Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Revocation Power topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor Chu proposal would let Entertainment Commission revoke permits for venues posing substantial safety risks or continuing nuisances
Summary
Supervisor David Chu’s office presented an ordinance to expand the Entertainment Commission’s authority to revoke place‑of‑entertainment and extended‑hours permits when operations pose a substantial risk of physical harm or cause persistent public nuisances. Commissioners asked staff and the city attorney to clarify statutory citations and definitions before the Board of Supervisors hears the measure under the 30‑day rule.
Catherine Rauschaber, representing Supervisor David Chu, told the San Francisco Entertainment Commission on June 8 that the supervisor is sponsoring an ordinance to add two specific grounds for revoking entertainment and extended‑hours permits: where operation creates a "substantial risk of harm or injury to individuals" and where a permittee’s persistent actions or inaction cause serious, continuing problems amounting to a public nuisance. Rauschaber said the change would leave the commission’s existing suspension tools in place and provide an additional enforcement option in the most compelling cases.
Rauschaber said the proposal grew in part from the city’s response to violent incidents at Club Suede earlier this year and from a desire to give the commission a more direct enforcement role. "It merely provides an additional enforcement tool in compelling cases," she told commissioners, noting that a revocation would also bar a permittee from reapplying for one year.
Commissioners pressed staff on scope and legal particulars. One commissioner noted that the city attorney’s record in the Suede hearings did not establish a clear causal link between the shooting and routine permit enforcement, and asked whether the draft ordinance would create a special revocation pathway distinct from the commission’s existing suspension regime. Commissioners also expressed concern about taking a piecemeal approach and urged a broader review of Police Code sections 10.60 and 10.70.
A commissioner raised a drafting concern: the ordinance as circulated cites a California Civil Code section for "public nuisance" that may be transposed in the draft. Staff said they would ask the city attorney to confirm the correct statutory citation and to supply written clarification on definitional issues, including what constitutes a "substantial risk" under the proposed language.
Deputy staff and police representatives told the commission the additional authority could complement quicker, targeted enforcement. Members of the public and industry representatives offered conditional support while urging careful drafting and cooperative work between the supervisor’s office, staff and the commission before the Board of Supervisors’ public safety committee reviews the matter under the 30‑day rule.
Next steps: staff agreed to seek written clarification from the city attorney on the transposed Civil Code citation and to pass commissioners’ drafting suggestions to Supervisor Chu’s office before the Board of Supervisors’ committee hearing.
