can't do it right up until 10:00. 9:59.99. >> right. but i think from the conversations that we have had with businesses what they're saying that they'd like to see is a sunday brunch. the restaurant is right before 7:00 p.m. when it's slow to bring in more people. but once it hits 7:00 p.m. and they're in their full throw of serving the restaurant, i've talked to many restaurants, they're not going to do the music at that time. >> nothing in this legislation

tells you to do it just -- >> right. and i think from our perspective, our concept from working with this particular model of legislation and permit is to be able to allow some flexibility for the business to be able to use this as an accessory use to fit its particular business model. and that's what they have to come and present to you and for you to question them to make sure that they're going to be the good neighbors, they're going to keep it as an accessory use. they're not going to let the music be audible outside. you know, business is starting to build in a sound system, and that's part of what's in their business model, then that's probably a question that the director's probably going to be having with the business like is this going to be an accessory use or are you planning in more to a place of entertainment.

>> let me repeat the statement that i wanted to make to you. we have no discretion other than what the legislation gives us. the director cannot excercise her personal feelings about this. she cannot lean on them to do something that the legislation does not address. you know, we had a lot of trouble with this when the police department controlled the permitting process because they blatantly violated the rights of entertainment venues left and right. they could call somebody in behind closed doors and threaten them and initiate a whole series of things which eventually put some of them out of music -- out of business, i mean. and so the reason for our very existence is that we follow the letter of the law. and if it's not in the law, we can't do it. >> and -- and -- and you have -- and upon the passage of this

there will be two different permits of which then, you know, just like the planning department will ask -- we will ask somebody who's planning to open up a restaurant. is your restaurant more of a definition of a full service, a self-service? what's your business model? and then based upon their business model will make the determination of what is the permit that they need to apply for. and also the -- this is an accessory use. so if it's a new business just like with the cafe, side walk table and chairs, that business, getting this permit should not be incumbent upon that business being able to open and operate. this is something that can come later. and that will provide a distinct definition of whether a place is wanting to be a place of entertainment or wanting to have limited live performance as an accessory use. >> ok. thank you.

ok. now i'd like to hear from the public. we have four speaker cards. i'll call them and then if additional people would like to address the subject, we welcome that. we ask you to limit your comment to three minutes. the first speaker would be mr. ben fry. i'm sorry? >> good, evening. how are you doing today? thanks for having me. my name is ben fry as you know. i live at 601 minnesota street down in the dog patch district. and we have a big problem with a club called kokomos, loud. 2:00 in the morning, sometimes a little later. the crowd itself, they have a big party planned this sunday the 3rd from 3:00 in the afternoon to 2:00 in the morning. the windows and doors will be open. it will be extremely loud. we would like someone to ranch

et them down -- ratcet them down. because i live across an open parking lot alley where we're no more than 90 feet apart. windows are open. >> ok. mr. fry, actually if you coordinate with this gentleman sitting right over there, i'm sure he'll be more than happy to monitor their sound limb. but today -- this item is to call the item we've just been discussing. >> ok. >> ok. >> thanks a lot. >> we're glad to work with you and resolve your problems. ok. next speaker, is mr. sefano canselato. >> good evening. commissioners. san francisco is a place deemed for live music. and the definition of live music and entertainment for years has

been very broad. so there's been a big void. i want to thank the commissioners. i want to thank the small business commission. i want to thank all the authors who authored -- the supervisors who authored this legislation because now a void can be filled. what it's going to do is make businesses more economically sustainable and encourage people to -- to create jobs for the people who want to sing or play an instrument. i mean, years ago we lost a lot of people when it was a dot com. a lot of people had to leave the city because it was too expensive. i also want to reiterate what supervisor wiener said about inclusion, this was a city of inclusion not exclusion. so i think it needs to be citywide to be able to offer this. i think commissioners micko,

roja and benetti made some valid points. 95% of the point things are usually fine. it's for that 5% that push the envelope. i'm in full support of legislation until 10:00. i think we need to put some safeguards if they're not in place for management of noise when it's 11:00 or 12:00 and maybe some timetables because we're venturing into some new territory. it's hard to go back when somebody has a permit in their hands. but overall, i'd like to see this on a fast track but at the same time make sure those safeguards are in place so we don't have to, you know, we should look at it more closely. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. fernando salazar. are you going to play the accordion? >> yes.