wanted to monitor the number of permits and if we needed to address the areas where there is a concentration of extended hour permits. i don't think that they reported on the number of permits to put in place that we were able to jump in with the mark and i think that we got feedback but i have not seen the numbers in the last couple of years. and the question that i want to raise, i am willing to, you know, i am certainly willing to support the rest of the legislation for this particular portion it was very important to me for the certain parts of my district, particularly north beach, broad way and polk street and for that matter, union square and we are seeing a density of these permits and if we are going to remove the signage, i want to be sure that we are not going to see intensefiation in those neighborhoods not only that my

residents want, but that is something that i think that the night life establishments have acknowledged is important. so, i have a real issue with removing this language without dealing with those specific issues and i would be happy to have a conversation about that and i want to understand the rationale behind moving it also. but, i would like to talk a little bit more about it. >> sure and president chiu that i wanted to introduce this and i encouraged the conversation with your office and the entertainment commission and i have no idea what conversations happened. but joslyn came and the director of the entertainment commission and the president are both here and so perhaps, miss cain, you could address president chiu's specific question and once that conversation is over, maybe we could have just some statement in general about the legislation. >> sure. i think that it is almost good

evening, supervisors. and entertainment commission, and so just to answer the specific question, we have been reporting although it may not have gotten directly to you, over time the numbers of extended hour permits, and in fact, from the 2009, period to probably about last year it actually dropped. and we scrubbed out the information from what we have as a tax collector and it went down. and but, more than that, the language in the moratorium was so complex in our view as well as the fact that we rely on the robust process of the entertainment commission has to go through each and every permit application specifically and in addition, related to your districts, the rules that apply very much so when it comes to extended hour permits. and so we would not be able to even accept the applications on broad way, for example, to be able to see you having been accomplished for something,

like a new extended hours permit. what is happening now and what i think that the supervisor mentioned is that in fact it was the police department's initial review of those places on broad way, near broad way on columbus near union square and that continues to try to bring places that have been open for years into compliance. some of which have had to use for a long time. and but did not have proper entertainment permits and so, we are going to continue to see members of those or the leader of the businesses that are operating just like anyone were to thought ha they had a permit but since i don't. and so we expect to continue that process through the end of this year and in terms of cleaning up what is out there. and then the regular turnover and so the moratorium just puts a huge crimp in how that process will work. we are not out there encouraging anyone to stay open past the hours that they want

to stay open. and so, we are certainly opened to having a conversation about how you would like to proceed and feel comfortable and some sort of a reporting mechanism. >> if i could just provide a couple of thoughts on that. >> first of all to enter supervisor weiner's comment i did have a conversation on this and i understand that there is nothing that impacted what we had legislated in prior years, this language as we referred to was heavily negotiated and it was extremely, it was a big issue. and it was important to put this language in there, so that the constituents were not going to see an increase in the permits. the problem that you are trying to solve for is to be as precise as you can to allow late night food establishments like the pizza place to stay up for an extra hour to condition them with security and everything that you want to see

attached to that. and my suggestion rather than deleting these entire sections that we add an exception to what we are talking about to allow you to do exactly that. i am also willing to consider and if want to take more time to redraft these sections to consider that, one of the things that my legislation specifically stated if there was more than a 15 percent of increase per year, in the number of permits that there would be a city wide moratorium on the permits but it also says, the entertainment shall have the discretion to impose a moratorium in the parts of the city where there is a lot of permits >> that would be the neighborhoods in my district and so there are a couple of ways to proceed to try to address what you are trying to address but deal with the concerns that i have raised and i am not sure how to do that, but if we want to put that over for a week or two, or hash it out.

my preference is to put it off for a week or two to deal with that. >> this is what i would suggest, given that, one option, is it just 1070-36 >> i did have questions about the other sections but this is the section that i am concerned about. >> so one option that we could do is to amend this currently to reinsert it and put it on next week and president chiu can work with the commission and craft the language that we can then use as replacement language for 1070.36. that change, would that... i know that you want... >> deputy city attorney, the change that the board would ultimately make a week or two from now. >> or, another option, let me

just for another option we could divide the file and put them both out, one with 1070.36 and one without and you all can negotiate a resolution with different options. >> i prefer to leave the piece that is a little bit more controversial here in committee because, again, the board gets a little more confusing particularly the folks who have not been paying as much attention to it, but if that makes sense, in other words, we could just, we could just take section 1070.36, you know, divide the file and insert that in and keep that here and then have that maybe, with the trailing legislation. >> and even, i think that my preference would be just to add today and amend the legislation and put 1070.36 back in and forward it to the board, and over next week, you could try to work it out. if it does not happen this week, we could always pass the legislation and his as

trailing legislation. >> i am open to any. >> i am sorry. >> i am open to any that you see fit. the balancing of the legislation is really important to us. so... >> i am happy to move that out. >> so why don't, in terms of the... yeah, actually why don't we divide the file, and then if we end up passing the rest of it, next week, we can always come back to this in committee and we can delete everything else except for the extended hours provision that you guys would negotiate. and so does that make sense? >> so, could you clarify that? >> so you say divide the file. >> we do the file, and so we duplicate the file in the version that we passed out of committee, we include the current version of 1070.36 and that just stays in there as is, and goes to the full board and

then remaining in the committee is the version of the legislation that deletes 1070.36 and then hopefully we can work something out in the next week and if not the board can just pass the legislation that we put out of committee and then we could continue to work in committee on that one provision and then it could be passed as trailing legislation. >> that is fine with me. >> okay. okay. so great. >> i have a couple of clarifying questions. >> is there a statement that you want to make. >> i am just here for questions. >> i just need to clarify and i will not ask for any amendments on page 14, the language that i think that i will recognize from the prior legislation given your commission authority to suspend the permits for up to 30 days, can you explain why you deleted that provision? i think that i heard from supervisor weiner that it is in

the new legislation. >> that is correct. >> but explain the prior reading and what the new law is going to be. >> it was just redundant is what we found this with the city attorney, was through and in the previous, the suspension for public safety by the director is that one, that has a very short time frame and in that situation of extreme situations and it could be weeded out very quickly and then, this is not in here, because it is not hanging but there is another section that allows for a suspension for up to 30 days and so it is very, that was what is limited session was. >> can you tell me what that was. >> it is not in here, that is why, i think that it is. 1060.25. but i am not entirely. i am not sure. because the whole... no that is not right either. >> the whole of the 1060 is not

here just included it in this but it is something that i used typically all of the time. it is the one that i used with everything. >> that is why i was surprised to see it taken ou i will ask the city attorney during the public comment. >> we will find it. >> a second and final question, you have the language here that creates a temporary permit. >> yes. >> and i understand that the ratione for that to be if you have a place of entertainment that is exchanging hands you want to give the new folks and the operators the opportunity to do what they are doing and it is a 90 day period, and are you envisioning that these temporary permits could be renewed so that you could have a string of 90 day permits back-to-back. >> no. >> if that is not the case i will ask that if we include the language to clarify that permit may not be renewed? >> what page? >> on page 16, and 25. >> and again, obviously what i am trying to get at is i don't

want to have a temporary set of owners and say that we have to get our act together and renew it again and again. >> my intention and implementation is to say that is not the purpose of this, but, as far as adding the language, i don't have a problem with that. >> my suggestion might be the language to the effect of no more than one temporary permit may be issued to however you are defining the party here that will ask the legislative sponsor if you have that. >> i am looking at this and probably one word answer. >> could i ask about this in general because this was the question that i had. i was just wondering if you could give an example of this. is this the case where a business an owner of a business, a club, a venue, actually not... a club are eye venue. would sell the business? and because the permit is linked to the owner? is that the case? >> that is right. >> they would surrender it to the entertainment commission

and so the new owner will need to apply for a new permit. but in the meantime you could grant them a temporary while their permit is pending. why would we do that? >> so, again, typically if it is something of a new owner, picking up where an old owner is left off and they are not doing any changes as far as shut down to do cosmetic changes, there would be less of a minimum with a 30 day, the window without a permit because our notification requirements is 30 days and then there is a whole slew of infections that take place and so typically it is two or three months. and in cases where there is not substantial change, again, the 30 days is the least amount of time and if they, so if they want to surrender it and another one is if you just noticed the same day and you will still have a 30 day period where that person would be out of compliance. so typically and i think that the legislation was written up to 90 days for the purposes of

some sort of strange circumstance, but honestly, i mean if he is describing it is more than likely the 30 to 40 days at most and so we would have been to the commission and moving that application forward and you know, again, barring any sort of change inspection, reveal the new permit could be accomplished in a meater matter of a week >> what would be the reason not to issue the same existing permit for a new owner extended hours? >> just the place of entertainment. >> yeah. >> so what would be a reason not to renew? >> it is not actually renew, is there a reason because you have to go through the process. >> right. >> but what would be the reason to not give that new owner

the... actually for here, i am looking at page 25 i am reading extended hours permit. >> it is actually on page 16. but it also... >> it comes up on page 25. >> so i am on page 25. so i'm assuming thamepermit is extended hours? right? am i reading that correctly? >> well, i mean, so there are. >> on section h? >> right. well, so what you are seeing is 1070 and mirrored with 1060 and this would apply to either or. >> and in the case of an extended hours. >> sure. >> extension, what would be the reason to not give a new owner, who is applying for this permit to not grant them the permit? >> well, the code stipulates to the commission very limited grounds, but grounds that are specific in terms of denial. if that is the question that you asking me. well, again the code is 1060 and you may not have that

section here in front of you is pretty clear about the building structure, not being safe, about it to contain sound, about inaccute or security plan that is not you know good enough. improper out reach, like there is a slew of things that is considered by a commission and that is all in 1060 very specifically grounds for denial, or they are there but they are limited. >> i guess that my question is would you want to give a temporary permit to a new owner when you have not vetted their security plan, their out reach, building structure, it should largely be the same between the old and the new owner there is a reason why we make the new owners go through a process. >> right and they will be going through that process, this is the stopgap measure and it gives that stopgap measure to the new owner that may not have a good security plan and may

not have a good plan for out reach. >> no, i it. >> i get it. >> if i may, because this is we worked through this quite a bit, i think that we are trying to balance it and so right now, whether it is extended hours permit or a place of entertainment permit, operating a business and you know, 20 employees, and i sell to you, and going to any one of these permits and particularly a place of entertainment they never get it in 30 days, it is multiple departments that could be a lengthy process and to have to basically shut down a business in the interim so that the employees are all out of work if it is a well-liked business it is shut down. it is not serving the city. and our residents. now obviously there could be a situation where for this temporary permit the new owner is a bad actor.

that could happen. and if that happens, first of all, it is a maximum of 90 days, but second, the director has the authority to revoke the permit. so if you have someone who comes in and all of a sudden starts acting out and doing all sorts of problematic things the director can revoke before the 90 days and say, go and apply for a regular permit. i gave you a shot and you screwed up. >> yeah. i get the reason for why we would give the stopgap measure and i am sympathetic to the employees and the people depending on a venue and not understanding our permitting process as to the reason why they can't go to a venue, there is a reason why new owners get vetted and a good way to get educated if they are not familiar with what is necessary to be a responsible owner. so you might have a case of a new owner that wants to be responsible but gets educated through the permitting process. but knowing that the

the rito deny or to undo, a stopgap permit that makes sense. >> that was my question. thank you. >> i did and i drafted and this will be the same language unless you drafted something already. for the extended hours and place of entertainment section and it would be, i think that those are, identical paragraph and it would be at the end of the paragraph saying that this temporary permit may not be renewed as a temporary permit. only those two locations. >> that is great. and i did have the one, and the one area that i am concerned about and i see a lot of responsible permit holders and the audience today, is when you

have a permit, for a place that has been problematic. and just use, and imp ala in north beach and thchanges hands, is there ould there have... i i ink that there ought to be a bit more scrutiny to insure that when a problematic permit holder is trading or is changing hands, that we are not simply whitewashing or putting on new, you know, a new name, suggesting that it is going to the new ownership when it is going to continue the same activity and could you give us a sense of what type of additional scrutiny and the staff will do to insure that is not the case, i have wondered if we should put in the additional language for the permits to take the prior factors into account and get your thinking on that. >> it is a good question and a reasonable thing that arise. and typically when you have a problem venue let's just say impala and they are no longer

in business. and obviously it is clear to us, you know, at that commission, y and who was involved, and in some cases it is better to move ankiknow corrective action and they might sell, and they might give themselves up to par and what would i do with respect to a nut operator applying and this includes a security plan and any other disriptive stuff as to how they intend to operate and these are the operating permits and that is the function of this, and the partners in the police department and going to help me, and we are going to determine whether it is in fact a whitewash, as you called it,

or someone honestly coming in to create a new business. >> and i guess the situation that i am concerned about is even if it is totally new operators, they are operating in the same place in the same venue and folks who have been used to going to a particular venue and stirring up trouble where th n't need to be are going to show up saturday night and that is what we know and even if it is new operators it may not be that significant change in how they interact with their clientele and so, again, i have actually wonder first degree we should include a little bit of language that says for the temporary permit if there has been a history of public safety issues at that place, that the entertainment director shall ask of the new permit how they intend to resolve the issues trying to make sure that we are asking those new operators to do their homework in thinking about how to run a business differently to not create issues for the commercial corridor or the neighborhood. >> we have sense in your mind of how long it will take for the old clients to not come

back? >> i have no idea. i would not mind getting feedback from the experts in the audience, again we are saying. >> i think that the issue, the question is whether we should just try to... >> and not necessarily legislate it or that we should try and implementation or apolicy level at the entertainment commission to make that decision on how we implement the way that this is written here and then have to get a little more nimble if it is not adequate. >> and because we all hear about the problematic venues and how they closed down and start up again and still remains problematic. >> but i hope that we are not hearing that very often any more. but i am hopeful that we are enough in our corrective action that the people get the message that we are not hearing that. >> if i could just... i understand president chiu where you are coming from, but i think that we are trying to balance with this, you know,

allowing, you know, the overwhelming bulk of these businesses are not problem venu, there are some but there are many that are not. and allowing there to be a transition and the more analysis requirements that we put on the commission and say look into this and say this and this, and it almost defeats the purpose for allowing for a one time, temporary permit, in addition to legislation does not require the director to grant the temporary permit and it is more, it is permissive and may and so if there is a venue that has had problems, and maybe did not rise to the level of revocation, the director certainly can say, you know what? i think that there are changes that need to happen here before you get up here. >> and i know that the commission is subject to criticism about not enforcing at the level that we wanted.

but over the last few years in particular, i think that the commission has really stepped up its game in terms of going after bad actor and giving them more enforcement tools here and i think that the way that we have it drafted here as it strikes a good balance, and we are very careful about the way that we did it. >> and if i think about a quick response to that, and i would keep thinking about this to add on the language it was just something that i was concerned about. and i would agree that in my first couple of years in office in 2009 and 10, and 2011 we were all concerned as a city about the lack after tension of the entertainment commission on the variety of different venues and i think that that has changed now. and now, i would like to see the reports so we understand and so we had a hearing at our public safety committee where it showed that for 2012 members had increased significantly, for a variety of reasons, and

certainly my district, the feedback that i continue to get and the phone calls that i get from the neighbors is the problems have not gone away and there are times on this issue, that i wish that we could change the places and represent each other's districts to have a sense so thatfolks can understand the issues on the street with that being said. i would just simply ask the executive director who are here to the colleagues of your entertainment commission, i would appreciate continued vigilence to make sure that as the transition occurs we are not transitioning problems from the venue to the same venue. >> and i will just say that i think that there was a debate about the statistics about what they actually meant and so that there was, i think, not necessarily an opinion about that and while i would be, i would be happy and i would be great that we should all be training the districts and try to understand the districts because we all have to make the decisions for the whole city

and not just for the district and i know that three members of this committee, i think that we all do a good job of understanding what is going on around the city. i completely, i do, d way is definitely a problem. and my district and supervisor kim's district and i know that we all have our challenges in our district. and crowd issues not at the level admittedly but it is something that we deal with and i have had bad actors in terms of night life venue and some of them are gone. and that is a positive thing. but it is something that we all deal with, but i and the commission were very conscious of making sure that the commission has the tools that it need to both allow for the night life and also to enforce against the bad actors and that is why we increased the

enforcement to pass and the powers of the commission significantly in several areas so that the commission can crack down on bad actors, without throwing the baby out with the bath water. >> could i ask one other question, i know last year during the budget process, supervisor weiner and i had worked together to give your commission the authority to hire additional staff and the last that i heard was that you had had challenges getting approval to hire that last staffer from others within the administration, where are we right now? >> we are weeks away, we have an offer on an individual and we have been through the interview process and i want to say weeks away, long it takes to do finger proofing to hiring that additional enforcement person. >> i am very glad to hear that, i know that you have been diligently pursuing that new hire that we have vanted to see, i do not know what the hold up was, but i am glad to hear that news. >> and i know that you were

very eager to hire the person, so i know that it is not an entertainment issue. and i think that it may have been the civil service process. but i just to convey how incredibly frustrated i am and i am sure that president chiu after we got the funding that we are now to approve another budget and the person still is not on the staff. >> and so, that is a frustration that will convey to whoever is listening. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. >> i am very frustrated that we are almost at the next budget cycle and this position that we proved has not been hired yet and i know that that is not an issue for the entertainment commission but many other departments have expressed to me how difficult it is to get the hires in that we approved last year to see the processes better for the members of the public. so i will just reiterate that frustration too. i actually had a positive experience with our entertainment venue owners in

district six. and it is really more, the just in case question, and i know that that will certainly be a big concern for the neighborhoods but i have to say that we have had really good venue owners in district six and so i will just say that, and i did have a question about ex-expanding llp to outdoor, venues and i was just reading the language, and i know that it was before, and when it said that the local is in doors and 200 square feet and that also applies to the new amended language that was put in saying the outdoor plaza courtyard of 200 feet or less. enclosed by the surrounding buildings, with or without the means of public egress or egress. is that referring to the surrounding buildings or