need a motion to make a change. regardless of who is the president now -- if we ended with bylaws, we say three years, it will be that way until we change it. >> just for history, the bylaws were written in the first year of this commission. 2003-2004. at the time, it was very new. nobody really knew what to expect, being a new regulatory agency. there were reps from the neighborhood and from entertainment. in order to make sure that nobody got into a big brawl here, the bylaws were written to stop that. i think that because seats have changed on this commission so often, lots of commissioners are

brand new and don't have the experience that is important to have someone sitting in the chair to set the agenda and runs the meeting that is somewhat experienced. so, i think three years is a good amount of time to do it. should it still matter what sector it is? that is the other thing i wanted to think about. there are two commissioners that represent entertainment. two represent the neighborhoods. one law enforcement. one urban planning. one public health. i am not so sure that we should even leave the sector part in. i think my idea is to move it to three years and a strike what sector it is. >> when you say strike the sector, do you mean allowing anyone --

>> right, so if there was another -- commissioner newlin represents law enforcement. let's say there was another law- enforcement commissioner. he would not be able to run for president because this commissioner has been president and has been law-enforcement. i think we have good commissioners no matter what their constituencies are. we shouldn't just say, every sector has to have a chance. i think a commissioner that is good at running a meeting in setting the agenda, no matter what his constituency is, should have a chance. if i were to move to change this, that could be might change. >> ok. the only other contextual comment is that i believe that this point, every commissioner has a four-year term. >> correct. >> does that make sense with respect to -- if three years

makes sense to respect to someone's four-year term? it is not their entire term. >> that would be fine. >> they can step down any time. >> of course. >> we handcuff you. >> there is an annual rate -- election requirement. >> there is an annual election? we would have to reelect every year? >> yes, we do that now. >> i am inclined to go with audrey's 3 years and no sector. i think everybody here, it is -- they are capable if they want to do it. what do you think? >> i don't know. i don't agree. i would say that the reasons i don't agree is that, although i

don't have some much of a problem with a three-year thing, but changing the sectors, i think it would be good to make sure we don't have two entertainment reps -- talking about reps, president and vice president? >> no. we're only talking about president. >> in other words, if the polish representative for to step down, he would have to be replaced by someone else, other than if there were -- other than the other sector? >> right. anybody should be able to hold the position of the chair in spite of what their constituency is. it is their capability to chair this commission and not what their representation is. i have been the president of this commission three times, i

think, total. i think it is the ability to run a meeting, to keep us on track, to set the agenda. i think that is what a chair does. i think that position should not be hampered by what sector they represent. it should be based on their ability to do the job. >> i agree with that on principle. we are in political positions. i think already people feel like everyone of us probably is somehow connected to the entertainment industry, whether or not we are. there could be a scenario where you have the entertainment rep be the chair because they're the most capable, or because they're the most aggressive, or because they're the most whatever. and that is where it gets slippery. i hear you. it is based on merit. we want to be sure we are equal

here, the merit of being able to run the meeting. i think that was built in to try to protect that politics. we have not seen a jens -- yet. i imagine if there were different people here -- >> you have to remember that, it is what audrey said, it is more in line with running the meetings. in terms of what happens here, i would like to think we all work together, not dividing into -- i think there was some of that originally in the commission, as you alluded to. i saw some of that. i think it has dissipated. we all work together for a common goal. we all have one vote. it does not really matter who is the president. he cannot control something that other people don't want. >> in addition, everyone can be nominated. it is a majority vote.

we all get to vote. anyone can be nominated. in the case of keeping the sectors in place, if an entertainment commissioner was someone representing entertainment was the president, then another entertainment commissioner could not be nominated because that sector was taken. that other person might be incredibly qualified and could not run. i just think that is a bad reason to disqualify someone. >> i think if we're going to look that, i think there needs to be something -- because it is 50 plus one. >> four votes out of seven. >> i think we would have to increase it and make it harder. if that person truly is qualified, they should get five

votes. if it is a person falling. if it is an entertainment representative following another entertainment representative, they have to get five instead of four votes. >> that is called a super majority. that is really interesting. i don't agree. that is it. i think all of the little petty stuff that goes on here is gone. >> it may come back. just because it is not here now -- my biggest concern is just because it is not here now, hopefully the commission will go on being the same body that it is, working together, but we don't pick the commissioners. there could definitely be a position where, you know come in the future, then maybe is not -- >> regardless of sectors, if there's somebody you don't want to see in a position, you don't

vote for them. if this doesn't work, we can revisit it and amend it. if we see it is going in a way. i don't see it going that way. >> i agree. i don't see it going that way, either. >> we should think of ourselves as one unit and not sectors. i think that is divisive. >> i agree. it is divisive for sure. >> to that, i would like to make a motion that we amend the bylaws with a presidency election every year in july, and that the presidency is move from two years to three years, and that the sectors are dropped. that is my motion. >> i second that.

>> calderon. >> can i ask a clarifying question? the term limit is three years. you basically renew every year? >> the most you can do is three years, but you have to be elected every year. >> there is a chance that we could -- >> if we have a really bad president, and he does not automatically get three years. a term as one year. >> this allows you to renew to vote for that same person for three years consecutively, where that was not the case. as it stands, you cannot do that. >> right. if it is a bad share, we vote them out. somebody else takes it. that is the power of the vote in democracy, right? >> i have a motion and a second. further discussion?

commissioner tan? commissioner tan: i don't know. >> i don't think that is an option. commissioner tan: no. commissioner lee: aye. president newlin: aye. commissioner hyde: no. >> that does not pass. >> i would like to move to extend the term limit to three years, but i am happy to revisit this notion of what should we have it be, kind of not from the same industry, i just need more time to think about it. i'm happy to move that forward. with the idea that we can hopefully revisited. >> when? when revisit it?

>> next meeting? >> you want oa -- a bylaws chane has to be posted for how long? >> we posted a 10 days in advance for this meeting tonight. to have an additional change would require another 10-day notice. i don't know. you can clarify, commissioner joseph, if you wanted to have this discussion sooner. commissioner joseph: i feel we are making a change to the bylaws, we should discuss it now. it is on the agenda now. talk about it now. if we're going to move to vote on it in the next meeting, if we don't like it, we will do it at the next meeting, it makes us look a little silly. >> i would also like to move it tonight. if we have not reached a decision, i would like to hear

what commissioner perez as to say. >> i'm ok with that. >> is there a new motion on the floor? including a continuance? >> sure. i move to continue until the next meeting. >> second. >> all right. commissioner tan: yes. commissioner lee: ok. commissioner joseph: aye. commissioner hyde: aye. president newlin: aye. >> all right. any public comment on that? i hope not. [laughter] ok. >> hi. you think this will be easy? when the planning department went through the president, but presidency, they elected someone who was just appointed to be

vice president. i'm not saying they made a bad choice. what i would say is this. i think whoever is nominated for president should serve at least one year on the board so they have some seasoning. that way -- i see new commissioners when they come in. they're good people, but there is a learning curve to this. i would say that whoever wants to be president, they have to least serve one-year on the board because -- before they're eligible for that position. that is all. >> thank you. all right. item number six. hearing and possible action regarding applications for permits under the jurisdiction of the entertainment commission. we do have the consent calendar. that involves two items. 1865 post street. limited live performance. another limited live performance

at cava 22. is anyone in the audience objecting to those two permits? it is usually our procedure to just approve them with the call of the chair. we allow people that are here in support of that to come forward and speak. we would like to know ahead of time if there's anybody objecting. c. non -- seeing none -- >> i want to interject because miss it -- mission station has specific recommendations. >> let's take them individually. item a. jim cheng dba pa'ina. >> it is a restaurant underneath the kabuki theater. they're going to need to do a conditional use process.

in the interim, while pending, there would like a limited live performance permit. sfpd no. station let us know the venue received several one-time event permits, almost on a weekly basis, for a couple of months, and there have been no incidents of complaints. that is it. >> all right. are there people representing who want to introduce yourself? >> good evening. my name is james cheng. i have always been a small businessmen in san francisco. we put together this place. our hope is to create jobs in san francisco. also, our place is for everybody.

they always hold meetings there. also, we always have performers. this all-purpose is for everybody. we have got a show coming up. that is the whole purpose. pa'ina means gathering. get together. anybody can use our place. it is a beautiful place. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner joseph: do you understand that this would only give you until 10:00 at night? >> yes. >> any other questions? any public comment? welcome. >> good evening. my name is their role. i am the president for non-

profit. pa'ina means coming together. it has been a great place for the hawaiian community to showcase the best of hawaiian entertainment. it is on a very limited basis. we look forward to when we can showcase major talent. entertainment and food is very important. the other thing i want to say is that the relationship between our chamber members and individuals has been excellent. ohana means family. pa'ina is part of that. going forward, as you mentioned, this is a good way to use the great resources. also, continued to promote the spirit. you have heard a lot of good things here.

thank you. >> thank you. anybody else? ok. any other comments? we have a motion. >> i moved to approve. >> second. commissioner hyde: aye. commissioner joseph: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner tan: aye. president newlin: aye. >> good luck. thank you for coming in. item b. samuel valle dba cava 22. >> the venue is a small mexican restaurant in the mission. the permit would allow them to have happy hour, marriott chief -- mariachi. sfpd mission station proposed six additional conditions. many of them are standard.

one, the applicant will be responsible for complying with article 29. two, sound complaints are received and delivered to the san francisco police department and the applicant will agree to turn down the sound to a level that is a sexual -- that is acceptable. . the applicant is responsible for maintaining sufficient staff and making sure they're safe and orderly events. sfpd requests a minimum of one car-guarded door security person during scheduled performances. condition four is complying with the alcohol conditions attached to the establishment. no one under 21 shall be allowed on the premises during times when food is not being served.

condition five, limiting the hours of live performance. 10:00 p.m. for the first year, and the applicant can petition until 11:00 after that. condition six, no dj entertainment will be allowed as consistent with the limited live performance permit authority. >> ok. who do we want to hear from? the applicant? the police? >> the applicant is here? >> i guess the applicant would be appropriate at this time. welcome. >> i just wanted to tell you that it is a restaurant with beer and alcohol. mariachi.

now, it is only fridays and saturdays. a lot of people ask for the mariachi. thanks a lot. >> are you familiar with the request by the police department to condition your license? are you ok with those? you are. ok. any other questions? mr. valle. >> mariachi, i have had it at my club a few times. last night on friday night. they like to go outside and do the line. the permit is for the inside. >> they will be inside. >> all right. thank you. >> thanks a lot. >> hear from the esteemed permit

officer. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm the permit officer for mission statement -- station. with regard to cava 22, i wanted to reiterate that our primary concern is that this venue continue to be operated as a bonafide food establishment. that is what its licenses for. that is what it is. we have a history that is consistent as far as police activity with this particular venue and the area being more of a bar establishment. that is why i reiterated the conditions. i want them to be aware that they can have miners in the establishment, but i want to reiterate that if they are not serving food, this is not a venue for minors.

it's actually a tequila lounge. that is what the sign says on the outside of the building. that is our only concern. that is why we support the permit with the conditional grant. >> ok. have you met with the applicant? do you have good interaction? >> i stopped by the venue. i have not met with the owner formally. if there's any concerns about these conditions, i certainly would speak with them and we can work it out. >> ok. all right. mr. valle is the man. you have to make him happy. then you make us happy. all right. no problemo. is there anyone from the community that would like to address this application? ok. we will look for a motion. >> i move to approve with

pulleys conditions -- police conditions 1, 2, 3, striking 4, we have no authority to enforce abc law, 5 we can leave in, but limited live ends at 10:00 p.m., and we can leave 6 in, but limited live excludes dj's. >> ok. of course, the issue of compliance with abc is the responsibility of the applicant. this would be redundant year. ok -- here. ok. we have that very stellar motion. do we have a second?

>> i will second that. >> same house, call? >> sure. >> yes. >> thank you and good luck. switching to the regular agenda. item c. chris smith dba monarch, 101 6th street. extended hours permit application. >> i cannot find the pollees conditions. -- police conditions. >> i will start off. you are -- most of you -- you may not all be familiar with monarch. we asked for a permit last fall. they are at an address that requires conditional use authorization for an extended

hours premises permit. all of this time, that is what they have been up to. they have been before the planning department. last month, planning did approve the conditional use authorization for after-hours. it is before you tonight to decide whether you want to add additional conditions and to decide the hours of extended operation past 2:00 a.m. the building is at 6th and mission. as you know, the conditional use process is much more extensive in terms of outreach.

there were at least 10 letters of support from the neighborhood. the applicant had a least two community meetings with anyone who objected or had concerns about their after-hours operation. my understanding is those community meetings were sufficient to explain to the neighbors what they were concerned about. the applicant and the planning department and the neighbors reached an agreement where they will operate the extended hours for only four days a week, thursday, friday, saturday, and sunday, for nine months from the first date beginning the after- hours operation. after that, they will be able to seek seven full days of after- hours operation with the permission of the zoning administrator at the planning department. in addition to that, the

entertainment commission has granted extended hours event permits on a one-time basis at least four occasions. on those occasions, there were no complaints. now, i will turn it over to the applicant. >> i am not sure what is left to say. that is the full rundown. i can give you the full presentation if you like, or we can just cut to the issue at hand for the sake of time. we did do these meetings with the community. we arrived at a compromise. there were concerns about noise. we arrived at a compromise where we would do extended hours thursday, friday, saturday, and sunday, which is fine for us. sunday, which is fine for us. after nine months, the zoning