for example, the restaurant example. and it could be at a much more robust level and we've tried to keep it at the most minimal involvement from planning which we believe as possible. i'm not sure what it would look like not to involve the planning department. that's the party haven't been able to see. >> i don't have a fundamental objection against fees where work is done. i just don't understand where the work is being done in this particular case. seems like someone is doing work and not getting paid and someone is not doing very much work and is getting paid. i don't understand it. >> ms. riley. >> yes, you mentioned earlier record keeping. is the health department keeping record or the planning department keeping record? >> i would guess that they would both have some measure of record keeping. whether they could share that record keeping, i can ask the department. but i believe planning would have a record of anybody that, you know, any referral that would be tied to the address just like the department of

public health would. i think it would be both. >> can the public health department share the information with the planning? >> that's exactly what's happening here. public health is sharing information with planning. planning is checking it to make sure it matches the planning code. that's why there's a fee. >> so, they will share it. >> they're sharing information. then should they not charge the fee? i mean -- it's provided by the health department. >> you could potentially roll the fee into one fee and planning could take a bit of the health department's fee. i think this is probably the way it works for most use applications so, that's why they're proposing it in this case. fully understand the commission's desire, which we share to keep the barrier to cottage food operation as low as possible because it's something we all want to see happen. >> director dick-endrizzi. >> i'm sorry. >> commissioner o'brien. >> do we have any examples of

cottage industries that have set up in the recent past, any examples we can look at to see how the process took place? [multiple voices] >> we can check. there could be -- to the extent that a cottage food operation is defined as an accessory use within a residential dwelling unit, it's not allowed until now. there may be some. there's some of everything, but i'm not a irway of it. they're not actually allowed right now. >> so, the answer is no. the only thing i would say is -- so, you know, you have a primary residence today and the owner decides they want to use this building for a new use. and i think it's fair to say that that automatically

triggers regulatory oversight that would give the planning department frankly -- a change of use in a building is always going to go to the planning department and i'm pretty sure they'll have some convincing arguments about things like if they're going to put a window in to sell stuff out of a window -- >> they can't do that. >> they can sell, but there are other restrictions. they can't do a window. i should have said that. >> it's written in the ordinance. >> i think we definitely need to hear from the planning department. i'd be surprised if they're not able to come up with some convincing arguments about whether to engage or do some oversight on it because it is a change of use on the building. that does -- >> residential units and they're always going to be residential units. >> essentially additional use. >> you're right, it's kay change. so, it's kind of gray area. i really would love to hear from the planning department on it to see if they could justify it. ~ >> commissioner ortiz.

>> frankly, i understand the planning part because it's a referral fee even though it's residential. maybe planning has something saying, no way, because this used to be a dreier cleaner in the bottom and it's toxic. i think that's where they're just vetting to make sure it's safe for a food product or something of that nature. could be in a residential building because they might have something, conditional use or change of use of that particular residence might have happened. >> i don't think that -- it's not really proscribed in the planning code here. if a residence is above a dry cleaner, it wouldn't be permitted. right now it's being permitted in all zoning districts. so, and i think if this falls within that realm of the health concern realm, that might -- at this particular point might be more of a concern, you know, from the department of public health's concern. but we haven't defined -- it doesn't define right now any

areas where -- if it's above a dry cleaner or not, it's permitted in all zoning areas. so, there are no qualifiers in terms of where it may or may not be permitted. so, i think at this point in terms of the zoning department, maybe the most is just saying it might be looking at a map. are you familiar from the regulations when you're counseling if we tell individuals that they need to provide a map as part of their application process, do you recall at all? >> we don't get into that level of detail. we rely on the health department to inform the applicants of what the application requirements will be. >> right. so, anyway, so, i think that would be the most. otherwise it's just sort of

documenting where there are cottage food businesses taking place in residential districts. again, in case a complaint does come up. but, you know, through technology, sharing data information should not be difficult, you know, quarterly, being able to sort of quarterly submit from the health department to the planning department, the applications that have been approved that they have permitted to operate. ~ can be done. you know, we have data s.f. which is part of putting all of our data up, making it accessible. so, without kind of understanding what's -- unless the planning department is going and doing an inspection to ensure that, you know, there's no more than one-third -- one-third of the space is being used. so, i don't think that there is that level of detail right now.

that would be more within the health department if there is concern about food being made in an area. >> if that's the case, you know, like we're all concerned what's the fee for, as you said, protection. protection of what, protection money, like i have to pay rent now? like, what is this? >> protection against the complaint. >> protection against the complaint. >> commissioner dwight. >> as i say again, i don't fundamentally object to fees. i think that what's at issue here is it's not clear to us -- it's not transparent what it is for and who ought to be getting fees. so, i think before we approve of anything on behalf of small business, we need to understand who are the governing bodies and who is getting paid to do what. and it is not clear from this document who is getting paid to do what. i don't have any argument whatsoever with the notion that the planning department needs to be involved in some way because this involves the use of a building.

i don't have any argument with the fact that the health department should be involved because it has to do with cooking of food that's going to go to third parties outside of the home. but before any of us can make any determination, it seems to me, there is some explanation due to not only us, but to supervisor chiu's office if they want to sponsor this, to understand what exactly are we approving. >> let me emphasize supervisor chiu and our office is comfortable planning has a role to play here similar to an application for a bar or restaurant at a much smaller level. >> i agree they have a role to play. i don't understand -- i also agree the health department has a role to play. this seems arbitrary toe me and arbitrary to the commission as to who is getting paid to do what. in the absence of that, i don't see how we can approve or disapprove it. we do have letters from groups asking us to disapprove this, groups that represent small business interests.

and, so, we're being asked outside of the chambers to deny this. and, so, and we're being asked by supervisors whose work we respect to approve it, but so now we're in a little bit of a conundrum. we don't think we have enough information. >> one additional information i was recalling from my conversation with planning, one thing planning will do is make sure the unit proposed for cottage food operator is a legal unit. so, that's just the kind of -- they'll probably have a checklist, make sure that's -- >> again -- >> again happy to hear from them. i think it's also very important, i think, i would request that the commission consider the alternative levels of planning department involvement in this. this could be a conditional use application. it could be a hearing at the commission. it could be a za hearing, that sort of thing. any one of those levels of process where a cottage food operator would require significantly higher fees. so, we would encourage the commission to look at the level

of this fee and, you know, again, i think planning can always provide -- i know other departments, i've seen the spreadsheets behind the fees of what they estimate in terms of the staff time involved and that sort of thing. we're more than happy to ask planning to provide that. you should have that. i do ask you to consider the alternative involvement from the planning department and where this fee falls on the spectrum of what planning, what level of engagement planning has. >> i don't -- i can't describe to the logic of comparing this to something that does not exist at present. that's not being proposed. what your argument suggests is this is below some pain threshold and we should simply approve it because there are alternatives that are worse. >> i'm not sure what's wrong with that argument. >> well, because now you're saying, okay, don't approve it. let's define a process that requires something more onerous. we're being asked to approve a fee. i am not here to argue whether

it's above or below the pain threshold for an entrepreneur. i can imagine the equipment costing far more than this. in some ways it's a nuisance to have to pay $130. that being said, it is a fee. it's a new one and we're being asked to approve it. as we know, as the years and decades go on, these things pile up and 1 hundred dollartoday becomes $1,000, and thousand dollars becomes $10,000 on top of permits. we're here to provide guidance as to what is absolutely necessary ~ in here to allow this to go forward with reason and to make sure everyone is duly compensated. i reiterate i don't think we have the information to determine whether that is or is not the case. >> i appreciate it. i would also respectfully request that the commission forward any objections that they have received to our office so we can respond as

well. >> commissioner commissioner white. >> i'm sure my question is targeted to planning. small business, obviously this is a good ordinance. but i mean with the comment you made earlier as far as an additional zoning for that residential property, is there going to be cost factors like for the property owners with additional zoning and will that trigger anything for that tenant? like are they giving something to the owner because maybe the tenants don't know? >> no, not to my knowledge. >> okay. >> director dick-endrizzi. >> so, i know we have public comment to get to, but one thought is -- because there are several important components that are in here, which is that it's being permitted in all zoning districts. that's a good thing. it is allowing one additional employee, that's a good thing. and then i'm not sure if there's a third component. so, after we hear public

comment, a thought could be moving forward with those components, with a direction to the planning department, because then the legislation doesn't necessarily codify the referral zoning fees, but a recommendation to the planning commission to direct the department to really assess whether the zoning referral fee is absolutely necessary. >> commissioner riley. >> yes, we heard this ordinance at legislation committee, and we like it. the only thing we have an issue with is the fee, the $130 to planning and what is that for. in looking at all the fees the cottage food operator has to pay, it's pretty high. you're looking at the tier b, it's almost -- it's over $800. so, for a very, very small business operator, that's a lot of money to start a business. >> is there any public comment? i'd be happy to track down my

colleagues from planning. >> we need to move on. if they're not here, they're not here. do we have public comment on item number 5? please come on up. >> oh, and commissioners, i did want to make a note that you -- i received two letters today from la cocina and s.f. made so they've been submitted to you. and that the public is interested in taking a look at them. >> welcome. good afternoon. my name is [speaker not understood] speaking on behalf of la cocina. it is a nonprofit kitchen and very low-income entrepreneurs [speaker not understood]. we are really excited about the california homemade food act in that it creates additional opportunities for entrepreneurs, lowers barriers to entry and makes it more inclusive for the food industry in san francisco and throughout

california. and we're here or i'm here speaking against the zoning verification fee. though it's a one-time fee and relatively low in relation to other costs of starting businesses, it is not an insignificant cost for a lot of the entrepreneurs that would most benefit from being able to start cottage food operation out of their home and we think it would work in detriment to this attempt to foster inclusivity in creating more opportunity. thank you. >> great, thank you. any other members of the public who would like to make a comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner dooley. >> i think that obviously the benefits of this are great, and

i -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> i saw dooley up there, i didn't see her. i'll call you next. >> and, you know, i think that we need to just give guidance on the planning referral part. but i don't think that we should condemn this entire piece of legislation over this one topic. >> i would agree. commissioner riley. >> yes, since we heard this at the legislation committee, i want to make a motion unless you have any more questions. >> i just have a comment, that's it. i have a comment. >> go ahead. >> i think especially after we've [speaker not understood] over some planning stuff, the spirit of this legislation, this is exactly what we need in san francisco. and like i think the sentiment of my colleagues up here, we don't want to make one issue

seem like we're not for this legislation. it's very positive and, you know, it's just we want to know why we're paying planning. that's all. >> yeah, i'd like to make a motion to approve this with some amendments. >> go for it. >> okay. number one is to prohibit the institution of zoning referral fee by either or both the department of public health or the planning department. the second one is to it authorize the department of public health to share with the planning department reference relating to cottage food permit, license, approval site, expiration date, permit location, permit holder's name and other personal information. >> we have a second? >> second. >> can i get some help with that? did you say [speaker not

understood] on that fee period? you're approving it, but we're not approving the fee, did i understand that correctly? >> correct. >> thank you. >> perhaps we should make an amendment saying we recommend. >> okay. >> rather than saying we're not going to approve the whole piece of legislation. >> we do approve. >> right, but we can recommend a prohibition, but we have to be realistic about whether or not there are going to be absolutely no fees involved with this. i mean, we can recommend -- i think we can recommend to delete the referral fee. that would be my recommendation. lou, what do you think? >> i think that would be fine. >> just to be clear, the referral fee is not referenced in the ordinance. so, you may need to act or make a recommendation to add something in the ordinance to prohibit the fee if that's what the commission's intent s. but there's nothing to recommend be deleted from the ordinance at this point. >> that's why this is very

difficult because we want to approve the change to the ordinance, but the fee is separate from but somehow got tied into this. i don't disagree at all with the spirit of enabling cottage food operation. i am just questioning the fee and where it goes and what it's for. >> director dick-endrizzi. >> there are a couple ways you can go. ~ as commissioner riley said, we can make a recommendation that the legislation be amended. it's a recommendation, the supervisor doesn't have to do it, but then staff can go and talk to other supervisors to see about amending the legislation so that it does say that no zoning referral fee is collected and/or staff -- or you can say amend to include that. and if not, to work with the

planning department to, you know, not have the zoning referral fee. so, you can make an a and a b recommendation. am i making any sense? >> yes. >> so, you can be very -- say we're very clear that, you know, we are not supporting the zoning referral fee and, so, therefore want to amend the legislation. and if that can't be done, then to have staff work with the planning department to see about eliminating the zoning referral fee on an administrative side. >> commissioner o'brien. >> well, i think you kind of played into what i was going to comment on. i kind of agree with commissioner dooley. kind of an absolute is not a good way to go. rearguely, i think as commissioner dwight alluded to, we just don't have the information that we need.

it could be the planning department would come in here and convince us, oh, this is absolutely fair fee because it's so small. and, yeah, we should go forward for it. we don't know enough to make a decision on it. that's my personal opinion. i can agree with commissioner dooley on that point we should not say a prohibition. i think if i understand what you're saying is we're approving the ordinance and just putting an asterisk beside the fee and say please investigate this fee further, in so many words. i think that's what i understood you to say. >> great. so, that would be a friendly amendment to commissioner irene yee riley to say put in the ordinance not to do it, but, so -- >> i just don't agree we should say it should definitely not be in there and i don't think we should say it should definitely be in there. i think we should kind of make some point as a small business

commission we're antiany unnecessary fees. if it is deemed it is appropriate or whatever, ~ leave it in there. if you can figure that into it, then i can go along with it. >> what if we just say that we recommend more research be done as to the relevance of the fees and work with our staff to determine that? >> yeah, i'm okay with that. [speaker not understood] can you figure out -- >> give me one more moment to try to sort that out. one more thing, just the clarification because i just foresee a loophole, the whole edibles with cannabis. >> i did make a note to follow-up with the department on that. and i will also be very clear exactly what planning will do vis-a-vis this fee will be discussed thursday at the planning commission. and i can ask planning to respond in writing to small business to detail that. it is important to note, a

christian noted, the fee isn't in the ordinance. so, i'm here defending what planning is basically going to come up with as they're charged for their part of the process that we all support. you know, i think the other policy options for us to consider and this is more during the budget process, is whether we would want to cover whatever work planning is going to do out of the general fund instead of as a fee base, say, whether it's folded into another fee like a dph fee. so, i do completely understand commissioner dwight's and all the other commissioners' real -- trying to hold the line on any unnecessary or new fee or any charge no matter how well. and we want to respect that and we'll commit to working on the issue as the legislation move through the process. >> so, do i need to amend my motion, instead of saying prohibit, to recommend elimination of the referral

fee? >> yeah. >> um-hm. >> yeah. >> that's fine. >> okay, christian. >> we have a motion from commissioner yee riley to recommend to the board of supervisors approval of this item with two amendments or recommendations. one, to further study and carefully scrutinize the zoning referral fee for its relevance by the planning department staff. and two, to authorize the department of public health to share information with the planning department as outlined in the initial motion. >> correct. do i have a second? >> second. >> director dick-endrizzi? roll call. >> commissioner adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley? >> yes. >> commissioner dwight? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> yes. >> commissioner right? white? >> yes. >> the item passes 7 to 0. >> thank you, justin. >> next item, please. >> item 6, presentation and discussion on the role and

function of the new nightlife and entertainment sector position in the invest in neighborhoods initiative. discussion item. >> and we have a staff presentation by benjamin van houten, project manager, nightlife & entertainment sector. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. thank you for allowing me to speak today and thank you to regina for inviting me. i want to briefly introduce myself and my role in the office of economic and workforce development. my name is ben van houten, project manager for nightlife and entertainment oed. that is a new position as a result of a multi-year conversation, stakeholders in the nightlife entertainment has been having for greater connection to city hall and city services. obviously the comptroller's study last year about the value of nightlife to the city, a $4 billion industry and that doesn't even take into account the big outdoor daytime festivals.

$4 billion, 48,000 employees in the city, and it's also an industry that has some of the most complex regulatory hurdles to starting a business and a lot of touch with various city agencies to keep one of these businesses going and successful. so, given that kind of unique backdrop, oewd created this position for nightlife and entertainment. my background is in live music. i cofounded a nonprofit called the bay bridged, which promotes san francisco bay area music and has produced a number of street festivals, rock concerts, san francisco themed events to promote the city's live music scene. in this position i'm very much engaged with folks across nightlife and entertainment. when i say nightlife, we're talking about bars, restaurants, night clubs as well as live music venues, social spaces where people get together and interact, and that

are an important part of the city's cultural fabric and its identity to the tourism community ~ as well as a really important business sector. i am within oewd's neighborhood economic development so i work closely with the invest the neighborhood folks. so it is very much a city-wide initiative to connect with nightlife businesses and i work closely with the entertainment commission. the way i explain to people, the entertainment commission does a lot of regulatory work and i'm doing work to business assistance work. it's very complementary in that respect and work closely together. i'm pleased to be working with small business staff as well on a number of projects. i guess just to talk briefly about the goals, generally one of the overarching goals and one of the things i've heard from talking with stakeholders in this industry is a need to better connect them to city services and city resources, whether that's programs that small business or the office of

economic and workforce development are offering, whether that's understanding the various challenges that these businesses have to undergo in order to get up and running and stay running in the city. and then there's a policy component to t too, obviously that if there are changes that need to be made to help these businesses or if these businesses are suffering under existing policies, to be able to communicate that to the appropriate folks and work on some solutions. so, in terms of more specific items within the next month or so, going to be launching a website specifically for nightlife businesses slug a handbook for these businesses and prospective nightlife business owners that talk about all the requirements that you need to start a nightlife business, but also connects people to best practice business materials how to successfully run one of these businesses. [speaker not understood] building on work folks like the entertainment commission have already been doing. also going to be doing an initiative to better educate the business community about

the availability of limited live performance permits. that's the permit that a restaurant or bar or cafe can get to have a limited amount of live entertainment in their business until 10:00 p.m. it's an affordable permit, easy permit to get relatively speaking [speaker not understood]. the idea is restaurants and bars and cafes can take advantage of this to help build their businesses and build their audiences. additionally, trying to connect the nightlife community to other aspects of the city. we had a very successful event last month involving nightlife and technology. we had 150 folks from the nightlife and technology world come together for an event at public works at the night club public works to talk about how these industries can better collaborate and work together going forward. there are a number of other things i'm working on as well. very excited to be here and be a part of this and looking forward to getting to know all

of you better. >> great, thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner comments? >> i just want to say it's long overdue and thank you, and good luck because nightlife is a multi-billion dollars industry in this town and it is very important ~. we are a tourist town, which is our number one industry. you know, i always hear we have the sales dream force this week, you know. all those people want to go somewhere late at night and it is a reality and i really do appreciate oewd coming up with this position and i'm glad that you work with the entertainment commission. and i think it's great because you can also be the liaison between neighborhoods and kind of settle that down. we have people freaking out because there is a new bar or something opening up in the neighborhood and i think it's very, very good that oewd is addressing this. so, i can't tell you how happy