1. Presented by: Stephanie Heath And Margaret Weadick PA 715 December 17, 2011 GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY

2.  OVERVIEW:  The Good Neighbor Policy is a unique policy adopted less than a decade ago in San Francisco California.  Innovative  Regulates night life activities in San Francisco  This is the only policy of it’s kind  The Entertainment Commission developed and created this policy after a string of violence at SF nightclubs. GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY

3.  The San Francisco Entertainment Commission was established in 2003 with the mission to regulate, promote and enhance the field of entertainment in the city of San Francisco. The seven member commission has powers to accept, review and gather information to conduct hearings for entertainment- related permit applications. Additionally The Entertainment Commission plans and coordinates the provision of City services for major events for which there is no recognized organizer, promoter, or sponsor.  Permits granted by The Planning Department A LITTLE ABOUT THE ENTERTAINMENT COMMISSION

4.  The procedures are in place to insure quiet, safety and cleanliness of the premises. Such conditions shall include, but not limited to the following:  Well-lit entrances and exits  Encourages patrons to exit in a peaceful orderly fashion  No litter  Block driveways  Security staff at all entrances and exits  Employees of establishment shall walk in a 100 foot radius between 30 minutes after closing and 8am to pick up garbage.  Sufficient toilet facilities  Outside lighting  Adequate parking WHAT IS THE POLICY?

5.  Policy Procedures continued:  Adequate ventilation  No noise during daytime hours that violate SF Municipal code  No noise inside residences that surround the venue  Establishment shall implement other conditions to insure safety and cleanliness  No blocked sidewalks  Cell phone number shall be provided to all interested neighbors  Permit holder agrees to be responsible for all operation  Manager agrees to provide contact info up to 2 hours after the establishment closes. WHAT IS THE POLICY?

6. PLAYERS IN THE PROCESS PlayersWhat do they want? Did they get it?How?Related readings SF Entertainment Commission The realm they oversee to be safe and secure. Would need to see research from before the policy and now, but they have something in place to promote safety. Created to make establishment accountable. Creating and enforcing policy Focal event (Kingdon) Systems Model (Easton) ABCPublic safety/public adhering to laws put in place by the ABC YesRequiring venue owners and management to be held accountable for the actions of the bar staff within the venue SFPDPublic safety/less violence Would need to see research from before Relying on all other players to do their part Venue Owners/Management Nonviolent space/but less interference by police or government Making strides towardSticking to the guidelines of GNP and creating relationships with community groups and police force

7. PlayersWhat do they want? Did they get it?How?Related Readings Patrons/PublicAbility to attend public spaces with the intent of safety, also a forum in which to speak to an authority figure Yes, I think now that there is a forum now for the public to voice concerns about what they want out of public spaces Management needs to be made available to the public as well as other authority figures ie. Cops, gov Neighborhood Groups Quiet safe clean neighborhoods. Direct contact with venue management and other authority groups ie cops, gov In our opinion, no not yet, but police as well as the EC are able to say they have implemented a policy to help with those concerns. No matter what restrictions are imposed onto public spaces there will always be an element that you can’t keep out Group Theories (Olson) PLAYERS CONTINUED Punctuated Equilibrium (True), Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier)

8.  The agenda setting for the GNP began with the change in zoning laws.  Lofts and apartments in industrial areas  Residents wanted safe quiet neighborhoods  Growing tension between neighbors and business owners  Ultimate trigger was a string of violent acts AGENDA SETTING

9.  This is a very unique policy. This is no other policy like this that is currently in place.  A few other larger cities have a similar entertainment groups but SF is the only one that is run by government.  Leader-lager model FORMULATION

10.  This policy was adopted in November of 2004.  This was the second act of the Entertainment Commission  The policy was revised in 2010.  Civil Grand Jury Recommendations  The Entertainment Commission revised to give the agency more “teeth”  Balance competing interests  Promotes health, safety and welfare of the public ADOPTION

11.  Not much different from typical business functions.  Most neighborhood complaints are due to noise and garbage  “No brainer” (Audrey from the Entertainment Commission)  If standards of the policy are violated then the business can be fined either by the Entertainment Commission, The Planning Department or the SFPD. Ultimately, the permit to operate establishment could be revoked. IMPLEMENTATION

12.  The 2010 revision gave the Entertainment Commission more authority  Will continue to be refined  Continue to go through policy process  Change and grow with new neighborhoods, groups and the city itself. PROGNOSIS