>> director cain is shaking her head no. >> and she's correct. >> good. thank you. how many venues -- how many folks have already contacted you? can you give me some sort of idea how -- >> our office specifically? >> well, give me a big, big number. >> our understanding from the shawl business office and from jocelyn is that scores of people have contacted them. we don't have a -- we haven't been creating a tally. i think it's been estimated that somewhere near 100 people have come to either our office or the small business office or jocelyn. and has said that they are interested in presenting some type of limited performance at their venue. but we -- specific count, i can't give you. er >> already. say we sort of set aside the

notion that this is a folk singer in a cafe. >> well, let me be clear about that. this very clearly states that entertainment is an accessory use and it's not the primary use and it's live and it's limited until 10:00 or less. so it is modest and it is limited. and it is an akcessory use so both singers and guitar players are a part of that, yes. >> i have a question. would it be accurate to say that a heavy metal band in a bar next door to a buddhist meditation center would also be permitted under this legislation? >> if the heavy metal -- let's see, if the business came before you and said, we plan to have heavy metal bands and by the way we're located next a buddhist temple and you approved of it under whatever conditions you wanted to make and the heavy metal band was required to stay

within 200 square feet of the venue and met all the other limitations and restrictions that are part of this permit, then yes. >> ok. that's the reality check that i wanted to get home here. is we're not just talk about the folk sing ner the cafe, we're also talking -- >> no -- >> next door to the buddhist meditation center. >> it comes before your commission and you believe it's appropriate in that venue. >> we don't have discretion. we only have a set of rules. the planning commission has a lot of discretion with regard to conditional use cases and that was the next subject i wanted to talk about. >> you would have some -- i'm sorry to interrupt you. you do have some discretion in modifying what the permit is and asking questions about what the por ported use is. >> but we can't tell them where they're allow -- whether they're allowed to have a folk singer or

a heavy metal band. >> creb. but you do have the ability to modify the time of the permit and the extent of it through this permit process. you do have that. >> ok. let's talk a little bit about conditional use. i fully understand any place in the city where entertainment is a permitted use, go for it. makes total sense to me. they have -- addressed those issues. everybody is living with it. i don't think you need to have to go back and reinvent the wheel. but in the case -- conditional use is awfully important to the neighborhoods. it is their last legitimate chance to be heard. the planning commission has a huge amount of discretion with regard to conditional use authorizations. they have a standard to judge whether a new venue is necessary

or desirable. that's pretty loose. and they can say, look, here, 100 neighbors are lined up. they don't -- they argued some very good reasons why this should not be allowed and they can say, no, it is within our disdrotion say it's in the a good idea that location. we can't. so what are you going to say? i've heard from a lot of neighbors about this, the fact that you're taking away their conditional use rights by this and they don't even get a trip to the planning commission. they come straight here where all we can really do is come up mitigations and that's not the same level of input as the planning commission can use to consider. 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 somebodyho