Good evening, everyone, and welcome to Committee on Ordinance.

I'm Chairman Pedro Espinal to my right as Vice Chair, Councilwoman Shelley Peterson.

To my left as Councilman Oscarga, as well as Councilman Justin Royan.

Thank you so much for being here.

Today is October twenty second, and the time is six PM.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please call the royal.

Present.

Councillor Royas.

Present.

You have four present and one absent.

You have a quorum.

So moved.

Second.

So Bay.

So moved.

So in favor, I opposed the ayes have it.

Also, I wanted to take a motion to enter into the record exhibit C, which is the letter from letter from the CPC.

Made for uh by Councilwoman Peterson, second by Council of Bagas, all in favor.

I oppose the eyes have it.

Thank you.

Robert Azer, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Development.

Uh this petition.

Um I believe has a substitute.

Um Madam Clerk, is that is that right?

Yes.

And has that already been accepted?

It has.

Okay, thank you.

Um, these are three lots on DeSoto Street.

They're currently zoned R3, which is three family residential.

However, um they um they're occupied by industrial businesses.

Um, and um sometimes we see that that you have these uh sort of legacy businesses that might have been established before there was zoning, or they may have been established by uh variants.

Uh but this is an area that is uh has a predominance of industrial uses, um, and it is directly adjacent to the MMU 75 zone, which is a mixed-use zone that allows for a variety of different uses, including uh light industrial, residential, and commercial.

Um zoning changes have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, particularly the future land use map.

Uh, this area is intended uh by that map to be one where medium density residential uses are located adjacent to business and mixed use development.

Um so given that the um city plan commission uh voted unanimously to uh advise the city council to rezone these lots to MMU uh based on the conformance with the comprehensive plan and with the purposes of zoning.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Azer.

Uh City Sergeant, can you bring me up anyone that has signed up to speak on item number two, please?

Thank you.

Uh the first person that has signed up to speak on this item is Derek Sack.

Derek Sacco.

The next person is Gracie Mendez.

I wonder if City Sergeant, is this for item number two?

He may have taken the wrong one.

It doesn't say on there, it's item number two.

Right.

Is there anyone here that signed up to speak on item number two?

Because I see uh six people signed up on this item, but it might be the uh you had a your intention may have been to speak on a different item.

Exactly.

Uh so do we have anybody to speak on item number two?

All right, so here in none city uh I'll just city so can you put this back there?

All right, hearing that there is no one here to speak on item number two.

I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on I So moved.

Made by councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman bargas, all in favor aye.

Aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

And after hearing the testimony from the CPC, Mr.

Azer, and and all these data facts.

I'll entertain a motion to approve.

So move.

As amended, as amended.

Motion is made by councilwoman Peterson and second by councilman by favor, aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Item number two is approved.

I'll entertain a motion to take another item out of order.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Opposed the ayes have it, thank you.

Madam Clerk, item number four.

Item number four is a petition from Gilberto as applicant and landowner, JMB Auto Repair and S and E properties, LLC, submitting a zone change for the property located on Assessors Plat 110, lot 409, 118 Silver Lake Avenue from R3 to C3.

Thank you.

Mr.

Aza, will you be speaking on this one?

And now I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record exhibit E.

Maybe Councilwoman Peters seconded by councilwoman.

All in favor, aye.

And then let us a testimony which will be exhibit.

Madam Claire, do you have the exhibit?

Exhibit is the letter from the CPC.

We're doing them.

Okay.

Yes, and also I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record exhibit F, which is the uh letteral testimonies.

Maybe by councilwoman Peterson, second by Castle Mabaga.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Oh, Paul Cabit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Azer.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh this petition is for a piece of property that is currently located in the uh also in the uh three-family residential zone.

Um, and like the last one, this is a non-residential use, it's an auto repair facility.

Um it's a little unclear how this became to be an auto repair facility, but the city doesn't recognize it as such.

Um, it's possible that it had uh some sort of um non-residential use, some commercial use, and over time it kind of morphed into a um auto repair facility without getting the proper zoning.

Um and I believe that this is uh currently under violation and and it doesn't have a license to operate.

Um so the owner has petitioned to change this to C3, which would allow for the auto repair.

Um it so happens that there is a C3 zone directly across the street on Farmington Avenue.

Um, and because of that, and the way that the future land use map of the comprehensive plan is drawn, uh, it would be permissible for you to change this to the C3 zone.

Um so the um the city plan commission did have concerns about the condition of the site and the way that this uh facility is being operated, particularly that um there's no screening from from neighboring property, um and there's no um tree canopy or any sort of landscaping at all.

Um and uh there was also some evidence that there had been some uh storage of vehicles and maybe even some repair being done in the public right of way.

So um these are conditions that have to be uh the the way it's operated uh with respect to outdoor repairs and things like that, those are gonna have to be rectified if they're still going on as a condition of of getting a uh license and complying with zoning.

Uh but the city plan commission in its recommendation to approve this, uh, has requested that the petitioners screen the property um in compliance with uh section 1202 AA of the ordinance and that they meet the canopy coverage requirements under the supervision of the city forester.

Um we would ask that prior to the zoning change be going into effect that they get a zoning certificate uh to indicate conformance with these changes.

Um also there is a request that a footnote be added to the map to limit the use of the lot to vehicle repair and service.

Um if you don't do that, then this lot would be eligible for any other use in the in the C3 zone.

So you know, if you if you so choose, you could you could amend this to add that footnote.

Thank you, Mr.

Azer.

Do we not do we have anybody that has signed up uh to speak on item four?

City sergeant, can I get anything you have on item four minutes?

Let me hear the on item number four.

We have Stephanie Amansar.

Would you like to come up and speak on item four?

Oh I city sergeant, can you please uh put this back?

Mr.

Aza, what was the uh recommended amendment?

You come up again, please.

The the recommendation was that a footnote be added to the zoning map to limit the use of the lot to vehicle repair and service.

So that would be and uh that would be um so that other types of commercial uses wouldn't be allowed, it would just be for that.

So vehicle and repair service.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Azer.

With that said from Mr.

A's, I went to the motion to amend number four and put the food note in there for used for vehicle repair and service.

Second maybe councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman bargas, all in favor, aye.

Opposed the eyes have it.

I'll also entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item number four.

Okay, by councilwoman Peterson, second by Casama Vargas, on favor aye.

Opposed the eyes have it.

Being that no one else uh sign up to testify on this item, so um following the instruction from the CPC, I'll entertain a motion to approve.

As amended as amended.

Maybe Consulwan.

Second by Consulman Vargas, on favor aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it, thank you.

Item number four is approved.

Let me ask you this so that because I want to I want to get through the main topics that I hear.

Has did anyone sign that to speak on item five, six or seven?

This is a zoning matters on item five.

All right, and we we just did four.

Okay, so I'll entertain a motion to take another item out of order.

Maybe by consequence.

Second Peterson, second by Casmore Bagas, on a favor aye.

Aye opposed, the ayes have it.

Madam Clerk, item number five, please.

Item number five is a petition from Americo M.

Scungio Esquire, Scongio and Priolo, 167 Main Street, Westerly Rhode Island, 02891, requesting a zone change for the property located on Assessors Plat 32, a portion of lot 38, 268 Carpenter Street from R3 to C2.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And we also have a sub A on item number five.

So I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record, sub A.

May by councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman Vaga.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

I'll also entertain a motion to enter into the record exhibit F and exhibits uh G, which is a letter of testimony as well as uh letter from the CPC.

May my councilwoman Peterson second by councilman by us, all in favor aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it, thank you.

Uh City Sergeant, can I get the sign up list for item number five, please?

Thank you.

And on this one, we have Americo.

Uh I'm sorry, uh, Mr.

Azer, please, first.

Mr.

America, just give me a second here.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, okay.

This one is a um there's a there's a piece of property that's surrounded a piece of property on Carpenter Street that's surrounded by property um in the C2 zone.

All of it is owned by the same property owner, and it's used for commercial purposes, uh, except this property at 268 Carpenter has a house on it, but the rear yard of it is also used for commercial purposes.

And originally um there was a bit of a convoluted request to change the zoning for uh two different parcels, but in speaking with the uh petitioner, uh everybody agreed that that the goal here is to make it so that the um most of 268 carpenter can be used for commercial purposes.

So our suggestion was to simply change that lot from R3 to C2.

Um, as I said, it's it's surrounded to the to the west, south, and east by C2 already.

Um and there is a house there, there are residential uses which are allowed in the C2 zone.

So um this is a very simple um zoning change.

Uh it's supported by the future land use map of a comprehensive plan, and the um city plan commission unanimously uh approved a recommendation uh for the city council to change this to C2.

Thank you, Mr.

Azar.

Okay, uh Mary Coe.

Good evening.

My name is Samarico Sconggio.

I represent the applicant.

I just wanted to bring to the attention of the committee that um the petition was amended, as Mr.

Asaw said that the entire portion of the lot at 268 and the amended petition is proposed to be changed to C2 from the R3 zone.

Um that the second petition, which is number six on your agenda, was withdrawn.

Just wanted to make sure that that was clear on the record.

We have that.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all.

Thank you so much.

Okay, uh, being that no one else signed up, uh just on item five.

I'll enter that motion to close the public hearing on item five.

Second councilwoman Peterson, second by Consumer Barragas.

On in favor I.

Aye.

Oppose the eyes have it.

And I'll uh entertain a motion to pass item five as amended.

Second by Consulwoman Peterson, second by Consumer Barragas.

All in favor, I oppose the ayes have it.

Item number five is approved.

I'll entertain a motion to take another item out of order.

Second, uh made by councilwoman.

Second by councilman by favor, aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

Madam Clerk, item number six, please.

Item number six is a petition from Americo M.

Scongio Esquire, Scungio and Priolo, 167 Main Street, Westerly Rhode Island, 02891, requesting a zone change for the property located on Assessors Flat 32, a portion of lot 596, 1155 Westminster Street from C2 to R3.

Thank you.

BNW petitioner has requested for this item to be withdrawn.

I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item number six.

Maybe by councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman Barga, some in favor, aye.

Oppose the ayes have it.

And I'll entertain a motion to continue indefinitely.

May by councilwoman Peterson second by councilman Barga.

It's on in favor, aye.

Oppose the eyes have it.

Item number six is continued definitely.

Thank you.

Motion to take another item out of order, please.

Maybe by councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman Bargas.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed.

Yes, have it.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, item number seven, please.

Item number seven is a petition from Jeffrey Padwa S Fire, one park row, fifth floor, Providence Rhode Island 22903, dated July 1st, 2025, on behalf of one Charles, the applicant LLC requesting to amend the Providence Zoning Ordinance to change the zoning district for the parcel located at one Charles Street assessors plat three lot six one six from R4 to D145 to allow the continued use of the property as short-term rental without an owner occupancy requirement.

Thank you.

Mr.

Azar.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um this property on Charles Street is uh directly across the street from the D1 downtown zone.

Uh it's surrounded by a um multifamily complex, and it uh consists of uh historic brick mill type building that we understand has been used for short-term rentals for a number of years with the comprehensive plan we uh expanded the R4 zone uh in part well primarily to um generate more housing in the city.

Um so uh this this petition came to us because uh they've had a long-term short-term rental here and they want to continue to operate it that way, but not with the requirement that it be owner occupied.

Um and given its location uh directly adjacent to downtown, a logical zoning change to effectuate the the goal of the petition would be uh to include it in the downtown zone, uh, but at the uh 45 foot height limit, that's what D145 means.

Um and uh that would also um provide some protection as it is a historic building against um against any kind of uh demolition without a significant review.

Um and um so the city plan commission considered this and and given its location, which is again you know, kind of in a downtown location and not in the neighborhoods um not in the more residential neighborhoods.

The commission felt like this was a reasonable request, so they voted to make a positive recommendation to change this zoning to D 145.

Thank you, Mr.

Aza.

City Sergeant, do we have anybody that signed up on item number seven?

Hold on, somebody stole it.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate your time and attention.

This is I represent Carlos Verum and uh the LLC, one Charles LLC, the owner of this building.

These uh images were part of our petition.

You can see kind of the unique polite location of this property.

If you go down um South Main Street and North Main Street goes to the right, Charles Street goes straight, and he's just on that little tongue right where the Moshassac River is.

You can see it's an old mill building.

He did buy the building about four or five years ago and complied with the requirement that he get a special permit every year to use this for um uh the um short-term rental.

Um the zone change, recent zone change, then required is to be owner-occupied.

This is not owner-occupied kind of a building, and so that's why we're requesting zone change.

It is Mr.

Azar said, it is consistent with the comprehensive plans and uh conformance with the goals and objectives of the zoning ordinance, also supported by councilwoman uh Andrew Bois.

Thank you.

Any question from my committee members?

Hey, Renan, thank you so much.

I think I would have please.

Jeff, please.

Sorry, I'm so sorry.

So the short-term rental is the whole building or one unit.

All five units in the building.

On five units and short rental.

Yes.

Short rental means like um RBB, something like that.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Uh Gallos.

Would you like to speak on this or how are you?

My name is Carlos Varum.

Good evening.

Um, I'm the owner or one of the owners of one Charles LLC.

Um, the other owners are my wife, Jennifer, uh, and my two parents.

Um we bought the we've been investing in Providence for a long time, bringing dead properties and distressed properties back to life.

Um we have a lot of long-term rentals in the city, and we have a little bit of short-term rentals as well here.

On any given day, there's 2025 people working for us between managing communications, cleaning, laundry, deliveries, maintenance, etc.

Um 2022, as Jeff said, we did purchase this property.

Um it was used as commercial, and uh we turned it into um five residential units.

Um we closed on May 2022, and on June 2022, uh, we pulled our first uh temporary use permit for short-term rentals there.

Um we've consistently renewed that every single year um since we've owned the the building.

Um during this time we've coexisted peacefully with the surrounding properties.

Uh there's been no nuisance complaints, zoning violations or enforcement actions.

Um the the rentals have not resulted in any traffic congestion, parking problems or degradation of neighborhood character.

Um guess have been well managed.

Umperations are very professional, um, consistent with the uh hospitality model that benefits the city um and the economy.

Um thank you, Mr.

Vaughn.

I see it's a family business.

We appreciate that, and thank you for investing in Providence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion to close the oh the one that I just got I'll uh before we close the public hearing.

I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record exhibit I, which is a CPC letter.

Maybe councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman bargain, in favor I oppose the ayes have it.

Thank you.

And now I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item number seven.

Maybe councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman bargain, all in favor aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

And I'll entertain a motion to approve item seven.

Made by councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman bargain, someone in favor, aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

Can I be on record to oppose?

I'm sorry.

Item seven.

You're abstaining.

No opposed.

So we have three under positive, one in the negative.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay, so now we'll um go back to um item number one, which is pertaining to entertainment.

Before we do that, I'd like to acknowledge uh our city solicitor who is here uh tonight.

Thank you so much for being here.

Council President uh Rachel Miller is also here.

Councilman Miguel Sanchez, thank you for being here.

Councilwoman Harris, um, Chairwoman Ryan was also here.

My apologies that I didn't acknowledge you before.

Uh Chief of Staff and our policy team.

Thank you so much for being here.

Uh Madam Clerk, item number one, please.

Item number one is an ordinance and amendment of chapter 27 of the code of ordinances of the city of Providence entitled The City of Providence Zoning Ordinance approved November 24th, 2014, as amended to change articles two and twelve relating to entertainment.

Thank you.

I'd also have sub bay on item number one.

So I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record, South Bay.

May by Councilwoman Peterson, second by councilmember Vargas.

All in favor, I oppose the Ice Habit.

Thank you.

Uh also have entertained a motion to enter into the record.

Exhibit uh B.

And also C, which had letters of uh testimony.

May by Castlewoman Peterson second, second by councilman Vargas, all in favor, I oppose the ayes have it.

I'll also entertain a motion to enter into the record exhibit C.

No.

We don't order.

Part of the sub that we have.

All right, so we have thank you so much.

Okay, uh Mr.

Aza, please.

Yeah.

Good evening again, Mr.

A's.

Good evening again.

This is item number number one, correct?

Yes.

Just want to make sure.

Okay.

So this ordinance is actually relatively simple.

It would uh make um some amendments to the way we deal with entertainment in the zoning ordinance.

Um incidental entertainment is a definition that is proposed to be changed.

And uh incidental entertainment, we we created this a number of years ago, which is um specifically a uh entertainment that doesn't need an entertainment license from the board of licensing, and it was always intended to be background music.

And and the way it was originally defined was um music that was played over an existing sound system with a uh previously established playlist, and then um if it was live music performance, it was limited to not more than a maximum of three acoustic instruments that couldn't be amplified in any way.

So even if you had uh in the corner of a of a restaurant someone playing acoustic guitar with a microphone that wasn't at a loud volume, that wouldn't even be allowed because it was amplified.

Although you could have have music that was amplified over a over a sound system.

So there were some inconsistencies in the way this was originally written.

Um and so the intention of this is to change uh the definition of incidental entertainment so that it allows for live music performance.

Um it allows for pre-recorded music played from a pre-selected playlist.

Um, but there's no limit on the number of instrumentalists, and there's no prohibition on uh instrumental music being amplified.

However, there is still a prohibition against sound permeating beyond um the premises.

Um it's there are also um limitations.

There are there are new proposed limitations uh on live performance that it would have to cease by 9 p.m.

on weeknights and 11 p.m.

on weekends.

Um there currently is a prohibition against uh a cover charge that would that would remain.

Uh there's currently a prohibition against um lasers and strobe lights and flashing lights, that would remain.

Um there is currently a prohibition against dancing, that would not um that would be lifted.

Um so as so that if someone were so moved to to dance uh based on the music that would would be performed, they'd be allowed to do that.

It wouldn't be a zoning violation.

Um so in our opinion, these are common sense changes, um, things that are frankly happening already um without causing any problems.

So that's that's a change.

And then we also are proposing a change to what is currently called temporary outdoor entertainment.

Uh there was a category that was created so that you could have temporary outdoor entertainment, which might mean music at a block party, uh music at a at a wedding that might be in somebody's house.

Um or in a place where entertainment is not typically allowed, like in a in a commercial zone.

Um the issue is that we while we we had a process to allow for temporary outdoor entertainment, there was no real process in these same areas to allow for temporary indoor entertainment.

Um so this is kind of a cleanup that clarifies that uh temporary entertainment would be allowed in a number of different places, uh, but under strict rules.

Um more than nine events per calendar year uh with a minimum of 30 days between events, uh temporary structures have to be removed within five days of the conclusion of an event.

Um and also um the entertainment would be ha have to be located on a piece of property as opposed to the public right-of-way, unless an encroachment permit would be allowed um by the uh department of public works.

And then and then finally uh temporary entertainment would be uh would have to get a license by the board of licenses.

We're proposing that to be changed so that you'd have to get a license.

So in many ways this clarifies, rationalizes and tightens up the current regulations.

And therefore the City Plan Commission recommended approval of this ordinance.

Thank you, Bob.

So regardless whether the entertainment would happen inside or outside, you would still be required to get a license by the Board of Licenses?

Yeah.

For um yes, for uh temporary entertainment and also for what we call live entertainment ancillary use.

And that um uh requirement also applies to nightclubs, which are not the subject of this ordinance, but that already exists.

The only type of entertainment that doesn't require a license from the board of licenses is what we call incidental entertainment, otherwise known as background music.

Which now could be live music.

It it has always been allowed to be live, but it live musicians can have a certain degree of amplification, but no more than uh the amplification would have to be contained to the to the premises.

Because the the uh noise ordinance is still basically.

The noise ordinance, the noise ordinance is absolutely in effect regardless, even for nightclubs, even for um you know, ticketed events and such.

And you're not allowing for extra lighting or anything like that that will make it like into a bar or no, we're not we're we're proposing to keep keep those same regulations in place for incidental entertainment.

Thank you.

Uh yes, Mr.

Azer.

Uh Councillor Peterson.

Okay.

Council More Royus.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh Mr.

Azar, I just had a uh uh could you briefly run down the difference the different levels of scrutiny between the what uh what's in the power and toolkit of a zoning board versus board of licenses.

Should in the in the in the scope of should there be infractions?

What is in the power of both that that's a that's a good question.

So the zoning board and the board of licenses um have different authorities, they both regulate aspects of what can happen on a piece of property.

Uh the zoning board um uh uh for for things that relate to you know the way a business performs or or you know sort of ongoing um, you know, uh if there are conditions of of getting an approval, that's usually what we call a special use permit.

Violations of a special use permit get enforced by the Department of Inspection and standards.

So they have their own um inspectors that would go to a facility, and if they see a violation, a violation would be issued.

Um you would have to, there's a there's a process where you end up going to uh housing court or ultimately superior court, depending on on um on how the city decides to prosecute the violation.

Um but that has to those have to be regulations that are specifically written into the zoning ordinance that pertain to that type of use.

Um the Board of Licenses issues um licenses for things like liquor licenses and entertainment, and they they actually have um police officers who who um will go out to the facilities and and inspect um I'm a little bit out on a limb here, and I'm gonna if if I get something wrong, uh I hope my colleague will correct me.

Um, that I think they uh more so than inspection and standards have the ability to uh or commonly do inspections after hours.

So for things like nightclubs or entertainment facilities, um I would argue that it's much more appropriate for the board of licenses to be doing the enforcement than inspection and standards.

And they and they also inspect for different things, they're inspecting for conditions of the license.

Um if there's unruly behavior or things like that, they can they can um bring it to the attention of the board of licenses and the board of licenses could actually take some action with respect to the license itself.

Absolutely go ahead, councilman.

Thank you.

Could um just so I understand clearly.

Kate, can you hear me?

Yeah, no, thank you.

Let me move this up closer.

Um currently right now, so is it a zoning board that is approving uh permits for uh sort of temporary you know uh entertainment events outside and indoors?

Is that what they're currently doing?

Actually, no, it's not the zoning board, it's the zoning official.

Yeah, which is which is an individual who who sits within the Department of Inspection and Standards, and um there aren't really uh significant criteria for the issuance of these things.

So um the fact that temporary entertainment now has to go to the licensing board, I think it's actually gonna be a little stricter and a little bit um more transparent of a of a process.

It'll be a public more of a public process than it is today.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Um you mentioned the 9 p.m.

and weekdays, right?

And 11 p.m.

on weekends.

What about the holidays?

Um that's good question.

Well, uh I I would say that if a uh a holiday falls on a weeknight, it would be 9 p.m.

And if it falls on a weekend, it would be 11 p.m.

We usually have uh Mondays as a holiday.

Yep.

Those is going to be a specific specific Monday, can they play into 11?

Uh not according to this.

This thing shuts off every two minutes.

Um what's that?

Oh, I see.

I'm sure you can make the best of them is the Azer.

Yeah, doing the best I can.

It looks like uh looks like number eight keeps coming on.

I don't know.

Jim Taylor, the ghost of Jim Taylor.

Yeah.

Um so um yeah, it it it this does not differentiate between holidays and non-holidays.

I mean, that's something that that you know, if it were your um desire, you could certainly make an amendment there.

Um I don't know how you'd do it.

Would you say the night before a holiday, or would you say the night of a holiday?

Um I don't know.

Because when when we say weekend, we start.

Can I may I?

Sure.

Go ahead.

When when we say weekend, we start Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, right?

That's a weekend.

You know, um I don't know that I would interpret it that way.

But that's a fair point.

According to the amendment, it's uh from Monday through Friday.

It closes at 9 p.m.

I I would agree with that.

9 p.m.

on weeknights and 11 p.m.

on weekends.

Um so that does allow uh up to 11 p.m.

on Saturday and Sunday.

Um, you know, maybe if the intention, if there is an intention to include Friday in the 11 o'clock curfew, then we'd have to we'd have to tweak the language a bit.

And also the holiday.

It it's it's it's at the council's discretion, certainly to my understanding is the holidays when it falls during the week, they're considered part of the weekend, they get treated as holidays.

That's as we uh weekends.

This is where from from past practices.

Yeah, um what I would I would suggest is if that if if you would if you intend to allow for um for holidays to be included, or if you intend to allow for Fridays to be included, um when it comes to zoning language, you should be as specific as you possibly can.

Um and I'd I'd be more than willing to help uh with that language.

Um if you were just a question to you, if you were to uh want to allow holiday nights to go until 11, would it be the the the actual day of the holiday or the day before the holiday?

Is the actually day of the holiday?

The day of the holiday.

Because holiday always falling one day.

Unless it's the fourth of July Thanksgiving.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you, Councilman Barrier, Castlewan Peterson.

Thank you very much.

Um Deputy Director, I have a quick question for you with regards to what was um removed or strict or stricken from uh under temporary use standards, um numbers three and four, uh where it says um outdoor entertainment shall not interfere with any pedestrian access or parking spaces, um, and then the one above it.

Um can I ask why those particular um those particular pieces were removed.

Okay, okay, so number three was removed uh because um this proposal has outdoor, I'm sorry.

This proposal has temporary entertainment now requiring a license as opposed to a temporary use permit.

So three is no longer um is no longer pertinent because it refers to the standards under which a temporary use permit is issued.

So because it requires a because it would require a license, it would be the criteria that the licensing board uses to grant it.

Um and then number four, uh where it says outdoor entertainment shall not interfere with any pedestrian access or parking spaces and aisles.

Um again, this would um generalize temporary entertainment not to be just temporary outdoor entertainment, but temporary entertainment of all types.

And um the this item number four is kind of uh so it it would only apply to outdoor entertainment, um, and it's saying something that's already uh a rule that's covered um by um by other rules.

Um you can't so it's outdoor entertainment shall not interfere with any pedestrian access or parking spaces and aisles.

Um there there are other regulations that would govern blocking pedestrian access or parking spaces, and and when it comes to parking spaces, um there may be um uh outdoor entertainment that is in a parking lot and and if there is enough parking and it's not needed for the business, there could be entertainment outside in a parking lot.

So I think I think that's proposed to be stricken because it's it's either uh something that's regulated elsewhere or it's something that's not necessary to be regulated.

Go right ahead.

Thank you.

Um this question, and I'm not sure it might not actually be for you, Deputy Director, it might actually be for Director Juicy.

Um part uh a couple of the points of feedback that I got from the businesses in my neighborhood was um understanding under the parameters of um incidental entertainment, the things that could be utilized.

Umes was you can you know you can have a live performer, you can have a mic and a speaker, but you actually can't have trivia or karaoke.

And in my neighborhood, we don't have a lot of large nightclubs, we have more smaller bars and restaurant establishments.

And one of the pieces or one of the kind of feedback notes was well, why can't we do some of those things to garner people to come to get people to come into the to the neighborhood um establishments?

So I kind of wanted to understand if we allow that, if we do not allow that, why do we not allow that?

And if we don't allow that, can we allow that?

Understandable.

Yeah, that that's that's a that's a fair point.

So I would say I would say karaoke certainly would fall into live music performance.

Um it's that's actually an interesting uh point about trivia nights or um other sorts of or comedy things that that are that are live um that are amplified but are not necessarily music.

Um so I don't think that what you're talking about as long as there's no flashing lights, there's no the volume isn't too high, um that there's no cover charge.

Um I don't see why those couldn't fit.

It this is really a performance standard in the sense that as long as you keep it contained within the building and you're not charging for it, and it's and it's incidental to something to the main thing that's happening, like a restaurant or a bar.

Um, but it's just somewhat of an enhancement.

I don't see why those things couldn't be permissible.

It it sounds to me that the two feature councilwoman that you described, uh fall onto the DJ, which usually do the karaoke and usually they do the trivia.

Can I can we allow Director Juicida respond?

Absolutely.

Director Juicy, I would love your input on this, and it might be this, but I'm wondering if there's a way around that because this isn't something to me that is high levels of volume in any way.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um good evening, Chairman and members of the committee.

So basically on the first page, you see the use matrix, the use matrix.

It's it's intended for live entertainment.

So if you look at the first um the first row, you can see where it's the recommended changes are in red and where it already is permitted, where you see a P and where you see an S is by special use permit.

So I'm no zoning professional, but I do work with zoning um collectively and collaboratively on a day-to-day basis.

So if you give me a scenario, I can it I can tell you, for example, a C2 zone, which is right next to the C3.

What what you're stating as far as karaoke and and trivia would not be permitted.

And that and that's not included as part of the amendment here.

If that answers the question, and and that would be because karaoke and trivia, you don't consider that to be entertainment.

Um it's just not considered incidental entertainment.

It's considered live entertainment.

So an incidental would even though the amendment is including the the changes to be able to allow for it, it's not across every zone.

So where it's not where it's not specified, it's by in um it's incidental.

So no application would need to be applied for with our office, and where you see a P or an S, that's where it would come through our office, and it would require approval from the board.

Thank you.

Councilwoman.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

If I could just I would advocate, well, I guess I would have to research exactly where the areas in my particular neighborhood are respective into with regards to the zoning, but I would advocate that these would be considered incidental, and these are just opportunities for businesses to be able to bring in more um more patrons.

And and these are not things that again um create loud diversions of noise where you would have local um residential neighborhoods that are abutting being um uh bothered by it.

So that that's my only feedback point.

Um, but thank you.

I appreciate the the understanding.

Councilman Roy, yes.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, just uh in terms of the one clarifying question, then uh just I guess a comment.

Uh the first question is regarding the outdoor uh uh entertainment event.

Um this amendment increases it, I think from three to nine, and then each um each event lasting three days.

Is that am I right on that?

Yeah, so um three to nine per year, and then each lasting three days.

Yeah, the way this would be uh phrased if this passes is temporary entertainment events are limited to nine events per calendar year and a maximum duration of three days per event with a minimum of 30 days between events.

So is it did we think about so could there be a scenario where let's say there's five parcels or like five businesses sort of in a row, and they all happen to have an event on the same like weekend.

Is it is that like under this ordinance, is that a possible scenario.

Yes, I think it would be okay.

Because they're different if if they're all different businesses, yeah, and but they happen to be adjacent to one another.

Yes, I think that I think that's true.

I guess uh just a comment after that is I'm concerned about sort of the event clustering and and how that might affect residents nearby if it becomes like a pseudo entertainment district for you know multiple businesses lasting for three days.

Um I think that that's a lot on a neighborhood.

Uh went out okay, sorry about that.

Uh the other um comment I had uh was in regard to uh I I have I voiced this to other colleagues today, but um I would advocate for like some type of uh spatial limitation clause uh for indoor uh events.

Um I'm I do support like a level of dancing indoors, like I don't want to be into fun police.

Um but my when I think about crafting legislation, I think about the bad actors, and if incidental entertainment is sort of the if the dining experience is still primary, and when it comes to incidental uh entertainment, the the um music is secondary.

Um my biggest fear is that how I read it is under the current amendments, restaurants could essentially rearrange their physical layout and open the floor for just everyone dancing, and I think it it can turn into sort of this like concert like setup.

Um so I'm I I would love to like regulate that further, but in call still allow a dancing to some degree, but not just allow the physical layout to turn into like a nightclub.

That's like the worst case scenario.

Um I I certainly understand what you're talking about.

Um you know, keep in mind that again um they wouldn't be able to charge a cover or they wouldn't be able to have flashing lights, the volume would have to be relatively low, uh, and it would have to and would have a curfew.

You know uh what what we commonly see with um a lot of restaurants that that become what you're talking about, and that's actually a fairly common experience is that that tends to happen after dinner.

Um usually it starts at something like nine o'clock.

But I'm not saying I'm not saying it it couldn't happen, um, but I think it might be a little unlikely to maintain the the true nature of incidental entertainment at that point.

Yeah, I mean I I I concede the point that it's probably unlikely, but but potentially possible.

Can I just share one more question?

Councilman Royal, keep in mind that we have about 40 people that sign up to speak, and uh we we need to get to them.

I'll stop.

I'll I'll stop my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Azar.

And briefly.

Mr.

Joe Wilson from the Abominal Arts and Court Chair who have something to add to this.

And then we're gonna go straight to the people.

Okay.

Mr.

Barga, I will call upon you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Joe.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the committee.

I am so honored to be with you here today in this beautiful chamber as your director of the department of art, culture, and tourism for the great city of Providence.

I am here on behalf of the administration.

I am here on behalf of my great department, and I'm also here on behalf of our Life at Night Task Force that consists of artists, creatives, business owners, producers, members of our tourism sector, and our city staff members.

And many of our task force members are here tonight.

And if you are, could you please raise your hand and let yourself be noticed?

As you know, Providence's food, beverage, music, and hospitality scenes have evolved dramatically, and our city has become one of the most dynamic and vibrant communities in this country.

This has led to the fact that our laws have not keep in track or kept up pace, which is unfortunately led to confusion for business owners and indeed frustration for residents.

For example, under our current regulations, a restaurant can be penalized for hosting a Sunday morning jazz brunch.

And after two mimosas and a short stack of pancakes, if you are feeling the music, you can't get up and shake your hips.

The proposed updates bring our zoning and entertainment laws in line with how entertainment actually works in Providence, ensuring transparent and fair rules for everybody, for businesses, residents, and the city itself.

These amendments clarify and expand the definition of incidental entertainment, lifting outdated restrictions on dancing, amplified music, and the number of performers.

What does that mean?

Incidental entertainment refers to music or performance that isn't the main event.

What does that mean?

That means we are not selling tickets.

That means there is no cover charge being collected.

That means there are no promoters.

Y'all, this is about ambiance.

This is not about headline acts.

The changes in the definition of incidental entertainment put these everyday activities into compliance and create a straightforward way to manage them with firm end times for indoor music, 9 p.m.

on weekends, 11 p.m.

on uh 9 p.m.

on weeknights, 11 p.m.

on weekends, and outdoor music.

Music is off by 9 p.m.

every night.

And please remember, these times apply just to our new and expanded definition of incidental entertainment.

These updates add structure, they add clarity, they add predictability for everybody, supporting our local artists and establishments while maintaining a calm and quiet uh community at a reasonable hour.

Let's not forget all of this city's noise ordinance will remain in full effect.

Music must not be heard beyond the walls of an establishment or at excessive levels.

Accountability in the city of Providence still exists with clear penalties and violations.

Now, what else is this ordinance cleanup do?

It introduces a clear process for temporary entertainment events.

Now, when we say temporary entertainment events, we mean musical acts.

In my world, we mean plays, we mean DJs, comedy, and events that are indeed charging a cover charge.

Events such as these will require a temporary entertainment license from the Board of Licenses rather than a temporary use permit from the Department of Inspections and Standards.

This makes this process more transparent, and this makes this process more consistent.

And again, each license holder is limited to nine temporary events per year with a 30-day buffer between each event, ensuring opportunities for artists and businesses while maintaining neighborhood quality of life.

We all know this.

Providence is home to some of the most incredible local talent.

Musicians, cultural stewards, and artists who make our city known far and wide beyond the boundaries of this state.

These updates provide artists, restaurants, and residents with a stable and reasonable framework to rely upon while keeping, and I say this again, while keeping noise protections in place.

The changes help level the playing field for smaller venues, streamline the application process, and these changes will support a vibrant diverse art scene.

And further, this is why this is so important.

What we know as a result of my department's life at night in the creative capital economic impact assessment is that this sector that operates between 5 p.m.

and 9 a.m.

is a 990 million dollar sector.

The businesses and the gig economy workers, many of whom are artists within this sector, should be supported and celebrated, not vilified and stigmatized.

What we know as expressed in our city's second 10-year cultural plan is that our arts and cultural stakeholders have asked us to increase investment in our creative workforce, to foster opportunities for our creative economy to thrive and to be an advocate and raise public awareness as it relates to the importance of art and culture in this city and state's economic future.

And I have to say it again.

And as we all work every single day to ensure that Providence is indeed the best run city in America, and this includes removing barriers to individuals and businesses on their quest not to just survive, but we owe it to them to create policy that allows them to thrive in this great city.

These amendments are a balanced solution.

They support Providence's creative economy, provide more access to live music, and create opportunities for us to connect with one another while respecting residents living alongside these commercial corridors.

We are indeed the creative capital.

And I am confident that these amendments to the entertainment ordinance will support performing artists and enhance the quality of life for everybody in this beloved capital city.

God bless Providence.

Got a question for ASAR.

Mr.

Barbesa, will you inter question for Mr.

Councilman Vargas?

Come up quickly, please.

Thank you.

You were saying there's no there's no way I can follow that.

I'm sorry.

No one expected to.

We say there's no salary charge.

Does the machines can have a basket for tips?

You know, um these are the kinds of questions that we always ponder when we're going through uh writing ordinances like this.

There's a lot of nuance.

Um if someone puts out a hat, um I don't know that they would get a zoning violation.

Um the ordinance says no cover charge.

To me, that means someone standing at the door.

Um who is um is charging people to walk into the to the building.

Uh you know, if someone puts out a hat, I would consider that to be more like the way you might tip a server.

So I'm not the zoning enforcement officer, but in my opinion, that would not rise to the level of cover charge.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Azer.

So uh we have um we got close to 100 people that signed up.

Um maybe some more the people that sign up already left.

But um, that's what we have.

If we do two minutes each, we could be here for over two hours.

So can we please keep it to one minute?

I don't have a problem staying here till tomorrow.

So I would just I just made an offer, so come up.

But I will not give you any more than two minutes.

So that's cool.

The first person up is Chris Spartini.

Chris.

Good evening.

Uh good evening.

I'm the owner operator of Maria's Kucina on Broadway in Providence.

Uh I am definitely for outside entertainment for many reasons.

Uh we are the ocean state, and unfortunately, in the summertime, we all tend to go to the beach.

No one wants to stay in Providence and have dinner, and when they can be down in Narragansa at the Coast Guard House or some of the other beautiful restaurants.

I'm a small business, it's very difficult for me to do business from June to mid-September, the end of September.

This outside entertainment certainly helps.

It's a draw for people to come to the restaurant, enjoy the outside.

Uh I rent from the Italian American club several years ago.

Uh during COVID, they took out the grass in front of the building, and they were they put in uh a beautiful patio.

So we have a porch and patio.

We had entertainment for a short period of time outside.

Uh it was taken away.

And while we had it, it helped business, which also helps my employees.

I have anywhere from 15 to 20 employees that rely on our business for them.

Some of them, most of them are married with children.

It takes away from them when we don't do business as well selfishly as it takes away from myself.

So I am certainly for this outside entertainment within the guidelines that uh the council puts in front of us.

I have no problem following all the directives.

It just really helps business, not only for myself, but for all the other restaurants in the city of Providence that fall into the same category as myself.

So thank you very much for your time.

We look forward to outside entertainment.

Thank you, Chris.

Uh the next person that I have, I can't really make up the name.

But uh as George L A Z from Yeah, 477 Broadway.

Good evening, Council Speaker.

Good evening, George.

How are you?

Uh thank you.

Being the superintendent police and fire for maintenance division in Providence for 35 years, I'm still currently employed.

I'm also the um president of the Itlo American Club, 477 Broadway.

If I've known a lot of you have visited there, it's uh big very beautiful Victorian house.

It's labeled significant other, um, because the owners um built the outlet downtown, so it it carries a lot of and it's a more of an upscale restaurant, and um we had put out a beautiful patio, so we're not even on the sidewalk, which is huge.

The patio is huge itself.

And we have we occupy the club, we rent to Maria Cochinas, but we do occupy the club.

And when he when we opened that in the summer, we had uh Frank Sinatra singer, Neil Diamond.

There's no rock band.

There's that restaurant doesn't warrant that.

They're not gonna go and sit there while and he had one speaker singing in to the building, um, in towards the uh wraparound porch, and it was beautiful.

I don't think there was anybody under 40.

I I don't believe.

And they were eating as well as dining, you're not gonna be screaming music like that.

And the key here, I think the key is noise ordinance.

So if somebody has an issue, you're gonna call the police, they're gonna come and say the noise ordinance is too high, you've got to shut it down.

I think that not given the affordable right for all, for all.

I mean, it's six to nine, we're not playing metallica.

I don't think anybody else is gonna do that.

You wouldn't go there for that.

You wouldn't, you know, but I've I'm also a five-time world powerlifting champion.

I've been all over the world.

And New Orleans is known for what?

Their music, there they they play jazz outside.

They're people that live there.

It's not like it's not in a neighborhood, the people that live there.

Now I get being a resident next door to that, you don't want blasting music.

But if it's a beautiful restaurant, if it's a beautiful place and people are just coming, um, we get all the people from PC, the parents, Brown University, when they have the NCA or titles out on the PC, they all frequent that club.

And we also, our reach out program, we were number one for Toys for Tots.

We we are not only an Itlo American club, we're all non-denominational.

I've been the longest running term president, and we've been founded since 1896.

We're the oldest founded Itlo American club in the country.

So we don't want problems, we just want that means so much to the restaurant to see the people on Broadway come there and sit and listen to a little soft music.

I I uh I I like I said, the key here is what you would said a noise ordinance.

Like that's the that's the whole key.

Noise ordinance.

And so I think put restrictions in there, and and let and let at least try it.

And like this gentleman said here, and I agree with him, the director here, that that's what Providence is about.

And I've been here 35 years, and I can tell you used to just have entertainment on Atlas Avenue.

There wasn't even really, I was born and raised there.

There wasn't no entertainment there.

When they started bringing that in, that got busy up there, you know.

And of course, you have to regulate everything, you know, and so I'm in support of it, you know.

Um, and I think that it's good for the city.

I think it's good for, and like this gentleman said, putting us on the map.

That's what we're well.

Our culture here is music and and love and families and and friends.

I mean, I get that you don't want a disco place if it's right next to your house.

I I understand that.

I wouldn't want it either.

But six to nine, um, you know, and Frank Sinatra, I mean, I don't know.

But me, I'd fall asleep more than I would dance, but that's all I have to say.

So thank you.

Robert Pelucci.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm Robert Velucci, the treasurer of the All American Club.

I will be very brief.

Um, because I think George and Chris said it all.

Um, we are in support of the uh outdoor entertainment.

I think it's very important for the restaurant establishments to keep the employees engaged during the summer, so they have working opportunities.

Um we are all in favor of what's being proposed to the city council with respects to respect to the time times and the entertainment being very um you know low-key, if you will.

Um, so thank you very much and um for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Uh Linda Perry.

Good evening, Linda.

Hello, thank you.

Um, my name is Linda Perry, and I live in Washington Park.

40-year resident of Washington Park, and I have been pretty much terrorized by the noise on Broad Street.

Sorry to say for the people here that are going to testify in favor.

Um not all zoning laws are good zoning laws.

Not there isn't one size fits all for laws, as we know, because what the gentleman just said, he wants to listen to Frank Sinatra.

Other people want other things that we are affected by, adversely affected by.

Thank you, Linda.

Cynthia Pauliano.

Cynthia.

Please bear with me.

Good evening.

Hello.

My name is Cynthia Paliano.

My husband Mike and I live at 466 Broadway, and we also owned 478 Broadway next door.

The ordinance that you are proposing is troubling because we've had noise problems in the past.

When I moved here in 2007, the area was drug-infested, loud and dirty.

Mike and I, along with a few of our neighbors, put money into improving our properties.

And next thing we knew, the back street we had so much trouble with began to improve, and the neighborhood is what it is today.

Our next hurdle, a few years later, came when Maria Cochina's restaurant moved across the street to the Yet Low American Club.

They wanted a disco outside three nights a week.

It was so loud we could hear it in our house.

It was completely disrupting, and it would go sometimes past nine o'clock, but the noise was what got us.

It took us four years, a lot of challenging work, not only from us, but from our neighbors, the licensing board that explained all the laws to us and our elected officials to get the loud music stopped.

This is our Broadway story, and from what I hear, our plate is common to many other Providence neighborhoods.

So you might say, if you have a problem, call the police.

And I agree with you, but our police are not the noise police.

The licensing board has three officers to enforce the codes.

Will three officers be able to manage the complaints if this new ordinance passes?

If this ordinance passes, yes, it will increase revenue, but at what cost?

We pay huge property taxes for the privilege of living here.

We are not absentee landlords.

We believe in and love this city.

Help us keep the tranquility, tranquility, and the charm that we work so hard to create.

Please do your part by voting against this ordinance.

The future of our city, our future, is in your hands.

Thank you.

And that's all I have to do.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Hi, counselors.

My name's Dylan Peacock.

I live in Elmwood directly behind Monte Cristo, a business that operated for years as an illegal nightclub.

For more than a decade, my family and tenants endured pounding bass, shaking our walls, often until 2 a.m.

It took 10 years, over a hundred police calls, dozens of licensing hearings, and four license revocations to restore peace to our home.

My experience is a case study and enforcement failure, and that's why I oppose these changes as written.

This proposal grants sweeping new entertainment privileges without adding necessary safeguards for residents.

It makes entertainment the norm, not the exception in a city where enforcement's already broken.

In 2022, residents made 5,500 noise complaints, yet only 19 citations were issued, expanding by right entertainment without accountability doubles down on that failure.

I've seen how the system fails in real time.

You complain to officials that they say call the police.

You call they you call the police, they say talk to your counselor.

When you call the police, you wait an hour.

By the time they arrive, the business might have closed.

Our experience with outdoor dining proved enforcement is non-existent.

In August and September 2020, we documented violations on 40 nights and called police 26 times.

There were no fines, no board action, no relief.

And this is what we endured.

Are you playing a song?

Sorry.

Enforcement of indoor incidental entertainment was just as bad.

The night after night, pounding base went unchecked for a decade.

Hundreds of violations a year, at least 75 police calls between 2017 and 2020, and not a single fine citation or consequence.

Reports were rarely forwarded to licensing, and when they were, they were incomplete or lacked sufficient detail for the board to act.

Officers routinely lack training and consistency.

Even when they stood beside us and heard the noise, it wasn't written up.

Many didn't know the law, assumed the business had an entertainment license, or didn't understand that reports must be properly documented for the board to act.

Some didn't treat chronic noise as an issue at all.

And I'm gonna wrap it up very shortly.

Entertainment failures don't stop with police, they're systemic.

The Board of Licenses quasi-judicial process favors businesses with legal representation, and the evidentiary threshold makes enforcement nearly impossible.

Even with police laws, video evidence and testimony, it took eight years to even begin to see action.

Hearings take monks to schedule, are repeatedly continued and force residents to miss work again and again just to be heard.

And even when the board finally acts, DBR routinely overturns their decisions three times in my case.

Expanding privileges without enforcement is reckless.

You can only achieve your goals responsibly by pairing new privileges with equally strong accountability to residents.

We deserve a transparent process that fails lived experience as much as lobbying by business interests, and the council has a duty to ask how could this harm my constituents and to work with residents to close up.

And also I just have um some proposed changes to Azra.

Thank you.

Bring them up.

Thank you.

Uh Miran Keith.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name's Mickey Kitzich, and I live in Ward 9.

Our current system encourages impunity and not compliance.

And this ordinance would make that worse.

Fewer defenses for neighbors, less public oversight, shifting enforcement burdens onto residents, and more uncontrolled noise pollution.

Residents have begged for enforcement reform for years and gotten nowhere.

Yet when restaurant lobbyists ask for deregulation, the law is promptly rewritten in their favor.

That isn't economic development.

It's a giveaway.

There's no evidence providence is at a competitive disadvantage.

Boston, for example, categorically prohibits incidental music with outdoor dining.

The issue isn't live music, it's the city's failure to build a system that protects residents while allowing it responsibly.

This proposal expands privilege while stripping oversight.

Other cities support the arts and protect residents through case by case review, clear guide rail guardrails, and credible enforcement to keep neighborhoods livable, the basic ingredients of any livable city.

Until enforcement is fixed, this isn't support for restaurants or the arts.

It's deregulation without accountability.

Cities like LA and Toronto get this right.

They strengthened enforcement and maintained conditional reviews before expanding entertainment rights.

They achieved balance, protecting residents, supporting artists, and holding businesses accountable.

Providence skips these steps entirely.

No guardrails, no input, and no enforcement capability.

It's an abdication of responsibility.

And the impact won't fall evenly.

See two corridors run through Elmwood and other minority working class neighborhoods, placing restaurants and bars directly besides home.

Wealthier white areas shielded by zoning that limits commercial activity will remain undisturbed.

Loosening these roles magnifies inequality, stripping away protections from communities already overexposed to noise and underprotected by enforcement.

This is an equity issue.

Province cannot claim to support both residents and businesses while expanding entertainment by right in a system where enforcement has collapsed.

If police can't control noise and the Board of Licenses can't provide timely relief without placing an unreasonable burden on residents, the city isn't regulating or balancing.

It's walking away.

Protecting residents from persistent noise isn't anti-business.

It's the foundation of a livable city.

True cultural vitality comes from balance, protecting residents, supporting artists, and holding businesses accountable.

Start with enforcement that works and oversight that fits the site.

Pair any new privileges with stronger accountability.

Until then, reject the ordinance and do the basic work first.

Fix enforcement, restore public trust, and then build a framework where arts and restaurants thrive without sacrificing the people who live beside them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I've been very active in my neighborhood, trying to make it a better place to live for everybody.

And I feel that these proposed changes to this ordinance undermined those efforts.

This ordinance was introduced on the behalf of business owners in one particular area, but yet it's going to affect all neighborhoods across the city.

As my um neighbors have pointed out, enforcement is not uh applied equitably across the city.

The elimination of the um sections three and four relative to evaluating the impact on the local area is a slap in the face to residents.

It sends the wrong message that the city will not hold entertainment businesses accountable for any adverse effects on neighbors.

The safety of pedestrians is not a priority.

Has this committee done any due diligence regarding noise complaints across the city over the past year?

Have you gotten data from PVD 311 or the police department?

As pointed out, there have been a lot of complaints, but very few citations.

The proposed changes in the ordinance purport to support the Life at Night Initiative.

However, these changes tell me that the Life at Night Initiative will expand the entertainment industry at my and my neighbors' expense.

This should not be allowed to happen.

Trust and accountability are important elements in all aspects of government, including the licensing and oversight of businesses.

Therefore, I respectfully ask that this committee not approve the proposed changes.

I also have some written testimony that I want to submit.

Thank you, Burlo.

Thank you.

Cheryl Peacock.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Um, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Uh so I would first like to say that I personally love music.

What I don't appreciate is music being forced upon me in my home and daily life from surrounding businesses.

This has severely diminished my right to quality of life on a daily basis.

I have had to call the police myself on the abuse of the noise ordinance issue in my neighborhood over 100 times in five years.

It isn't about music, it's about the city's ability or inability to enforce the laws.

It is extremely unfair to expect anyone to live under these conditions.

Would anyone here today think a business's consistent noise pollution would be acceptable to hear in your homes on a daily basis?

So I have a clip to play, and this is what the cities current currently allows as incidental entertainment, where today the laws are clearly not being enforced.

Um it's gonna come and play the video.

Hold on one sec.

All right, I I um pretty much very loud, very loud sick.

It's similar to what he played, and that's the I get I get it.

We get it.

The sound I hear in my home.

This is what I hear in my house.

That's how loud I hear it in my house.

It's it's just your house.

Inside my home, yes.

Um, thank you for listening.

Thank you for your testimony.

Okay, Jose Dominguez.

I will not know who to call.

I mean, I have Jose Dominguez, Antonio Castillo.

Um behalf of all the business owners.

Okay, just to emulate something that they want all of them just saying, I'm just not gonna know from the list.

Okay.

All right, Jose.

This fine.

I love it.

Hello, everyone, Anthony Santuri.

I'm a local club owner, a business owner.

I also have a unique position where I'm on the board of several neighborhood associations.

Uh, I've been in this city for well over 25 years.

Jesus Titan is a friend.

He's also a business owner.

He has brought other business owners, he has brought a group of people that work for him, employees.

What he asked me to say out of respect for everyone's time today was he wanted us to know that he wanted to let you all know that he supports fully what Director Joe Wilson Jr.

presented in the manner that he presented and the spirit he presented.

He didn't want to have each of his members come up here and continually say the same thing over and over.

In addition to that, I would just like to say for myself.

Uh, I wasn't even going to speak today.

I speak at every single thing, but I felt today I'd give everybody else a chance.

First, this is one of the rare times that I have seen and heard from the members here, the council, a real balance in their questioning.

I really have heard today the business side being addressed and the quality of life being addressed, the public safety issue being addressed, but the needs of the economic challenges being addressed.

So I thank you for that.

The work that has been done in this is good work.

I understand too the noise issues.

I've operated the Coliseum Nightclub over 17 years with 220 apartments in my backyard.

We found a way to make it work.

There are business owners who can find it a way to make it work.

This is what we should focus on.

I know the frustrations of these residents who say we call our enforcement, we call enforcement.

When you go before a licensing board, a lot of times you don't understand what's really expected of you.

It's said, but this clearly outlines it.

If that happens, you won't have as many residents having this issue, because I have been there for 17 years.

And sometimes in the beginning, when we were trying to do that, wasn't so good.

So you work with the DJs who need to understand that they can't.

You put limiters on.

We can do this.

And they shouldn't also be punished or penalized because of a handful that we can't seem to figure out won't do it.

So thank you for your time, and I appreciate the work that everyone's doing.

Thank you, Anthony.

Thank you.

Okay, so how do we do this?

Uh I'm I'm gonna call your name.

If you felt that Anthony already spoke on your behalf, you don't need to come up and just raise your hand and let me know that he spoke for you.

You will llamar in name de usted, pero si usted siente que la blog, solamente levantem la mano para yo saber que usted aquí, okay, sinfui.

Thank you.

So Jose Domingue.

Okay, thank you, Jose.

Uh Antonia Castillo.

Okay.

Sujani uh milit.

Something.

Angel Baez.

It's not here.

Stephanie Armanza.

It's not.

Uh 15, it's North Street, Randy.

Yeah.

I I have to go to the name just to make sure I didn't miss anyone.

Uh Dano Aspeno.

It's also 15.

It's North Street.

Okay.

Sharon Steele.

I know she's here.

I see you all again.

Yes.

Chairman Espinal, members of the committee.

Um, here we go.

A copy of an email authored by Director Wilson on October 14, 2025 at 1135 a.m.

appeared in my email at 6.14 p.m.

Um it was sent to 30 people, 25 of them.

Uh proponents of these changes, five members of the city staff.

Um the people Cheryl, uh pardon me a second.

Um the people Sherrod, uh pardon me a second, I'll give you extra time.

I I just want the people here to know that we will not be making a decision on this item.

So that if you spoke already, you're just sitting around waiting.

We are not gonna be voting on this item.

Uh we will conclude the public hearing, and we will be voting on it very soon, as early as next week, no later than a couple of weeks into uh the month of November.

So, you know, if you already spoke and you want to leave and you came here for this item, it's okay.

We're not voting on it.

We're just taking the public testimonies.

Cheryl, please, excuse me again, go ahead.

No, thank you so much for sharing that with all of us.

That's important.

Um, who didn't receive that email?

Not one neighborhood leader, not one, nor did Jose Justi, who is the director of licensing.

Fast forward October 19th, Go Local published an article quoting Senator Sam Bell about the proposed changes to the entertainment ordinance.

That's that was three days literally before the hearing tonight.

These proposed changes have had zero input from any neighborhood leaders nor any of the people they represent.

Have all of these changes, do nothing to protect the neighborhoods.

You've heard some of that individually from people who live next door to these restaurants.

Have we undertaken a comprehensive study of indoor and outdoor entertainment?

Some of the people who actually spoke were speaking about outdoor entertainment when this speaks to indoor entertainment.

So you have to be able to understand what the ordinance says in the first place.

Given the questions that you all have asked, and they have been fabulous since you are not experts in this area.

It's because the proposed ordinance doesn't cover half of the things that it needs to cover.

I've been going to licensing hearings for 15 years.

It is complicated stuff, but at least the ordinance has to address the lion's share of the questions that you raised this evening.

Councilman Royas brought up several things.

I'm sure you have many, many, many more.

Those things need to be part and parcel in this ordinance.

Is the quality of life in our neighborhoods literally going to be allowed to again suffer because they have not had input in this?

Because let's face it, when restaurants start operating as nightclubs, that is precisely what is going to happen.

There is no easy fix to this.

This is complicated stuff, but it has to be balanced.

That's why I asked for this hearing to literally be rescheduled.

The hearing should have been rescheduled.

Did I hear from anybody?

No.

Literally music that went well beyond the boundaries, brick, I might add, literally loud enough to break glass.

It was next to apartments filled with doctors in the eight-year program who literally couldn't sleep.

It took one year.

Some of them undercover.

Once someone has a license, it is not easy.

It is a full-time job to do what needs to be done in a fair way to literally point out all the violations that have happened therein.

So here's where we are, and I come to you with this question.

To the members of the ordinance committee.

Literally that live and work very close to these establishments.

Restaurants are wonderful things.

So are nightclubs.

Nightclubs have to jump through amazing numbers of hoops.

They pay extraordinary insurance.

They have to have police details.

They have to present 30 days worth of entertainment.

They are literally, literally held under a microscope.

And we haven't even talked about the noise ordinance when we don't even record decibel levels for base.

The kind of bass that literally pounds in your chest.

That is how loud loud is.

Thank you, Sheriff.

Oleni Baez.

Aleni Cuesta.

Yosemi Castillo.

Derek Sacco.

Artagracia J.

Okay.

Next page.

Solani Rodi.

Madeline Arias.

Cynthia Sapata.

Ana Maria Grulyung.

Margarita Jerez.

Honari Battista.

Landry Monte.

Lista Mills.

Jauri Maleni.

Rafael Bernardes.

Carlos Fernandez.

Luis Aguilar.

Maria Estrella.

Justan Sheridan.

Jason Armanson.

Byron.

I'm a Providence resident, born and raised on the east side off of Camp Street.

I got my start at nightlife at the age of 16 when I was a student at Classical High School.

I was throwing team teen dance parties at the Black Rep and Tantric Nightclub.

I'm the co-founder of Stay Silent, a creative company and platform based here in Providence that focuses on producing events, design and editorial content.

This is also the same space where I got my start throwing parties where it used to be tantric.

In 2024, we program more than 80 events between our signature events, including date our day true festival and um events that we do in our space crib, along with partner events that we do with outside of him producers.

I'm here today to advocate for the changes.

Also, I think it's out of line with the moniker that Providence has been going under for two decades, uh the creative capital.

DJs need to be treated as musicians, artists, and an amenity that a business can choose to offer.

We're in a business and cultural landscape globally where many listening lounges, small dive bars, coffee shops, and other non-conventional venues are offering DJ entertainment as patrons are shifting away from large capacity dance clubs, but still want to hear music and have spaces together.

DJing has become one of the most accessible ways to engage with music and is also one of the most cost-effective ways for a business to provide a music experience at their establishment.

We're even at the point where streaming services are now mimicking the art of DJing by allowing subscribers to mix, blend, arrange songs by BPM and key.

You can do this on Spotify.

It gives you the full ability to DJ without actually needing equipment.

We need to decide if we're gonna keep calling music noise, or is it gonna be art in the creative capital?

And I think this is a question that whenever we're talking about music, we have to remember that music is a large part of the arts.

It's a thing that connects so many of us culturally, it brings so many different people together, it breaks borders, it's intergenerational.

So I think when we speak about these things, and while I do agree that there does have to be rules and regulations around these things, I think some of these things that are being presented is a start.

I think there's a lot more that that we can do, but I think um these proposed amendments are things that are very necessary um for the current landscape that we have as business owners and also culturally as people uh seeking experiences in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jason Brian Rivas Alba Vezelli Riva Christopher Riva Uridica Jiménez Luis Miguel Haley Valerio.

You know that what I have is signatures instead of printed name, so it's a little bit difficult to make it out, so I apologize if I butcher your name here.

Um Alexis Carrington Alex Tomaso.

Good evening, Chairman, Council President.

Good evening, Mr.

Tommaso.

Thank you for giving me also the opportunity to share my thoughts and my experiences in Providence being in the hospitality nightclub bar and business since 1992, where I opened up on Troop Alley.

Uh first let me also thank the gentleman that spoke first, Councilman Taylor, and one of the key elements in the last two hours that I took at least is the phrase common sense.

So thank you.

Common sense.

And I'm gonna continue and also Alex, that's actually Mr.

Bob Azer from Department of Planet.

Okay, yeah, in no such case, uh my respect and again common sense.

That's acceptable.

Great, great point.

Absolutely.

Um I also would like to say that I am also and have been for many years, but recently also very recently, 10 months old, a club owner, uh, actually right next door to my friend at the Coliseum, and yes, he does a great job.

Um that being said, I think, in my opinion, that the reason that I was coming here tonight was to address the ordinance before us.

I listened to all of the speakers give their opinions and thoughts, and I respect their opinions and thoughts, but this has to do with things that happened in the past, issues that have been in the past.

Tonight I'm coming here under the understanding to talk about the ordinance that is focused on the future.

We're not here to create new entertainment licenses.

We're not here to certainly create new nightclubs.

That's not why I think I'm here.

I think we're here to talk about almost like a pilot program.

Again, if I'm correct, this is on trial for one year.

This ain't permanent.

So in other words, in twelve months, if this doesn't work, it's gone.

But if it does work, like Joe Wilson said, this can be a great opportunity for the city of Providence, which is long, long overdue.

And I speak with a ton of experience.

Those that know me know me.

I also own the George for the last five years.

We're in our sixth year.

Extremely successful restaurant that does live music.

We have an entertainment license.

What we're here talking about is not a full-blown entertainment license, because there are very, very much restrictive and controlled in place, and I think that's a good thing.

So what I mean is 9 p.m.

It stops on weekends, 11 p.m.

That's not a nightclub.

I've done over tenclubs in the city of Providence.

So I speak with a little bit of knowledge.

We or I am here because I'm speaking on what I do know.

I have three businesses on Atwills Avenue.

Little Italy, one of the focal point neighborhoods of Providence.

Just got done celebrating the Columbus feast for three days.

So I can speak on what I do know.

I don't know the entire city, but I do know Washington Street where the George is, and how it's helped with the entertainment at the George without limitations, successfully for six years.

So again, At Wills Avenue.

We have five, six new restaurants coming in, and that's great.

I think everybody would agree with that.

But for those five or six restaurants that are coming in, they didn't create new buildings.

That means five or six restaurants went out of business.

They went out of business.

Endorse and give us an opportunity in these restaurants, because there's one nightclub that I know of on Atlas Avenue, and that's the 1221.

There are no nightclubs.

So I'm asking that you support this.

The limitations are so strict, and I think that's a good thing.

It's a good test.

So because it was so thought out and so crafted so well, with the limitations of 9 and 11 p.m.

on weekends, and if I may give an opinion on weekends, this is a Friday and Saturday night state, not a Friday in Saturday night city.

If we don't, if we're not busy on a Friday and Saturday night, that place will be locking its doors.

It ain't like Florida, where I just came from and visited.

They do business five, six nights a week.

This is a Friday and Saturday night state.

Providence being the gem of the state.

It will do the same.

Again, I speak to what I know of on At Wills Avenue.

Right now, we don't have that opportunity, except for maybe one or two.

I also owned a restaurant in the plaza called Violas.

We were blessed and fortunate that we were the exception.

We were the only area to have live entertainment, long as it stopped by midnight.

And it's been like that for 30 years.

We're asking that the other restaurants and cafes have at least an opportunity, A to hire these musicians or DJs, which that's how most of them make a living, and it definitely would make a difference to the business owners, and I know that for a fact.

So again, Friday and Saturday would be weekends.

If it's a Sunday, just like the regular entertainment licenses, Friday and Saturday, not that this is what we're talking about here, but as an example, we get to close it too.

If it's a Sunday holiday, we get to close it too, not on the Monday.

So perhaps the idea to solve that question would be 11 p.m.

on a Friday and Saturday, then it's no more entertainment.

Sunday, perhaps also 11 p.m.

I think there's seven Sundays in the year that that would apply.

So thank you for your time.

Mr.

Tommaso, thank you.

I hope you were considered, and again, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I cannot make out this names, but I'll call the address, which is 45 Waverley Street.

No.

35 Laura Street.

I got a phone number.

21 Anthony Avenue.

Francisco Mende.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I got another phone number and a name that I cannot make out.

So phone number.

Felix Garcia.

Eddie Peña.

John Martinez.

John made sure that I can read his name, all right.

Good evening, John.

You're welcome.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is John Martinez.

I'm the owner of Area Restaurant and Lounge on 319 Picasset Avenue.

I found out about this amendment late uh last night, but I'm I'm happy to be here.

I think it's a great opportunity for our business.

I cringe when I hear the residents say what they say about our business and the way some characters choose to run their businesses.

And it's very unfortunate to have to stand up here and defend my business.

But I'm happy to do so because I think that we need true leaders in the city as it pertains to nightlife.

And uh I recognize the challenges culturally that we have trying to uh temper down our customers and and help them understand that there are rules and laws, and not everything is a nightclub, not everything should be a nightclub.

Um I think the difference here is the time.

The difference here is the prohibitions put in place to to control what we're doing.

I think people should take that seriously.

Um I have a different experience with my business.

I've been enforced, I do get visits from the city.

Um we are accountable to the rules and regulations that are here through Providence.

Um, but we also want to survive.

And we also want to allow our our residents within our communities to have a place to go and have a good meal and maybe have some entertainment.

We want to provide a great service to the people in our community.

We want people to go somewhere safe.

We do want to share our Latin infused menu with everyone who wants to try some really great food, have a great cocktail in a safe environment, and uh if if having entertainment makes that uh experience a bit more impactful for them and makes it want to come back, then that's money in my employees' pockets, that's money in the city's pockets, and it's a great experience.

And it does, it does add to the vitality and the the essence of our city of Providence, right?

Um, I left for 20 years and I came back home with a dream to kind of build something in my own neighborhood.

And it's it's tough, right?

We have a lot of regulations, we have a lot of economic challenges right now.

Um, so these are just opportunities that we really, really appreciate, and we really want to follow to the T so that we enhance our business.

And it's not gonna be about music, it's always food first, is how can we add some value within that parameter so that our customers can come in and enjoy a better experience?

Um, and that's you know, I endorse it.

We need it.

We're trying to survive.

Not everyone is the same, and you know, while it's easy to say we shouldn't pay for the penalties of a few.

I mean, I I think that we we should be accountable to our peer group, but um, we do really need the opportunity, and there are some really good actors looking for an opportunity to show the city um that we can we can follow the rules and and provide uh something a little bit different and better to our community.

Thank you, John.

Thank you.

Councilman Roya, Chair, just want to quickly comment on that testimony.

I think it was John, right?

John, that was just well said.

I appreciate your presentation, uh, very rational, and thank you for staying staying the accountability piece.

Um, and so I'm really fortunate to have business owners in the city like you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, Councilman.

John, you have no idea how much that means to hear Councilman Royal speak like that.

Thank you, Councilman, Jose Mendez.

Not here, Gabilia, uh Jonathan from eighty-six Summer Street eighty-five Galantin Street uh Garcia from eighty-six rail something street now okay.

Okay, next page uh wheelie from twenty-seven Rothian Street Nope, Daisy Diaz Bernaldo da Salas, ninety-one something street.

Uh then I got another phone number, so Kimberly from sixteenth Summer Street seven sixteenth Central Avenue, Cashley Reyes, Yanelli Contreras, Malcolm Taylor, Janelle Taylor, uh Suheidi Montero eight twenty-five pony a calf Martin Lopez, Giovanni Nunes, Claire Estelle, Elizabeth Lopez, Rachel something, Fabio Munoz.

So is there anyone here that has not spoken that would like to speak?

I I just went through the list.

Okay, so city sergeant.

Did we have any that that was the only list for item number one, right?

Okay.

What item is that I did ask that if there's anyone, even if you didn't sign up and you would like to speak, come on up.

No.

All right.

So time to close the public hearing.

All right, so Madam Clerk, being that no one else has signed up to speak.

Um Mr.

Oscar Vargas, Councilman Vargas, you were going to say something.

Yes, I want to say thank you to everyone who came today and testify, taking your time.

Well, at the same time, I would like to make some motion to amend the right to the amend of Friday night.

You want to add an amendment?

You want to add an amendment to this ordinance the Friday night be to 11 p.m.

And it is any holiday to stay to night p.m.

Because according to the ordinances, weekdays to 9 p.m.

But doesn't mention anything about holidays.

The idea is to have Friday to 11 p.m.

as a weekend.

According to all these people who testified, they keep saying the Friday, the weekend is starting Friday, Friday night, all the way to Sunday.

So you want to incorporate Fridays into the weekend scheduling.

Correct.

And holidays should be considered weekday until 11 p.m.

on holidays.

Is that what you're saying?

Oh holiday is this because usually we have all holidays on Mondays except for 4 of July, Thanksgiving.

Oh sorry.

Are you getting it?

Um yeah, I just sounds like Councilman Vaga wants to add Fridays to weekends and also holidays to 11 p.m.

Yeah.

So just to be clear, then the um where it says it shall cease by 9 p.m.

on weeknights and 11 p.m.

on weekends.

If we can be more specific and say it shall cease by 9 p.m.

on Monday through Thursday, and 11 p.m.

on Friday through Sunday.

Or we want to say 9 p.m.

on Sunday through Thursday and 11 p.m.

on Friday and Saturday.

Uh uh not on Sundays because when we have holidays on Monday, they want it to extend to 11.

Do you do you want it?

Do you want to say the uh extend to 11 on the day before a holiday?

Now we can work that out.

Okay, I'm just I'm just trying to I'm not expressing an opinion, I'm just trying to make sure that we get this accurately.

So it sounds like what you're saying is that the incidental entertainment shall cease at 9 p.m.

on uh Sunday through Thursday and 11 p.m.

on Friday, Saturday, and the night before a city holiday, a city recognized holiday.

Yeah.

So you so you basically what what it sounds like what Councilman Vargas proposing is to switch uh Sundays for Fridays.

Uh so Fridays will be to 11 along with Saturday, and then Sunday, it's instead of being 11 p.m.

on Sundays, it'll be 9 p.m.

So we're looking uh Sunday through Thursday, 9 p.m.

9 p.m.

Except for a holiday.

Yes, the other part to that is that on holidays it'll be 11 and night before holiday will be to 11.

I I think I hear what the the councilman is saying is that Friday and Saturday and the night before a holiday would be 11 o'clock.

Correct.

All right.

That's what I understand.

That was just a small amendment.

One more question.

Yes.

Yes, what about Four of July?

In Thanksgiving holidays.

That doesn't fall into Monday.

But the Mondays.

That doesn't the holiday doesn't fall on Mondays.

Thank you, Aaron.

That makes that makes sense.

Councilman Royus.

Sorry, just want to make sure that uh Mr.

Azar um knew what Aaron was just said.

I no, I did not hear it.

I I agree with that.

Because then I'm gonna go to Councilwoman Peterson.

Okay, so what I heard uh was um if incidental enter this is I'm reading the way that that it is proposed by Councilman Vargas.

If incidental entertainment is provided as a live music performance, it shall cease at nine o'clock p.m.

Sunday through Thursday and eleven p.m.

on Friday, comma Saturday, and the night before a city recognized holiday.

Correct.

Correct.

All right, so councilwoman Peterson.

If I could request that we deliberate on one more potential amendment, it would be to include these um the understanding of karaoke and trivia as designated opportunities for incidental, which I think would go a long way, especially in neighborhoods like mine that don't necessarily have larger venues with large music opportunities or anything like it's small restaurants and smaller bars.

So that would be the only thing I do need.

I believe that there might be a little bit more research that needs to be done around that one, but nevertheless, um I would propose and and advocate for that.

And also for Aram.

Can that amendment also be incorporated?

The the way I would do that is in the definition of incidental entertainment, it would say um uh incidental entertainment is background music limited to the following formats.

A life live music performance, b pre-recorded music play played from a pre-selected playlist over a permanently installed sound system, or C um Trivia and karaoke.

Thank you.

So being that I I think that that is it right there.

Motion I will be entertaining a motion to amend.

And I will ask Mr.

Azar to read the first amendment pertaining to the change in the days in the hour.

You got it.

You had a right.

I'm getting practice.

All right.

So the first so the first change would be to the uh in the definition of incidental entertainment, the sentence um is uh the I think it's the second to last sentence would be revised to say if incidental entertainment is provided as a live music performance, it shall cease at nine o'clock p.m.

on Sunday through Thursday and 11 o'clock p.m.

on Friday, Saturday, and the night before a city recognized holiday second so move motion is made by councilman Varga, second by councilwoman Peterson.

All in favor, aye.

Aye opposed, the ayes have it.

Second motion, Mr.

Aza, please.

Okay, this would be a change to the first sentence of the definition of incidental entertainment.

It would now read incidental entertainment is background music limited to the following formats.

A live music performance, B pre-recorded music played from a pre-selected playlist over the permanently installed sound system, or C trivia and karaoke.

So move.

Motion is made by Councilman Varga, second by councilwoman Peterson.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed.

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Uh this concludes this item.

So I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Maybe Councilman Royus.

And second by Councilwoman Peterson, all in favor, aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Yes, have it.

And now I'll entertain a motion to continue this item.

So move.

Maybe Councilman Varga.

Second by Councilwoman Peterson.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed to the ayes have it.

Thank you.

Okay, we still we have a long night, but we still have one more item, which is item number three pertaining to cannabis.

Mr.

Azar, are you ready?

I'll entertain a motion to um Madam Clerk, item number three, please.

Item number three is an ordinance and amendment of chapter 27 of the code of ordinances of the City of Providence entitled the City of Providence Zoning Ordinance approved November 24th, 2014, as amended to change certain regulations regarding cannabis establishments.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record exhibit D, which is the letter from the CPC.

Second made by Councilwoman Peterson, second by councilman Vargas.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Azo, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This uh amendment is in response to recent changes in state law.

Um the the way that our regulations have been since they were originally adopted.

Um they require that um apologize, get to bear with me just for a second.

Uh they currently require um our regular our local regulations currently require uh any establishments that that uh sell or cultivate cannabis to obtain state approvals before applying for municipal approvals.

But the new rules, I I think I misspoke.

I don't think they're I don't think it's new laws, I think it's the the new rules that were adopted by the cannabis commission now require um applicants to obtain approval from the municipality before they apply for state approval.

So it's the opposite of the pro of the process that we have in place.

So this merely um changes the sequencing of the process so that it's consistent with state law.

The same rules will apply, the same separation distances, uh, the same requirements for square footage and so forth, all of that is exactly the same, the same zones where these facilities are allowed, those are all the same.

Um the um it's just again to be consistent with uh the state regulations.

There's one change that I might ask you to consider.

Um, and it's simply in the use table, uh, wherever we have one of these uses, if we could label them cannabis dash, and then the specific use, because right now we have our use table in alphabetical order, and all of these uses are in different places, some are under C, one of them's under S for social equity um workers' cooperative.

So if we could, if you would just allow us in the use table to preface each of these uses with cannabis so that they're all together, um, all it does is rearrange them so it's uh clearer for those who are using the ordinance.

Um it's it's nothing more than a clerical change.

But um, in any event, the city plan commission did uh recommend approval of this, and I know um this there's been some urgency from the cannabis commission because there are some applications that um that are kind of caught in a bit of limbo because there's a chicken or the egg problem the way that that our rules are written today.

Thank you, Bob.

I understand this could be pretty complex, but basically we just continue to align our local laws with the state and understanding that at some point like now there are minor adjustments that we need to make.

That's right.

So that's basically it.

Uh does the committee have any objection to the amendment that Mr.

Acer suggested?

Chair, I just want to I just want to let Mr.

Azar know that I'm really on the fence about the clerical change.

Um I'm not sure if I can support that right now.

All right, so um Mr.

Azerbaij to make the amendment.

As I will get ready to entertain that amendment.

Yeah, so the amendment would be all right.

So I'll enter um go right ahead.

Yeah.

So the amendment would be that for each of the uses as they appear, each of the the cannabis related uses as they appear in the use table, that they would be prefaced with the word cannabis so that they're all it uh properly in alphabetical order.

And and and the way I would do that, I could uh if um I could make this a little bit a little bit clearer.

Um so here let's do this.

Uh the use hybrid cannabis retailer slash cannabis cultivator would have the word cannabis in front of it with a dash, and then social equity slash workers cooperative licensed cannabis retailer would also have cannabis cannabis dash in front of it.

Those are the two changes that would appear in the use table.

Thank you.

And this motion is made by Councilwoman Peterson and it's second by Councilman Royus.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

Thank you.

Uh any further question for Mr.

Azer.

Yes.

Hearing none.

I do have a question, Consulman Bargas.

Go right ahead.

I got a question.

So, like you were saying, like now we we switched now we had to approve them first for them to go to the state.

What about we don't approve them?

Because it won't go to the state.

If they're not approved locally, then they're not eligible for a state license.

And so we we had the authority to to say no or yes.

It all depends what location they're looking for, right?

You do have you uh the city has the authority, um, but only to the extent that the zoning ordinance uh um uh allows for it.

So there are for each of the different uses, uh the the um either the use is allowed by needing a special use permit from the zoning board, or it's allowed without a special use permit, but in either case, there are what we call use standards, and use standards are uh things like um uh you have to take measures to contain noise and odors, uh you have to have a security plan, you have to have staffing, you and and so forth.

So there are all these standards.

If in the opinion of either the zoning board or the zoning enforcement officer, the application doesn't meet those standards, then the application locally would be rejected.

One one more question.

How many licenses?

How many licenses do with the city province have to approve?

Like according to the five so the um I don't have this number off the top of my head, but the way that the state law is structured, there are uh the if they broke up the state into several different zones, and each zone gets a certain number of licenses.

It's not a large number.

Um we we're in the same zone as several five licenses, yeah.

I I I think um, yeah, I wish I had the law in front of me, but but we're in the same zone with several other communities, and there can only be a certain number of it's it's definitely less than 10 licenses within a given zone.

I see uh we have a policy expert.

Yeah, thank you, we go the cannabis expert.

Um smoke it.

Yeah.

So um just to kind of go back, I think we talked about this months ago.

There were 24 total licenses, um, six regions, four per region.

We share a region with Johnston, Lincoln, Cumberland, stuff like that.

So there's a finite number in in this.

Thank you, let me go.

Yeah, so so worst case scenario, we'd get four, but but we're obviously not the only community in the same zone.

Yeah, thank you.

So each community has the same opportunity, nothing to guarantee to any particular community.

Thank you.

All right, so um item number three, pretending to cannabis.

Um I'll like to send a motion to close the public hearing on it three.

Maybe by councilman bargain second by councilman Royer.

All in favor, aye.

I oppose the ayes have it.

And I'll also entertain a motion to continue this item.

Maybe by councilman Peterson, second by councilman Vargas.

One in favor, aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

This item number three is continue.

Being that there is no further business in the calendar, I'll detain a motion to adjourn.

So move made by council Warman Peterson and by Councilman Vargas.

And I know it's second by Councilman Royus.

All in favor, aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.