employees had lead training certification and no training was scheduled. inspector burke said he was on-site and that both the manager romero estrada, as well as the owner, did not have california guard cards, and were not scheduled at that time. the guards arrived late that evening, past the specified time of 6:00 p.m. one arrived at 6:15, the other at 6:30 p.m. wands were not being utilized, and no metal detector was not on-site. i just want to say this really shows a history of noncompliance, not only with the violations that they received in 2014, but the revised security plan, but also seemingly a lack of concern for the bar's patrons, as well as the community as large.

furthermore, this complaint is not defective. the respondent can reasonably understand and respond to each charge as prescribed by the entertainment commission's rules and procedures. i have not claimed, as the respondent said in their submission to the commission that the permitee violated california penal section 12020. i have shown that an employer agent. permitee has engaged in conduct that would result in violation of the following laws. the felony complaint, a court record, supports these claims. the respondent admits he's not fully complied with the revised security plan because the security guard have not applied for a state issued guard card. from a quick internet search, the process to obtain a guard

card can be obtained in one day, and cost as little as 18.95. failure to comply with the revised security plan is grounded for suspension alone by this commission. the main issue with the permitee is the safe of the community and the premises. by rn complying with the security plan itself should be enough to result in suspension. the loss of entertainment permit does not mean that the premises is shutdown. it may continue to operate, and considerations such as adverse neighborhood impact and health and safety are not unusual reasons for taking further course of actions. finally, even if you don't feel there's enough evidence in regard to the shooting on may 2e8, there is firsthand witness testimony that the permitee

failed to comply with permit conditions and failed to comply with the revised security plan, both of which are grounds for suspension on their own. i respectfully request a suspension for the maximum allowable time permitted within the police code for la oficina's place of entertainment permit. thank you. >>president tan: thank you. miss reyes, you can now present your closing argument. >> the director has not met her burden of proving all the alleged violations of la oficina to warrant a suspension of the entertainment license. first of all, allegations are allegations. they're not facts. the only way she could have proved any of the allegations is if she provided direct evidence. there was no direct evidence here. we've had people come

the parties for your presentations tonight, for the witnesses for coming forward. evidentiary portion of this hearing is now concluded, and the commission will take this case and submission -- under submission for deliberations and possible decision, so commissioners, i think the first order is do we feel like we are willing and able to make a decision this evening? if i see some head nods, we'll move forward. so i think the question, just to -- the burden was really on miss weiland to determine if -- or prove with the evidence that the permit holder-any employee or agent of the permit holder engaged in conduct that violated one or more of the criminal laws referenced in their complaint, so the assault

and battery, discharging a firearm, unlawful weapons, drug offenses. we can discuss. are there any thoughts? >> so -- i mean, basically, my opinion is any time you hire a -- whether they're outside security or in-house security, you kind of, like, give them a certain amount of leverage to take -- to protect your building, and what i'm seeing here, even though the owner of the building was working, it's -- the security guard is still the front door of the premise, and -- and the actions sometimes warrant -- even though he wasn't directly responsible -- i know on the

abc site, you know, it goes up the food chain. your employees are your extension because you're supposed to discuss policy, and to have an entertainment permit, there's conditions, there's policies that need to be instructed, and even if it's an outside security guard working on your premise, those conditions should be at least brought forward to that person watching their front door. so even though there's no proof in the sense that the owner was working, but the manager on duty was already gone, and he already said that it's his responsibility to take care of the premise. so in my opinion, i just think -- and again, he's had the permit since 2014. plenty of opportunity to really know and understand the conditions

on this permit. and not to be in compliance because you're pushed against the wall, then, you have to be -- then all of a sudden you're in compliance, and even then, you're not fully in compliance because, okay, you know, they're booked up, and they only have one class, but that's not the point. the situation, if he took the condition seriously, maybe there wouldn't have been a homicide on the 28th, maybe. who knows? but the thing is, there's conditions, and the permit has conditions for a reason: to protect the public, protect the employees, and protect the city, and so my thing is my opinion is i just think, as an operator, he just took it for granted, and i'm not very supportive of that because a lot of other permit holders out there do take seriously their permits, and they work hard to keep it secure, and this place

is only a 49 capacity. there's clubs that have five or 600 people. so i just have a problem of -- of continuing a permit that obviously had plenty of opportunities to correct itself. but that's my opinion, and, i mean, that's what i'm putting on the record. >>president tan: all right. any other thoughts from commissioners? commissioner thomas? >> vice president thomas: i think this is a question for our city attorney representative, but obviously, the individual, mr. sanchez, is currently facing charges but has not been convicted of those charges, but i also haven't heard anyone saying that the incident didn't -- i mean, there's been no objection to the fact that the incident happened, and that he shot

someone. does it make any difference whether or not the individual -- is there a different standard, i guess, in terms of the fact that the individual has not been convicted in a criminal court? >> the standard amicabpplicabla criminal court would be guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. here, the respondent is determined to present her evidence based on the police record, so has there been evidence occurred based on the preponderate standard? >> thank you. that's helpful. >> i think i'm trying to sift between our difference, so that was very helpful, thank you. to me, nobody's disputing there

was a homicide outside of this establishment. the doorman was accused. he's not been convicted of that. seems to be fairly universally held that the doorman was involved in this in a serious way. i also think that there was a compelling case, that there was a history of issues with this establishment. some of them may be, you know, somebody has an axe to grind, some of them may be a random call that got prescribed to the bar, but it seems that there's been a number of issues of this bar over the years, so that brings me to our job. we regulate entertainment permits. it's just the permit to have a d.j. or live band. not to

it looks like commissioner thomas wanted to say something, though, so... >> vice president thomas: well, my comment, and then, i think we do need to get moving forward with the motions. i mean, my comment is that i appreciate that there was all of this activity to get people signed up for the lead trainings, and all of that that's happened in the last couple of weeks. that's great, but those are criteria from the 2014 conditions, not -- those

were not new conditions, so it's actually been many years of not being in compliance. this isn't a new condition that wasn't being followed, so i think that, you know, we've got evidence of years of being out of compliance, as well as years of calls and activity, as well as this incident, so it all -- i mean, i feel like all of them together -- any one of those things on their own might not be too bad, but i feel like, yeah. >> another thing, calls for service is relative, you know? and again, this has been an industry thing, where calls for service has always been kind of misleading, and for me, i'm not going based on my opinion on calls for service, i'm going based on responsibility of the owner, okay? calls for service is relative. i don't -- i don't -- my basis

is not for calls for service, my basis is when you have a permit, you need to know exactly what you signed up for and what you signed your name to, and he had four years -- or three years to do that, and that's why i'm kind of, like, you know, upset about it, so... >>president tan: commissioner caminong? >> commissioner caminong:

party has upheld the section that regards the -- that requires a permit holder not to allow these crimes to occur on their premises, the permit holder or its agent, then the motion would be to find them in violation of that code section, and identify which section of the penal code you believe that the charging party has proven.

and then, to the extent that you also found that -- find any other of the sections -- subsections of 1060.20.1 have violated the motion could also include those, as well. i think the ones that the charging party has mentioned are section 4 regarding conditions, and they also charged subsection 7, which is the one regarding calling emergency medical services. and also, subsection 6, regarding the approved security plan, compliance with that. so that motion has to contain the specific language and the specific code that we're using. >> that's right, and the commission could take these separately, if you -- i mean, you could make a motion that includes all the violations at

once, or you can do them separately. i guess it just depends on whether you believe you have the votes for it -- to carry the motions. and then, secondly, after you consider the ryition las, if the motion passes, then, the commission could consider the amount of the suspension. >>president tan: so i do want to advise commissioners, the grounds for suspension say the commission may suspend any permission under this article under any of the following circumstances, so it doesn't -- my interpretation of that is that if it meets any one of these allegations, then we are fine, so we don't -- adding more does not necessarily lead to any sort of proportional greater amount of suspension, it just sort of -- you know, we

just need one. so i feel like -- if miss weiland has met one that's clear to all of us, then, let's figure that out. commissioner thomas? >> vice president thomas: well, i'll start with one. i move that the charging party has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the permit holder failed to comply with an approved security plan as required by section 1060.31, and the revised security plan, as required by section 1060.32. >>president tan: all right. there's a motion. is there a second? >> i second. >>president tan: there's a second. is there any further discussion from commissioners or additional evidence that you want to say was proven?

>> starting with one? >>president tan: yeah, just starting with one. procedurally, do we need to take public comment on this one? >> we've already taken public comment on the item. >>president tan: all right, commissioners, why don't we take a vote. >> can you repeat it? we're going one by one, right? >> vice president thomas: yeah, i was just starting. other people can add on. that the charging party proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the permit holder violated its number six, we need to say, section 1060.20.1, number a-6; specifically, that the permitee failed to comply with an approved security plan as required by section 1060.31,

and the revised security plan, as required by section 1060.32. >>president tan: all right. crystal, could you take the vote? just go through each of the commissioners and do the roll call. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >>president tan: all right. the motion passes. let's -- is there additional motion about the evidence before we decide on what the penalty would be? you don't have to -- so you're forming one, so go ahead.

>> commissioners, i would say that the department has brought charges based on something in the complaint, so you do have to decide whether she's proven those charges or not. the one regarding the criminal -- the two that were specifically called out were the -- were the charge regarding whether the under lying crimes occurred, and the charge regarding whether the emergency services were called. >>president tan: thank you. >> so clarification, so even though i feel that hiring an outside service is a connection as being an extension of the arm of the owner, i can say that it's been proven -- i mean, in my opinion, because i really, truly believe, based on what -- my experience, if you hire an outside security to hold your fort, and he shoots somebody, you're ultimately

responsible because there's supposed to be some communication, so whether they did it directly or indirectly, it's still he paid the security company, so -- and i motion that charges -- section 1060.21.1a -- 3 and a, violated assault and battery, discharging a firearm, unlawful weapon, and drug offenses. i mean -- >>president tan: i'm sorry. i did not catch that motion as a motion, so could you restate that. >> so the charges, section 1060.21.1 -- >> yes. what about that? what are you doing? >> so i feel that there's been a proven, by the -- what? oh,

okay. sorry. looking at this one. well, anyway -- okay. here. i'll just read it. okay. that the preponderance of the evidence that on may the 28th, 2017, the permit holder or any employee or agent of the permit holder engaged in conduct that violated the following, okay? assault and battery, discharging a firearm, unlawful weapons, and drug offenses. >> all right. that is a motion. is there a second? >> you can debate it. >> i second. >> all right. i would

suggest -- i didn't actually hear anything about drug offenses. i know that that was part of the charge, but there wasn't evidence provided. i'm not saying you modify -- okay. let's take the -- yeah, let's just go with the assault and battery, discharging a firearm, and unlawful weapon. drug offense has not been proven. >> i'll second that. >> all right. there's a motion and a second. crystal, could you take a vote, please. >> can i just restate the motion for the record so that we're call clear on what the motion is. >> yes. >> so commissioner lee made a motion that there was a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent violate -- when the employer or agent committed the crime of assault and battery discharging a kwie

firearm, and unlawful weapons. is that correct? >> right. >> all right. on that motion, miss stewart, could you please take a vote? >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >>president tan >> all right. that motion passes. we are advised to also speak to the second charge, which is about the permitee's negligence or failure to request emergency medical services. do we feel like there's evidence to -- yeah, that we accept the evidence to prove that? >> i do not believe there was evidence to prove that. i believe there was some smoke around that area, but i -- it -- i would need a lot more information and to actually

hear from people that were there and to hear how loud the gun shot was, as he was claiming he didn't hear it; and then, to hear more time about the time between the gun shot and when the ambulance came, and etcetera, etcetera, so to me, that was not filled out enough for me to feel comfortable motioning on this. >> all right. is there a differing opinion? >> i mean, it's clear that he didn't call 911. that's clear, but whether or not he should have been expected to, i think, was the question. >> right. >> so yeah. do you want to make a motion? >> yeah, do you want to start a motion. >> so the motion would be to say that there was not a preponderance of the evidence. >> that the charging party has failed to prove. >> i'll make a motion that the charging party failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the permit holder or any agent or employee of the permit holder failed to do the

following: failed to request emergency medical services for someplace in need of emergency medical services. >> all right. any discussion at this time -- oh, yeah, actually, was there a second? >> no. >> there was not a second. is there a second for that motion? >> secretary. >> all right. no further discussion, crystal? >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> all right. that motion passes. all right, commissioners, now, we do have to motion. we did feel that there was findings that they violated the conditions on the security plan; they also violated the

charge that there was assault and battery, dits charge schar firearm, unlawful weapons on-site, so the charging party, miss weiland, had asked for the maximum amount of suspension. can you clarify what that is? >>director weiland: 30 days. >> 30-days. so would someone like to make a motion? >> i move that we suspend the permit for this first violation for 30 days. >> first violation being which violation? all of the above? >> mm-hmm, all of the above. >> okay. >> for 30 days. >> is that... just want to check with our city attorney. is that enough language or do we have to cite

the specific code that we're suspending for. >> it doesn't hurt to say the code. >> so the motion from commissioner thomas is to find -- to suspend the placed entertainment permit and the hours permit for 30 days under section 1060.20c1 of the police code on the basis of the two violations that the commission already determined occurred. >> all right. does that sound reasonable? i see some head nods, so is there a second for that motion? >> i'll second it. >> seconded by commissioner perez. miss stewart, could you take a vote in. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> all right. the decision has been made. la oficina is under

suspension for 30 days -- >> i would -- commissioners, i would advise you, under your rules, i believe you are required to make written findings to support these violations, and -- >>president tan: right, and so the suspension does not begin until the findings are completed. >> yeah, i would recommend that when -- when is the next meeting, crystal, of this commission? >>c. stewart: november 17th? >>president tan: 21st, oh, i think we're cancelling that meeting, so december 5th. >> okay. i would recommend, commissioners, that the department prepare written findings that support the commission's decision; that the department exchange those findings with the permit holder two weeks before the december 5th meeting, and that the

permit holder have an opportunity to respond to those findings, and that the commission's decision in terms of the actual suspension not be final until those findings are adopted by the commission. do feel there's no -- so there's no confusion as to when the decision is actually app l appealable to the board of appeals, because it is appealable to another board. so those findings would state a date by which a suspension would start. >>director weiland: may i approach? i have one question. >> okay. yes. wi >>director weiland: i just wanted to call out that you did miss one of my charges as you were going through, permit c,

any agent of the permitee failed to comply with the placement of the permit. just wanted to note that. >> so you're saying that we ignored one charge? >>director weiland: yes. >> i see. we had addressed the security plan, which is part of -- which is a condition, but that's separate from the fact that it -- they just violated conditions in general. all right. we can -- commissioners, we have one more motion, then, on that charge. do we find that there was a preponderance of the evidence to prove that la oficina has violated not meeting their

conditions generally? i believe by saying that they didn't meet their security plan, you're implying that, but let's just do it for the record. somebody like to make a motion? >> yes. i make a motion that the charging party has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the permitee violated conditions of their permit. is that sufficient? okay. >> yeah. >> i'll second that. >> all right. there's a motion and a second. miss stewart, could you... >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: motion passes. >> all right. that motion passes. so back to the penalty, we have approved a 30-day suspension. do we need to do another vote or is it just more administrative how we -- the effective date and the

findings? >> i think the department position is that the maximum suspension is 30 days, and you've already imposed that, so i don't think you need to take another vote on the suspension, unless you're going to reduce it. >> so the suspension holds. administratively, it does mean that the -- we will ask our staff to prepare findings, share that with the permit holder, and then, with those findings, we'll have a start date that says the start date when the suspension would begin. >> and so the matter's continued to the meeting of december 15th for the adoption of written findings. >> is that -- oh, so we have to -- right. okay. >> you might want to -- i think you should probably make a motion on that, as well. >> right. >> so the motion would be to continue this matter to december 5th, where the adoption of written fiebdings will eventually be prepared by the department, and exchanged with the permit holder, two weeks from close of business, two weeks before the meeting.

is that during thanksgiving or something -- >> it was during the thanksgiving recess. >> december 5th, i just don't want to make them do it on thanksgiving day or something like that. >> it would be by november 21st. >> okay, so by november 21st, the department can make findings, share it with the permit holder and commission secretary, and the permit holder may provide a minute responminute -- written response to the commission within one week of the commission meeting on december 5th. someone want to make that motion? >> so moved. >> can i say so moved? is that sufficient? i was taking notes, but i trust your language better than mine. so moved, so we will continue this until december 5th, with

the details as provided in terms of providing notice to the permitee and the written findings. >> great. is there a second? >> i'll second it. >> commissioner perez seconds the motion. miss securitewart, will you tae vote? >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> all right. the motion is continued until december 5th. the findings will be presented by the 21st to the permit holder. thank you, everyone, for coming out today, if you did come out for this hearing, and thank you for your counsel. >> can i just -- >> yes. >> i appreciate everyone from the community who came out on both sides. i know a decision like this can't bring back a loved one, a friend, a family member, but it, you know, we on the entertainment commission take very seriously the role that bars and places of

entertainment play in our community, and we want them to be safe and welcoming places for all of us, so i hope that, you know, what we can do is a 30-day suspension, but i hope that this inspires significant change in the operation of the bar and its relationship to the community, and thank you all for staying with us through this whole process. >> thank you; and you know, mr. escolero, and miss reyes, i do appreciate that you have been making the effort to come into compliance. i think that's a good sign. we don't want to see you here. we don't want to hear or see calls for service. by the time it reaches us, it becomes a problem, and -- and we have some tools to address that. as our acting director said, you are still able to play an

ipod. we're not revociking >>president tan: all right. hello, again. we have a majority of our meeting still to go through, so thank you for sitting through that, those of you who did. item number 3, police department comments and questions, i don't see anyone from the police here, so we will move onto item number 4,

which is hearing possible actions for permits. the first is a consent item, and i'll hand it to miss weiland to present it to us. >>director weiland: thank you, so this one is for elite cafe at 2041 fillmore. they're just going for a life performance permit. i had nothing bad from the community, and the police department approved this permit. so did planning, and so it's just a basic consent item. >>president tan: all right. is there a motion to approve? >> i motion to approve the limited live music permit at the elite cafe. >> second. >>president tan: all right. there's a motion and a second. any public comment? seeing no public comment, comment is closed. all right. we'll take a vote. >> clerk: [ roll call. ]

>>president tan: the motion passes for the elite cafe, and moving onto the consent agenda. >>director weiland: we have we're moving onto two-51, and i'll just be brief because rick haynes is also here to tell you all about it. these guys are hoping to have live music, d.j.'s, small jazz groups, playing music in the venue, so i'll let them take it away. >> my name is mark rennick shall along with rick haynes, the sponsor. there there's, in your packet, an

amended permit clucapplication because we ran into a snag, we're opening as the art gallery, we've joint ventured with the san francisco art gallery, so we're going to put on some shows, sell some alcohol. we have already brought in henry carnilowitz, who's an event promoter. this -- night time entertainment is a principally permitted use in the district. this has had an entertainment license since 2004, so i think it's an indication of city planning tightening up a little bit on existent places of entertainment. that said, there are no residences within 300 feet;

however, the landlord was pretty tight on our proposed lease, which is why i believe this was attached to the -- if i could have the overhead for a second -- the questionnaire. we brought charles saultry in to do extensive testing to make sure there was no sound bleed into the building, so that said, there won't be any sound bleed anywhere. the recommendations are in our lease, and there are 16 tenants in this particular building, including ticketmaster, live nation, cameron hughes wine. we contacted all 16 tenants, in terms of our outreach, takahashi is a big warehouse across the street the street. we've talked to the tenants a couple doors down, and we've

join the potrero and dogpatch business association. we tried to join the potrero boosters, also. their e-mails are bouncing back, so after 40 years, they may be out of business, but we -- it's our intention to be a good neighbor, do a good job down there. this was -- this place was built -- the latest inkarnation was build by sean manchester, who also built mighty and wish, and who does a good job. so i guess my client is here to answer any questions you might have, and we're asking the commission to grant -- give us a conditional grant on this application tonight. >>president tan: did you want to say anything or we can go with questions -- >> commissioners, any

questions? are you going to be open every night of the week or is it -- have you thought of that? >> closed sundays, mondays, open from -- i think it's 11 -- well, we'll really be open from 4:00 to midnight on wednesdays, and then, thursdays until 1:30, fridays until 1:30, and saturdays until 1:30. >> and there's not many residential neighbors now, but i think there are plans to have many more. how do you plan to address new neighbors that might come your way in the future? >> we had some discussion about that. there's -- i don't really believe they can build within 300 feet of us, but there's a lot of building going on around that area, and that's why we want this. it's going to be like a neighborhood bar. it's -- the bar that we're doing, it's -- we're video mapping the whole inside of the place. we're putting 60

projectors inside, so you can do video art displays, video art gallery, or change the whole inside of your place with the artwork, or if you do a corporate event, we're targeting the tech community for this and doing corporate events, art events, and these types of things, and then, being a happy hour type of bar, as well, for that community. we realize it's going to take sometime for it to build up as a neighborhood bar because, you know, i mean, what's the -- the in place new place on the corner? >> one henry adams? >> yeah, that place is finished, and there's a lot of places for ucsf being built right on the other side of the dogpatch there, and we looked around where other bars are and stuff like that, and we decided we'd like to take a shot at it. >>president tan: okay. great. and are you having in-house promoters or people who will be

promoting separately and working with you all? >> no. we will only be doing one -- one event weekly. that is what you would call a club event, and it's a 70's, 80's, 90's themed event, and it's more towards gamers and that kind of stuff, and we're going to artwork, and you know, do it around that. besides that, we will be doing corporate events and just be open as a bar or lounge for that building. >>president tan: that's really coal. look forward to seeing that. commissioner perez. >> commissioner perez: so with security, will you be having your own or will you be hiring a third party vendor? >> i will be my own, and i've been a security provider

before. i've had my own card before. i've had a team of guys that have worked for me throughout the years that have been operating with me. we've confident of our security plan, and we do know our security plan. >> commissioner perez: all right, man. >> yeah. >> commissioner perez: thank you. >> vice president thomas: just wanted to say we appreciate your security plan. it's more detailed than a lot of the ones we got, so thank you. and i have read it several times. >> vice president thomas: the appreciate the more security guard. >>president tan: well, hopefully, we won't have to see you for a suspension hearing, ever. >> just to let you guys know, i have made holograms in las vegas. i'm very versed in the video access side of things, and i'm trying to bring to this

place anything that's different that's currently in san francisco. >>president tan: you're going to have holo grams in san francisco? >> i'm not going to say that, but there may be some smaller holo grams of different kinds of things. >>president tan: really cool. have a seat. i will call for public comment before we make a motion. is there public comment on two-51? seeing none, public comment's closed. all right. commissioners, someone make a motion. >> i motion to approve the permit. >>president tan: all right. is there a second? >> vice president thomas: second. >>president tan: let's take a vote. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >>president tan: the motion passes. good luck. look forward to seeing the projections and other good stuff from there.

all right. our next -- next permit applicant is hermitage banquet hall. >> this is fore a venue that i located in the rich manned district, which is great because we don't see a lot of permits into this area, and the owner, boris, is here this evening. he's essentially opening this up as sort of like a community hall, and he's going to have live music happening at the venue. i just also want to call attention to the fact that we did not receive any negative feedback from the community. in fact, we received a letter of support from supervisor fewer, who i know her legislative aide wanted to be here tonight, but it might be a little too late, and the police department submitted their conditions that

it would like to suggest that any and all security guards working in the venue should be fully licensed security guards with current and active guard cards, so that is it. w come on up, boris. >> president tan -- tan continue can you speak into the microphone. >> president tan and members of entertainment commission. i'm here to represent hermitage banquet hall, so we are opening this place for community that as our customers, our community, and that we would like to provide a place for entertainment, and to -- that people can get their events -- birthdays, banquets, small weddings, that will allow them

to celebrate their events in our places. so we invited district supervisor sandra fewer. she visited the place. she likes a lot of it. i got a recommendation from member of our community, which is rabbi peele, who submitted the recommendation to entertainment commission offices, as well, and we're asking for a permit to operate and provide entertainment. it's our intention to have this entertainment -- normally, it would be friday, saturday, and sunday. that's when the entertainment will be provided. >>president tan: great. thank you. commissioners, any questions? commissioner perez? >> commissioner perez: hello. thamp tham thanks for coming in. is this a new building or an

old building? >> this is an old building. we renovated the building from the ground up, and we installed in the neighbors businesses a sound wall to allow us to contain the music, and the member of entertainment office come in and measured the requirements, whatever required, and we understood that, and we're happy that they would provide the recommendation for us. >> commissioner perez: okay. so you feel satisfied with the sound proofing that's been done? okay. thank you very much. >>president tan: commissioner lee? >> so the people that use your space, are you going to rent to them -- let's say, for example, that somebody wanted to have a fundraiser, but they're kind of in the early 20's. are you planning to maybe let them have their party?