EXTENDED HOURS PERMIT LEGISLATIVE DIGEST [Entertainment Commission – Extended-Hours Premises Permits.] Ordinance amending the San Francisco Police Code Sections 1070, 1070.1, 1070.2, 1070.3, 1070.5, 1070.7, 1070.8, 1070.13, 1070.15, 1070.16, 1070.17, 1070.19, 1070.20, 1070.20-1, 1070.22, 1070.23, 1070.24, and 1070.27; repealing Sections 1070.12, 1070.21, and 1070.26; and adding Sections 1070.28 and 1070.29, relating to the application, approval, amendment, suspension, revocation, and transfer of Extended-Hours Premises Permits, including changes in penalties for violations of law. Existing Law If an Extended-Hours Premises (EHP) (1) fails to comply with health, zoning, fire, and safety requirements; (2) harms the public health, safety, or welfare by significantly increasing pedestrian traffic, disorderly conduct, or noise, and fails to alleviate these conditions; (3) violates California laws; or (4) violates any provision of the Police Code or the EHP Permit, the Entertainment Commission may revoke or suspend the Permit only after a noticed public hearing. Suspensions for repeated violations are set at thirty, sixty, and ninety days. When there is a change in ownership, the new owner(s) must apply for a new EHP Permit; the permit is not transferable. Amendments to Current Law This ordinance will amend Article 15.2 of the Police Code as follows 1. Performances conducted by nonprofit organizations, by educational institutions (kindergarten through twelfth grade), or in private residences would not be subject to the regulations of this Article. (Section 1070.) The definition of adult entertainment would conform to the San Francisco Police Code, Article 11.2, Section 791. (Section 1070(b)(4).) 2. The Entertainment Commission would be able to rescind a conditional Extended-Hours Premises (EHP) Permit if the permittee begins operating without obtaining all other required permits. The owner of an EHP would not be able to operate once a permit is revoked or rescinded. (Section 1070.1.) 3. EHP Permit applications would have to identify persons to whom the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issued a license for the premises, and persons who appear on any business registration certificates for the premises. (Section 1070.3(b) and (d).) The disclosure of convictions would be required only for specific offenses, and felonies and misdemeanors arising out of the operation of an EHP. (Section 1070.3(e) and (f).) 4. The Commission would have to hold a hearing and make a determination on all EHP Permit applications within forty-five days. (Section 1070.5(a).) Applications not acted upon within this period would be deemed approved. (Section 1070.5(h).) The Commission would be able to deny an EHP Permit if an applicant's security plan does not adequately address the need to protect the safety of persons and property and to avoid pedestrian and vehicular congestion. (Section 1070.5(f)(4).) Any person whose application for an amendment to an EHP Permit has been denied would be able to seek immediate judicial review. (Section 1070.5(g).) 5. The Commission would be able to suspend an EHP Permit if the permittee fails to submit a proposed security plan or fails to comply with an approved security plan. (Section 1070.17(a)(5) and (6).) The Commission would have to provide at least fifteen days written notice, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing. The Commission would have twenty-one days after the hearing to determine whether to suspend or revoke a permit. The Commission would be able to adopt rules governing the procedures for hearing and determining the suspension and revocation of permits. (Section 1070.17(b).) The penalties for the first, second, and third violations within a six-month period would be changed from a suspension of the EHP Permit for thirty, sixty and ninety days, respectively, to a suspension for up to thirty, up to sixty, and up to ninety days. The Commission would be able to consider the seriousness and the frequency of the violations in light of the effort to correct them and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. (Section 1070.17(c).) The Commission would be able to revoke an EHP Permit if the permittee knowingly omitted a material fact on the permit application, or sold or transferred ownership without obtaining approval. (Section 1070.17(d)(1) and (3).) A permittee whose EHP Permit has been suspended or revoked would be able to seek immediate judicial review without seeking an administrative remedy before the Board of Appeals. (Section 1070.17(e).) 6. References to the Board of Review, which has been replaced by the Board of Appeals, would be removed from Section 1070.19(c) and (d). 7. The Executive Director of the Entertainment Commission would be able to suspend an EHP Permit for up to seven days if the EHP has exceeded allowable noise emissions or engaged in conduct constituting a nuisance. (Section 1070.20(a), (a)(1) and (a)(2).)The Director would have to provide the EHP permittee with at least five days written notice and an opportunity to respond. (Section 1070.20(a).) The permittee would be able to appeal the Director's suspension order to the Commission, which would have ten days to affirm, overturn, or modify the order. (Section 1070.20(b)(1).) The permittee would be able to submit to the Director a plan of corrective action. If accepted, the Director could elect to stay the suspension to give the permittee time to comply with the plan. (Section 1070.20(b)(3).) The Commission, when hearing an appeal, would also be able to provide a plan of corrective action, and could stay the suspension order to give the permittee time to comply with the plan. (Section 1070.20(b)(4).) If the Director determines that the permittee has complied with the plan of correction, the Director would have to vacate the order. (Section 1070.20(b)(5).) The Director would be able to initiate orders of limited suspension against an EHP no more than three times in any twelve-month period, but each order could include multiple violations. (Section 1070.20(b)(6).) A permittee whose EHP Permit has been temporarily suspended would be able to seek immediate judicial review without seeking an administrative remedy before the Board of Appeals. (Section 1070.20(c).) 8. Under no circumstances would an EHP Permit be transferable. An EHP permittee who transfers all ownership of an EHP would have seven business days to surrender the permit. (Section 1070.22(a).) An EHP permittee who partially transfers ownership of an EHP would have to apply for an amended permit unless the transfer does not result in any person having an ownership interest of at least ten percent. (Section 1070.22(c).) Transfers in ownership resulting in a person owning fifty percent or more of the business would require the Commission's approval. (Section 1070.22(d).) Transfers in ownership resulting in a person owning at least ten but less than fifty percent of the business would require the Executive Director's approval. (Section 1070.22(e).) The Commission would be able to revoke an EHP Permit if the permittee transfers ownership without approval. (Section 1070.22(f).) A permittee would not be able to operate an EHP in any manner inconsistent with any condition the Commission imposes on the permit. (Section 1070.22(g).) The provisions governing changes in ownership would not apply to publicly traded companies. (Section 1070.22(h).) 9. Any person who owns or operates an EHP without a valid permit, or who transfers ownership of an EHP without obtaining the requisite approval, would be guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor. (Section 1070.24(a)(1) and (2).) Each day a person owns or operates an EHP without a valid permit would constitute a separate violation. (Section 1070.24(b).) Infractions would be punishable by a one hundred dollar fine for the first violation, two hundred dollars for the second within one year, and five hundred dollars for each additional violation within one year. (Section 1070.24(c).) Misdemeanors would be punishable by a one thousand dollar fine, six months imprisonment in a county jail, or both fine and imprisonment. (Section 1070.24(d).) 10. Permittees would be required to report any change in the name, address, or contact information of day-to-day managers of the EHP; or any criminal conviction information for EHP permittees, managers, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control licensees, or persons whose names appear on the business registration certificate. (Section 1070.28(a)(1) and (2).) Any corporation holding an EHP Permit would have to maintain a record of its shareholders for the Commission. The corporation would have to report within thirty days any issuance or transfer of shares resulting in a person owning ten percent or more of the corporate stock. (Section 1070.28(b).) 11. EHPs would be required to have security plans. (Section 1070.29(a).) The Commission would not be able to approve any EHP Permit application without a security plan (Section 1070.29(b).) All EHPs without a security plan approved by the Commission would have to submit a proposed plan to the Director. (Section 1070.29(c).) The Director would review each proposed plan and approve or disapprove it. If the Director approves, the permittee would have to comply with the plan immediately. If the Director disapproves, the permittee could appeal to the Commission, which would have to affirm or overturn the Director's decision. (Section 1070.29(d).) A permittee's failure to submit a security plan or a revised security plan would result in a suspension of the EHP Permit until the permittee complies with the requirement. (Section 1070.29(e).) If an EHP engages in conduct constituting a nuisance or if an EHP's current security plan is inadequate, the Director would be able to order the permittee to revise the security plan to address safety and traffic concerns. The permittee would be able to appeal the Director's order within ten City business days to the Entertainment Commission. (Section 1070.29(f).) 12. This ordinance would make technical changes to Sections 1070.2, 1070.7, 1070.8, 1070.13, 1070.15, 1070.16,1070.20-1, 1070.23, and 1070.27 to reflect other amendments and additions to Article 15.2. 13. This ordinance would repeal Section 1070.12, which deals with prohibited interactions between professional entertainers or employees and EHP customers. 14. This ordinance would repeal Section 1070.21, which deals with stay orders. 15. This ordinance would repeal Section 1070.26, which deals with a moratorium on the granting of permits. The moratorium expired on December 31, 2000. Background Information Current regulations do not allow the Entertainment Commission to respond quickly and decisively to Extended-Hours Premises in violation of state and local laws. Violations continue until the hearing is completed and the Commission decides to suspend a permit. These amendments give greater power to the Executive Director of the Commission, allowing him or her to suspend permits for up to seven days, subject to immediate appellate procedures. Additionally, this legislation clarifies the application requirements for Extended-Hours Premises Permits. It also requires Extended-Hours Premises to create security plans, which the Executive Director or the Commission must approve.   Extended Hours Permit Proposal