Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 8, 2011 11:00pm-11:30pm PDT

11:00 pm
facilities that are relatively close to where people want to be and the s.s. park program that gives people realtime information and we don't want to draw to the restricted areas, but if there is parking and people can't get there without dislocating the rest of the events, we will try to facilitate the maximum number of spectators getting here in the easiest and least impactful way. president olague: thank you for the presentation. i want to thank joy for working with community members and meeting with folks and this sort of thing because that is important. and then finally, it is nice we have views from and to telegraph hill. that is not without community engagement and advocacy and that sort of thing. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, on the economic side. there's ban lot of big numbers mentioned for tourism in the
11:01 pm
sense of people coming to see the event. and yet can i find that study somewhere? i'm sorry, i am not -- i haven't been totally engaged, but you were mentioning there was an economic study. if i read the e.i.r., am i going to find where these numbers came from? in terms of the projected numbers? my question really has to do with if the america's cup in the past took place in spain out in the ocean where nobody saw anything, takes place in auckland out in the ocean where nobody sees anything. then all of a sudden it comes to the bay area and there are billions of people coming here, when, in fact, nobody has had that experience in the first place. and so where do the numbers come from? i am wondering that says thereby hundreds of thousands people here on race day. >> so there was a beacon economics study put out late
11:02 pm
last year and that is on our website. and it made some assumptions, fairly conservative assumptions, but i think all the points you raise are in there in the sense that this is a new configuration for the america's cup. part of why they're bringing it here is to bring it to more of a populus so naszs can come and see it. there are a lot of assumptions and didn't take into account the america's cup world series events in 2012 and what the benefits will be and on the other side, maybe things we are doing they didn't look at either that cut against the overall estimate. the estimate was $1.4 billion to the economy. i think what we need to do over the course of the project is really re-evaluate what those numbers are in relation to what we are doing. we talked about the large spectator vessel berth and that is a key part of the economic drivers here and obviously a balancing act to be done there.
11:03 pm
and the economic impact and that is part of the policy conversation that you have. commissioner sugaya: and i can understand the viewpoint of someone who might come to this who have precedence with people with money, for lack of a better term, who are really interested and as you said, may bring their sailing vessels here and berth and that kind of thing. i was wondering more about people like me. what the projections are not, not to say -- i know a lot of people sail, but the rest of us who might be engaged to go down a couple of times to look at it from some vantage point. and i will pull it off the site. >> and one additional point and the draft e.i.r. will show the visitor projections to different
11:04 pm
location which is may give a further analysis, but the point is well taken. in part this america's cup world series we are trying to develop, hopefully that builds some of the new era and not the extreme sports crowd, but not your father's sailing race. and hopefully we can benefit from that. president olague: thank you. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i had a question for peter albert, i saw him here, and it is a transportation question and we have heard talk about flight extension which i would hope would be in place by the time of this because we just had a discussion about the viewing areas in the marina green and bringing people through the tunnel and with the rest of the embarcadero area and the e-line
11:05 pm
and the extension to the south waterfront. and i don't know if that is a possibility or even have enough cars to get that finished and if you don't have enough streetcars to run the metro cars and i don't know if this is possible. >> peter albert, the transportation plan, and the first question is about the extension and we are managing that with the government and the projections are that probably wouldn't be finished and the challenge of all this is to pull the transportation plan together that works for 2012 and as mike said, 2012 gives us a chance to pilot and test things out for 2013. and if the money comes in and if for some miraculous reason the i.e.s. is finished quickly and we get streetcars out, that is a
11:06 pm
whole different subject. but we are not building that into the people plan. the streetcar linked to mission bay and the caltran station and bart and out towards fisherman's what are to have link major nodes. that is part of what the people plan recommendation will be. the rehabilitation program and to supplement that with the motted earn -- with modern cars. one other streetcar augu augmend i heard about the lack of capacity on the f-line is in addition to the f which comes and goes out to the wharf and e which goes from mission bay to the wharf will have an f shuttle between the ferry bay and the wharf so we have the ability to pick up visitors, commuters, everybody needing to get around in that really congested segment of the waterfront.
11:07 pm
president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, that will place you on ie them in 9 for 2011.0526t, creation of limited live performance permit for indoor locales. >> good afternoon, president olague, members of the commission. sophie hayward, planning staff. the item before you is a proposed apropose ed ordinance to create a limited live performance for indoor locales whose primary function is not the presentation of live performances. the ordinance was introduce d t create an opportunity by supervisor mirkarimi for a land use such as a restaurant or a bar. supervisor mirkarimi is here today to provide an overview of
11:08 pm
the propoedz ordinance, so with your permission, i would like to let him speak first and following supervisor mirkarimi's remarks, i will outline the impacts of the proposal to the planning code specifically and present the details of the department's recommendation to you. i also want to note i will be distributing a letter from supervisor mirkarimi to you that describes amendments that may be added to the ordinance after this hearing that would expand the areas eligible for the permit. so i want to make sure you know that is coming. i'm going to turn it over to supervisor mirkarimi. thank you. >> commissioners, honorable commissioners, president, thank you. i know it's been already long afternoon for you, so thank you for the indulgence. i am supervisor mirkarimi and i represent the fifth district. i believe that this legislation
11:09 pm
that is before you is an appropriate and sensible answer on a land use, business, and entertainment perspective as to how we can help restaurants and cafes thrive in san francisco san francisco, especially smaller restaurants thrive and how to put musicians and artists to work in san francisco. and the reason this wasn't caught is there's been a one size fits all permit for establishments, restaurants, bars, etc., who would like to have entertainment and that particular xherment cost roughly $-- and that particular copolymer -- that particular permit was $2,000 for conditional use on top of the other $2,300 they would have to spend.
11:10 pm
and this obviously speaks to the fact that many small establishments with restaurants and find that extremely cost prohibitive. we have been working with the office of economic and workforce development and the small business development and entertainment commission for quite some period of time in taking note of some of the tension points that have occurred in many parts of the city between some of the large and medium size establishments on entertainment. and we are trying to understand what happened to all the other i think establishments that would like to have some role in being able to comply with the city legally speaking and be able to permit so that their establishment can bring in added attraction and the musicians in by the entertainment that one would like. with what this legislation does is creates a whole other strata or tier so that those spaces of
11:11 pm
200 square feet or less and within that given place of business would be able to go ahead and permit. the cost could be considerably cheaper with $439 with a $139 annual renewal spe fee. we expect based on the census survey we have been able to take around the city that hundreds and hundreds of calf face and restaurants would be -- that hundreds of cafes and restaurants would be able to benefit from that. i have as well as my colleagues have mixed use corridors that were sensitive to that and are always looking for a break and relief by the city that we can provide a benefit in a small business kind of way to give it
11:12 pm
a leg up especially over the downturn nationally, state, and locally. and we think we may have found that response to give them a foot in the door to be able provo vied some -- to provide some added enhancement to magnetize more business in a way that, one, the city would like to see greater compliance with and who establish and do not legally permit and still have entertainment anyway. and therefore causing law enforcement, entertainment commission, or our own offices to have to field complaints. and two, provide an infrastructure that institutionalizes a regulated process that legitimizes what is part of an ongoing practice but not one that i think is certainly regulated or acknowledged. therefore, creating great confusion amongst the city, family, and law enforcement. and so by doing this, we think that we actually answer a larger question that has remained
11:13 pm
unanswered or at least unnoticed for a great many years. we've had conversations like the one that we are having with you here today with the small business commission who unanimously passed their recommendation for the legislation, as well as the entertainment commission, too. we have generally complied with the previous law put in place where there had already been permitted as of right for the larger establishments and respected the areas where there had been prohibitions in certain parts of san francisco, like in parts of south of market or in the west portal. and i made it clear to the businesses in those districts and those vicinities of san francisco that if their supervisors, my colleagues, would like to see our legislation amended so that it could be amended in, then i am more than happy to do that and through that grass roots response, my colleagues who we
11:14 pm
originally did not include would like to be included in the legislation and this has been well vetted throughout the city and county of san francisco. and attached to that obligation and responsibility and making sure this is managed is sensitive to neighborhood needs and concerns of the residents who within ear distance of any particular business is our insistence there be the compliance with san francisco's ordinance and on noise and excessive noise. we will continue to -- well, we will amend the legislation so it is completely reflective of the noise laws that are already in place. and that requires a small tweak which we'll do at the land use committee of the board of supervisors. but right now i have to tell you, we were surprised and thought this might be a little bit of a sleepy piece of legislation, but i have to tell
11:15 pm
you that there's been dozens, to put it lightly, of businesses, restaurants, and cafes who have come out of the woodwork where word has traveled well that this is in the queue for consideration by the consideration by city government. some representatives who were here earlier like miss ethridge and i know in north beach area and remy who owns mojo cafe and sodero. and these are the kind of places of all different sizes who found it very difficult to navigate around really the high bar of cost in san francisco who really are eager to adopt this kind of law. we're very happy to comply. i would like to thank the entertainment commission, joycelyn compa joycelyn cane, for her good work in helping to build this legislation and reaching out to
11:16 pm
the community and the small business commission and my staff as well, too. and to the large and very decentralized merchant community through all of our 11 driks who have -- through the 11 districts who have and the our shoulder to weigh in on the legislation to refine it where we think it's a good piece of law that creates ap opportunity that there hasn't been before. more than happy to answer any questions. president olague: thank you. department and staff at this time. >> i'll wait. president olague: thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. sophie hayward, planning staff again. i will try to summarize as briefly and thoroughly. what is outlined in the case is the way it is now and the way it would be. the way it is now, the police code defines entertainment broadly. and the planning code in turns treats any use that requires a place of entertainment permit as an entertainment land use.
11:17 pm
and entertainment land use cans not under any circumstances at this time be considered an accessory use. in practice what that means is that a restaurant with a live guitar is treated as the same manner as a warehouse rave with a d.j. for hundreds of people. regulations for entertainment uses vary between zoning districts. entertainment uses are permitted in some districts and are conditionally permitted in others and are not permitted in the third category of districts. with the proposed ordinance, the police code would be amended to create the limited live performance permit and the planning code would be amended to allow entertainment uses that receive the limited live performance permit from the entertainment commission to be considered an accessory use. this opportunity would be available in areas of the city where entertainment uses are allowed, either as principle or conditional uses. i think what's most critical for
11:18 pm
you to consider and to remember is that the proposed ordinance includes very specific parameters for what may be considered a limited live performance. and as the supervisor summarized, that is essentially the area devoted to live performance is limited to 250 square feet. the live performance must be subordinate to the primary use. and the live performance permit is only available in specific areas of the city. the live performance is permitted until 10:00 p.m. during the first year and may be extended to midnight in subsequent years. d.j. performances are specifically excluded. and audible noise is not allowed outsited of business when the doors and businesses are closed. and as noted before, as with any noise-producing activity in the city, the city's noise ordinance is in effect. once these parameters are confirmed, the limited live performance permit can be considered an accessory use.
11:19 pm
and then the second piece of the legislation involves the cost. the current places of entertainment permit fee is close to $1,700 if the application is for a location where entertainment is permitted as of right. if entertainment is only permitted with a conditional use, that is an additional $2,000 plus or minus in fees and with the new ordinance, the licensing fee would be $385 and no conditional use application fee associated with it. the planning department's recommendation is that the planning commission recommend approval to the board of supervisors with modifications. the modifications of the planning department is that the westport and pacific avenue be included despite the fact right now entertainment as a primary land use is not permitted and
11:20 pm
the planning department also recommends that the use districts be included in the ordinance. as proposed t restrictions built into the limited live performance permit would prevent the accessory entertainment use from creating a disruptive noise nuisance and creates a wholly new and limited definition of entertainment that is inherently different from larger, potentially more disruptive forms of der tanment such as -- of entertainment such as concert venues. the department's position is that the limited live performance is an appropriate mechanism to provide small-scale entertainment and neighborhood serving establishments. at this time planning staff has received five letters in support of the proposed ordinance including four letters from west portal merchants and one letter from a constituent within a
11:21 pm
district requesting that the districts be included and staff has received a single phone call in op stoigs the legislation as a whole. she asked me to let you know her name edith mcmillan. included in your pack set a leter from the small business commission and is here to speak as well. the small business commission voted unanimously to recommend the board of supervisors approve the ordinance with modifications with west portal avenue and be included and small business association went further. and the district there and also voted to the board of supervisors. and i request that with the
11:22 pm
modifications and the permit and that concludes my presentation. president olague: thank you for that. and if you have anything to add or like to share with us. >> thank you. the director of office of small business. and i think what i want to add and express my appreciation to supervisor mirkarimi and the commission is around the cost of the fee and if you look at the map in the packet, the neighborhood commercial corridors and the place of entertainment is required conditional use and this the areas we heard from most with the cafes wanting to have this and many of the businesses have talked about daytime music and not necessarily nighttime and
11:23 pm
sunday afternoons and weekend afternoons and that that perspective brought in and utilizing it. and also the entertainment commissi commission. >> good afternoon. joycelyn cane. the director of entertainment commission and discussed on 20th of june and to support the legislation. and enforcement the process after the legislation if it is there. president olague: thank you. i have three speaker cards.
11:24 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name the paul wormer. i have a letter i sent to supervisor mirkarimi's office way back at the beginning of the process addressing some concerns and i would like to have that entered into the record and distribute it to them. this when you look at frem mis, the -- when you look at the premise and the intent of the legislation, it is wufrl and there's strong support. when you look at the language that executes it, it ends up falling short in meeting the intent in many ways. a significant issue is the visibility from the street requirement. we are talking about neighborhood commercial districts and active street fronts. and yet the language in the legislation requires that
11:25 pm
nothing be vizable from the street and doors and windows be closed so it is not audible. is that really what you want in a commercial and neighborhood district? this is not, as has been pointed out, a rave. this is where the entertainment should invite people in and right away we have the key piece in the legislation that contradicts that. and we requested they add a community liaison if there are problems for many of the conditional use programs and that is not part of the language. i am not sure why that is not something the entertainment commission would support. that helps reduce concerns. we're concerned about the premise for extending hours of operation in the evening because what's permissible before 10:00 a.m. is not after 10:00 p.m. if i recall the noise ordinance and we're setting a test condition
11:26 pm
to extend it late when the test condition in the pre-10:00 p.m. is not an acceptable condition in the after 10:00 slot in many case. i think that is a weakness that really needs to be considered. and there is a lot of talk about supporting other types of activities, bookstores, art galleries, as mentioned in the preamble. are they going to be required to serve food? to have a poetry reading? it's not clear. the language suggests yes. there are a lot of issues of that sort. we are extremely concerned about making a variety of entertainment permissible in areas where there's conditional use and i want to get back to the point on location, location, location. if you are on the ground floor of a multiunit building, the
11:27 pm
vibration through the build iin with noise is dramatic. i live next door to what has been a musical neighborhood -- [bell ringing] >> any other speakers who were called? not here? michael wagner. >> i am michael winger, president of the san francisco recording academy and the organization responsible for the grammy awards. we represent music kree yaytors and music professionals and feel this is incredibly beneficial to some of the smallest businesses which is working musicians and will create jobs and more work for the communities. there is nothing that gives an area more local flavor than the local live musicians. and this legislation is incredibly important in allowing more people to perform music
11:28 pm
live legally. and music is a magnet of culture and brings people into the city and keeps people in the neighborhoods. and if we allow more music into more neighborhoods in a setting which is not necessarily loud rock shows but a great diversity of music that is currently unheard to have a place to perform will be incredibly powerful for san francisco as a city and keep musicians in town. we have lost a lot of the music community to east bay and other regions due to the expense of working and living in san francisco and with a permit that is low cost and allows businesses that don't necessarily generate massive amounts of revenue to hire a flute player for a small afternoon brunch or a guitar player on the corner or a jazz band in north beach, all of these are music generas that have a difficult time finding places to be heard because of the cost for the venues. so we strongly support this and
11:29 pm
appreciate you taking the time to listen. commissioner miguel: thank you. alex walsh. >> i am here to represent the views of the musician team 6 and of the united states and canada and we represent approximately 1800 professional mu sooigss in the san francisco area from all walks of musical life include the symphony, ballet, and various regional and metropolitan orchestras and touring broadway showses and major retail theaters and sky walker ranch, recording film, and video games, musicians who play for celebrity shows and more to the point of the legislation is musicians whose livelihoods come from working in the many restaurants, clubs, and cafes throughout the city. these are extraordinarily hard times for musicians. we constantly hear of