that gives us a definition moving forward and an opportunity to work with the planning department and to reshape those and if the language in the policies conforms to the guidelines >> thank you very much. next speaker. . hello supervisor i'm here to voice my support for the in kind controls it is for the conflict of the controls that closes a will that that's been bus by the billboard operators far too long and in addition to preventing the appearance of san francisco in general it helps to safeguard and helps to protect public investment and the integrity of public buildings and provides the development and promotion of

businesses in the city and linking to competition where aren't to the finances and promote public health those are necessary and overdue on behalf of the san francisco beautiful i'd like to ask the city to support those controls >> thank you any public comment on that item on item one seeing none, public comment is closed thank you to everyone that came down i'll say we received the letter from the running ruben and julius law firm on behalf of the controls i have respect for the law firm but i disagree on this one the settlement we approved specifically indicated that contest accomodation and

other companies i i understand that have exploited this will that people are living in the neighborhoods and one day a new billboard goes up and there's a raffle for this in the corner store or whatever the product is it is not being sold there to people wonder why this billboard n is in my neighborhood the settlement we approved i'll read it for each sign within the city the contest promotions shall apply with all applicable pro tem's for the administrative regulations, in fact, at the time the permit for the sign is issued with applicable recreations and electrical code

and the puc codes i was not involved but the city attorney's office. >> i don't know what the how the process went but in the end you could have had a supplement that said the law standards to be applied would be the ones in effective it says whatever codes are ♪ place at the time of the permit. so this changes are important and i think we need to post them so supervisor kim if increase no additional questions i'll taken a motion to move item one to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee report >> so moved. >> when i come home to you, san francisco >> madam clerk item two.

>> this the for the police codes and arcades. supervisor breed is the sponsor and i'm a co-sponsor so here we are from supervisor breed's office is connecticut nor >> thank you supervisor wiener supervisor breed had a conflict i wanted to make a few comments as the sponsor of the legislation it was playing arcades at a party of supervisor chiu p that effectively this the code not enforced that was a bit of a surprise so in district 5 in the upper hate bumped into the regulations and first-degree

i will watch has a pinball leads that has a lot of people there and i had a stalk of letters of support self-the members of the pinball legacy that was part of the record you'll hear from many of them. in 1982 pinball games were popular and they were corrupting our children and overrunning our neighborhoods so the board of supervisors passed extensive regulations i emphasize excessive there were controlling when and where the arcades can be in the places in san francisco not a single game in 3 hundred feet of a school or many

any implication in a commercial district i'm not e i'm not sure what the concern was. if you knowingly are in violation of the arcades the chief of police b will impound our games as supervisor breed mentioned chief suhr is a great cop but hard to imagine him breaking out a dolly and not happened. so times have changed 'tis since this alleviation was passed they're more of a notify of people my age that grew up in the 80s is if kids want to play video games they can do that or in this is your cell phones we want to maintain the oesht and

extremely the permit process to bring it in line with the commission practices and strengthen the controls against illegal gambling so i want to mention a couple of things with respect to illegal gamgz we knew on page 2 we adams mechanical awe amazement so a gambling devices future on payment 12 any video game a that's been modified to become a gaimg devices any mechanic amazement devices being using maybe i am pounded by itself

chief of police and a or the use or operation thereof vicinities any rules and regulations and sub mechanism devices shall be confiscated our legislation today is about arcade games anything it constitutes this would not be qualified to be controlled under california law and is patently illegal this is not a regulation process for our gambling devices i know we are asking where entertainment is concerned but in short supervisor breed wanted to be responsive to the entertainment

commission concerns about the good neighbor policy so a distinction between that i want to thank supervisor wiener for covering the alleviation he has one business in his business and others from the entertainment commission and commanders from the police department and especially deputy city attorney jason man for putting up with us and in crafting that the first one the legislation is not about passing new laws but taking the wanted to fix the old ones, and, secondly, they buildings the government shouldn't be standing in our way based on outdated laws i'm happy to answer any questions >> thank you very much supervisor kim. >> i just had one question and my other question for the entertainment commission.

i was looking for this but a part of the code i talked about the machines where you get a value out of the machine equal to the within one you put in are you talking about vendor machines >> the temporary to the are sticker it's a purchase as opposed to a game. >> thank you. >> great any other skewing supervisor. i wanted to thank ms. johnson and supervisor breed and the commission for working on this. we had a situation with a well-thought-out bar opening up a second bar with an arcade theme that ran up against the wall we provided temporary relieve and moving forward with fix with thatwith that -

>> i'm sorry, i do have questions for the entertainment commission. >> my apologies ms. black stone. >> why even have entertainment commission give permits to bars that have 10 or less advises i understand for all other non-bar entities they only have to come from other arcades that are 10 or less they've got issues its important to regulate. but i don't understand i haven't heard of instances where the arcade machines in and of itself yeast a nuisance to a neighborhood when there's a restaurant or bar why do we want to continue to regulate them in bars >> first of all, good afternoon. supervisors.

the entertainment commission just give you a background who what we've found the machines themselves don't create a problem for the public, however, whufr the ad alcohol there can be problems. the whole point of the entertainment commission it's our policy our goal to make sure that small businesses like bars and clubs what about successful and provide ways for people to enjoy themselves safely and responsibly and co- exist with the community. the reason we want to see permits for any sort of venue for amazement days it gives us a mechanism to work with the bar. we get complaints about bars and a lot of times they don't have entertainment permits but if

they have permits is for electronic darts or pool table we'll work with the bar because every permit has our good neighbor policy and that's a 13 points policy that that venue needs to comply with. so instead of the arcade being the problem we did not work with a venue to be a good neighborhood unless we have a permit if we didn't have a permit with the venue like someone that has one or two we couldn't work with them it's instead up to the abc or the police they didn't have the staffing that's our point to work with the different venues and places that offer entertainment so the neighborhood can continue to have a good time >> it seems like we use the arcade machines as a means to

kind of catch a number of businesses that may not be participating that the good neighbor policys you're saying we do this with other policies. >> this is for live performance and safe entertainments and mechanic devices. >> you know this is going to be my push back i hear from the small businesses i know i do, too we as a city put a lot of regulations and they support a lot of the policies they have whether it's higher minimum wage so but we put a ton of recollections on them a that's maybe unnecessary so my response is let's work on the other pieces we want to raise the minimum wage and have health care so are there other ways to make it easier in san francisco and to me this is a clear

example of that. so if the arcade machines in and of itself are not the issue for many of the bars i'm not sure i want them to go through a permit process to have arrest indicating can do machines a problem here in the city so unless the machinists is a nuisance i'm not sure i want to support this. it 10 seems like a lot i'm sorry two seems like a lot >> currently their 41. >> i'm saying loans we're making the change today, i think it should be a much higher i take it prefer not to have anyone under 10 come to the commission i think it has to be a higher number to me it's crazy. i'm not sure how many bars know

they have to come. to the commission there might be bars out of the compliance and an extremely hard process if you have only a few because it goes to the regular process and can get appealed that seems like a lot so i'll propose to amend this alleviation >> supervisor kim i appreciate the concerns for the small businesses and the layers they've got to deal with you currently there are 82 locations in the city and i just don't building that a pinball machine is going to the barrier i don't think i don't think that's the protective 6 they're looking for . >> how much is the permit. >> $740 a one-time application

fee and annually to continue to operate 3 hundred and 16 no matter florida i have one or 60. >> that's a significant cost. for two pinball machines or a donkey arcade machine foreperson that they have to come before the commission and if it gets appealed they have to go the board of appeals. i hear you this may not be the task certainly no bar has asked me to take this out of the planning code but that's an unnecessary process because time in and of itself is what it takes to file all the things and to know what all the permits are. so of them are a little bit

important ridiculous this seems like like a clear one we can make it easier for the number of businesses you've listed to operate if the arcade machine is in and of itself not the issue there are pieces where the arcade machine people are throwing them out of the bars this was something that was sensitized by the people we should talk about a permit process to make sure those bars will have the process reluctance in place to make sure that didn't happen but if that's not what we're trying to get out of them i can't support this. there's no need for a respond i'll be making a motion to amend >> that's increasing two to size. >> with minimum i'll be okay with the minimum 5 my preference

so to take utility anything under 10. >> do you want to respond for supervisor breed. >> when we were first distrusting this legislation conceding said why not delete the whole thing i appreciate where a you're coming from supervisor kim absolutely. in introducing we agree with the entertainment commission to be mindful of their continue to introduce it to one i think to 5 supervisor breed will support that absolutely >> okay. i'm fine going up to 5 i actually had a similar response to supervisor breed i understand the concerns of the entertainment commission but i'm fine doing 5. i might say to mr. gibner if we

amend it does that require an amendment >> john gibner, deputy city attorney the increasing will not require a continuance we could would do it i don't know if it's coming out of the committee report it's one line in the ordinance. >> so in other words changing the trigger to two machines to 5 machines and even if that's making the ordinance less restrictive to currently it's one with. >> right it's decreasing the restriction on bars and as parts of a small piece of a large overhaul. >> so what i'm going to suggest is one option to divide the file and to send both forward since

supervisor breed is not here unless your competent saying she'll support this. >> i'm one hundred percent confident. >> okay. i'll accept the amendment to change it to 5 machines. >> out of the respect i'll make a motion to amend the legislation from 2 to 5 so understanding any i guess any venue will have to get a permit if they're ten or more or bar 5 or more. >> mr. iga in her i'm assuming this wouldn't be an issue but amending it back to 2 would we have another hearing. >> one machine limit decreasing it back to one tomorrow to

reflect it will not require another meeting and from 5 to 2 so if the commission feels this is importantly we'll have till tomorrow to talk to supervisor breed i wanted to make sure we could at least get the first reading out of the way. and tomorrow's board meeting so supervisor kim has made a motion to amend to increase the - >> have you taken public comment. >> you're right so before we ask for the amendment we'll open up for medical cannabis i have one speaker card for the departmental i'm sorry i did not

know the sfpd was here. >> i'm a lieutenant with the san francisco pd permit bureau representing commander gary it has been working closely with mr. johnson on the legislation he expressed this morning he wanted me to share today is his concern about gaging and the city has been dealing with gambling and there recent companies that are notorious labeling the sweepstakes and we want to see will there be a vesting process for a third party vendor to provide machines to those businesses if a bar goes into an agreement with a vendor who will be the agency that does the vetting process to

make sure they're not in a criminal process the sfpd looks forward to have this updated it's antiquated this is an opportunity to make lasting changes in try and step away from gaging and try to create some guidelines to protect young people. one the others concerns are for arcades if they're in a bar like situation to not advertise for young people to be part ever it and have people on the sidewalks soliciting people on the sidewalks. there needs to be an tenant to be checking ids fittings if as

the an arcade geared toward a young to make sure they have a background check because of the original scope of the legislation this is a great opportunity to visit the issues and have a meaningful conversation about gaging so i don't know if we're able to have a continuance or discussion before it goes to the full board of supervisors but that's the situation of the sfpd >> under johnson on behalf of the supervisor breed would you like to respond to the sfpd. >> sure protective aid with

respect to gambling we thought that that and worked with the city attorney's office that's why i highlighted the 0 language i think we have a good response to some of the other issues from our colleague maybe she wants to speak. >> thank you i mean, i think what the lieutenant brought it's a good thing to have a vetting progress she broths up the concern of arcades our concerns we deal with entertainment that happens at bars when they came to us we brought this to supervisor breed's office we've not had so much support so people watch is a great place but we are talking about places that are bars and we get third party's all the time that want to go in and put in electronic

dart the companies are not going to be the responsible party on premises it's difficult that's why we like to have our mechanic devices equipment recommended to a person not part of the establishment. thanks >> great, thank you. okay. at this point, we'll open open this up for public comment i know i have one public comment card. come on up anyone else you can line up maybe on this side public comment will be two minutes >> supervisors thank you mr. chair and supervisor breed. i'm kirsten the d-8 resident and

arcade enthusiast i'm excited to hear about your restrictions for priorities that want to use the devices this is an important times for our children and at that time of amazing innovation we've got business owners that are bringing new ways to have recreation. i want to support sfpd recreation to protect our children but when it comes to the preservation of machines that are old and outdated and comes to innovating and creating ways for people to gather and play games together those are two areas they're living by the margins like the small business owners that are creating the

spaces to do that. so i encourage you to look at the fees because this can only happen if we can afford to do it and pay the guy to fix it edward reiskin or figure out a way to get together so i encourage you to go further with it >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi thank you for considering this today. i'm erick i'm a 10 year resident ever pole valley and a homeowner which is a few blocks away and a pin baurl i have to say san francisco is a city where we support the spaces the parks have been evidenced and a move to create a place where everyone

can participate and this is an affordable way for people to get together. i'm heavily in support of this. you that's it thank you. thank you very much >> thank you to the committee i'm ross a resident of lower hate which is the street where free go watch is located allison park i'm from boston and those laws have stopped the pinballs in boston so moving here and having this community be a part of the ongoing process of being a californian was a big deal thank you to free go watch and other bars in the greater san francisco area for providing