perspective. i'll turn it over to him. >> chair fewer: thank you. >> commissioners. >> chair fewer: hello. >> thank you for having me. so you probably heard that assembly bill 5 passed and it was signed into law on wednesday. so what does that mean? beginning on january 1st, it is -- sorry -- beginning on january 1st, the abc test rather than the previous test for whether workers and employer or contractor will go into effect, it's codification of a california supreme court ruling from last spring. so this is already technically law. it's just now reinforced by state law or state code.

the three-part test is broken down here. the worker is free from company control. and the second is that any person that is performing work that is outside of the usual course of the hiring entity. and the third part is that the person is putting themselves out in a market and offering their services to -- other than to the hiring entity that they test, like, do they advertise for their services. and do they -- are they truly an independent business and are they more directly an employee of that company. so workers are considered to be employees unless they fail this test. and unless all of these conditions apply. and put a caveat there that as a.b.5 was working towards the

legislature many exemptions were added to the bill. gig workers were explicitly not exempted and as we said explicitly many times unless they're targeting this particular sector. so that brings us to enforcement which is a little bit less clear. there are basically four -- they're all labeled one -- but there are four avenues for enforcement. and the first is the courts through private action that is already, you know, there are already many litigations in process. the second one which was added to the last minute is that now that the attorney general or the city attorneys and jurisdictions with greater than 750,000 residents can bring -- can bring on behalf of the people of

california actions against the companies for misclassification. the third one is that the e.d.d., if it determines that companies are misclassifying their employees and, therefore, evading workers' compensation payments, they have audit powers and they can enforce penalties and restitution. and then finally the california labor commissioner's office and the san francisco office of labor standards enforcement can likewise do investigations as to whether companies are misclassifying their employees and they can also assess penalties, restitution and fin fines. so since 85 passed just a week ago there's been -- since a.b.5

passed and there's a number of movements and some are significant in their own right and some are indicators of the things that we'll be looking at in the future and going forward. and a driver from pittsburg filed a suit in federal district court last week citing misclassification and using the standard which is the court case that first stepped that standard. and then also invoking a.b.5. and the city attorney this week brought a suit against incitycart and interesting that she is suing for retroactive pay. so that's one element of this is, you know, these companies have now been in operation since 2011 and that could be a -- they could be on the hook for a lot of back pay. lyft and uber have publicly --

the chief legal officer for uber gave a press conference shortly after the passage of a.b.5 and says that uber doesn't believe that their workers would qualify as employees under the a.b.c. test, that has previously -- that argument is previously not held up well in court. but, you know, obviously they're getting out ahead, you know, trying to influence public opinion. and a late piece of legislation made it to the legislature, giving a one-year exemption for newspaper carriers to the a.b.5 test -- or the abc test. and that's an interesting possible avenue that gig work companies might take is trying to win some sort of stay for a period of time through the legislature that. would be one avenue that we might see them contesting this. and lyft has also been messaging its drivers and this is cited as

potentially illegal under legal code 96k and 98.6 and they're trying to enlist driver support for an exemption or writing campaigns and things. and lyft and uber and door dash have each contributed $30 million towards a ballot initiative for the 2020 fall election. that would -- that would, you know, directly go to voters to ask for an exemption or to ask for some special package that would apply. you know, third classification of employers -- or of workers or something. and one aspect of when -- governor newsom signed the a.b.5 bill and he included a message and the final part of his message had language as to suggesting, you know, i'm willing to continue negotiating

with labor organizations, with the companies -- the companies, and, you know, to work out something. so that indication is kind of perhaps indicative of what we might see when, you know, the legislature reconvenes and as this goes into effect next year. but another aspect of that which is something along the lines of i want california to step up where the federal government has not and provide these -- provide workers a right to collective bargaining. kind of an interesting statement because if the workers were classified as employees they would have that right. so it's unclear what is kind of being indicated there. so unrelated, but relevant -- last week in new york city, lyft and uber both began putting

restrict jobs when drivers could log on into their apps and saying it's because of the new taxi and limousine rules, so that's something that we're going to see absolutely in california and in san francisco where the companies start to put restrictions or -- or, you know, challenges for their workers and then blame it on the new laws and say, you know, write in if you don't like this. so it's the kind of diname that i can we can expect to see. -- dynamic that you can expect to see. and the u.s. house of representatives passed a bill that would invalidate arbitration clauses. probably not going to pass the senate. but uber currently in its s1 filing claimed they had 60,000 ongoing arbitrations with their drivers and arbitration is a way they have avoided class-action

suit coming from their drivers. so movement on that at the state level, and nancy pelosi did not vote on it but it did pass the house this morning. so just an interesting added thing. how does this in fact our study? on one hand it makes us study a lot more time critical and crucial. as i said in the governor's signing message, he said that he wanted to work with labor organizations and he said that he wanted to work with the companies. but, you know, it's important that the voices of the drivers themselves are present in those conversations going forward and in our study, you know, we will capture those voices. also, you know, even if -- ab5 will not immediately make all of the drivers workers -- or employees, rather. so even if they were to become employees though, there would still be plenty of opportunity

for these companies to mistreat their employees. there's still amounts of information between, well, the drivers and the companies, you know, moreover the companies have a very privileged and direct line of communication on each driver, and they could message different drivers. they have many potential means of continuing to treat these workers less than as what they should. and then also just because of the timing, we might believe able to collect real-time data on how these companies are making adjustments based on the bill coming into effect. and as it comes into effect our phase two -- or our survey will still be ongoing and so we might see some real-time changes in, you know, the labor conditions that these people are working

under. that's it. thank you. >> chair fewer: wow. comments, questions? yes, commissioner haney. >> let me turn my mike on. so are we the first jurisdiction to have a law like this or it sounds like new york has something similar? >> you mean a.b.5? well, it's a new york city rule that instituted a minimum wage before and has put certain caps on how much persentage of a driver's time they can be deadheading or driving without a passenger. and they're trying to bring that down. and it's not -- drivers are not classified as employees in new york city and they have certain protections that were written by the taxi and limousine commission and are a rule but they're not considered

employees. >> so i know that, obviously, there's a role for a lot of different bodies to provide the regulation. but is there -- in terms of the city attorney or our own sort of office of labor standards, is there a plan to have a more proactive oversight in regulation? and a related question to that is, does this at all -- you mentioned a minimum wage in new york, has there been a conversation or does a.b.5 allow for any sort of opportunities for us under our minimum wage ordinance to provide more enforcement? >> yeah, i mean the labor standards enforcement would be able to, you know, to investigate whether these drivers were not being paid a minimum wage and if they were misclassified as independent contractors. you know, if they're being misclassified that means they are due the san francisco

minimum wage if they drive in san francisco. and they're due, you know, parental leave. they're due paid sick leave. they're due -- you know, all of the protections that employees are due. so both the state and the city labor standards enforcement could investigate claims and assess penalties. but it is mostly complaint driven. there's not as of right now like a clear proactive avenue. >> have we heard about any of these companies that have said, all right, we're going to come forward and make all of our folks employees? [laughter]. >> no, no, in fact, we're not likely -- >> well, obviously not uber and lyft but there are smaller ones. >> in the past there was a company called sprig that made all of its drivers employees in the past. and there have been a few others. a couple of them are currently out of business. and, actually, that's part of

our survey and i'm hoping to include case studies of how -- when they did that, how they did it. because it's not -- it's not necessarily clear what kind of employees there are. and there's different wage orders for transportation employees and there's a specific wage order in the state of california. would they apply for that? and they say they're not transportation companies, so, i don't know. so, yeah. sorry. >> chair fewer: commissioner. >> yes, i think that commissioner haney asked most of my questions but i just wanted some clarity on -- from my understanding from the remarks from uber's chief legal officer, whatever his title is, is that they're just going to pretend that it doesn't exist as far as -- >> they will pretend -- >> so i guess what i'm commenting on is the fact that i doubt that they're going to make

any changes at all during the lifetime of the survey, probably not. do you know -- do you have any thoughts about any who might? this is purely conjecture? >> companies that might? >> companies where we might actually see potential changes in their treatment of workers over the course of this study. speculative. >> the smaller companies when they see -- because uber and lyft and door dash are going to be fighting this as -- and it's kind of their bread and butter. i mean, they do this really well. they're going to be fighting for the future against, you know, the bureaucrats and stuff and they're going to cast themselves as gated. so, you know, they like to do that. but also they're in a place of real financial desperation now and, i mean, they never made a profit and they're now public companies. so there's going to be other companies that will see that

fight and how that fight is going for them and say we're not going -- i can see that happening. that's just speculation. >> yeah. and the only other thing that i wanted to flag to you is that as far as there's still a lot of ambiguity and just speculation around door dash has changed its tipping policy and i know that we're still looking into that. so i would be interested to see -- they haven't really responded to the fairly large amount of public backlash they had gotten for pocketing tips. now they're saying that they changed it. but that remains to be seen if they actually did. it doesn't seem like it. >> right. and san francisco oalc has an ongoing investigation into that. so that will be interesting. >> chair fewer: great. and my question is, that if we would able to use any of our survey findings as any kind of evidence? >> i can't imagine why not but it's just whether we have yet

released those findings. >> chair fewer: well, thank you very much. thanks for your work. public comment? (please stand by).

>> we would be able to make sure as many of the workers are as local as possible. we would plug it into the plan and in that way, we would be able to basically get rid of everyone left and run it by the city program. so let's plug that in as a potential and if it requires legislation, meaning if fact that this bill just passed shows us we can pass legislation that uber doesn't like. so we can get senator or either of our assembly members to put forward legislation that would allow the city of san francisco to create its own municipal program and that would not only give all the workers everything they deserve, but we could also make sure that the program is scaled to the idea of making sure that people are mostly taking transit and riding bikes

and walking in their communities. thanks. >> thank you mr. brooks. yeah, i think the goal would be for people to take public transportation after billions of dollars of investment. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> thank you very much. we don't need an action item on this. madam clerk, will you please call item number 5. >> to approve the new california association of local agency formation commissions dues structure and appoint the executive officer as a voting delegate at the upcoming annual calafco conference. >> on the structure change for calafco, the new due structure is based on population. it use to be based on urban, suburban, and rural, but this provides a reliable source of income for calafco, which

operates with a structural deficit. it mean as $2,300 increase in our dues each year. it would become effective in the next fiscal year. i do want to let you know that not every lafco, especially medium sized lafco are supportive of this structure because some will be hit harder than others and they think the calculation is unfair. it's a rather complicated issue. i do believe however that it's important to support calafco. a lot of the issues it works on doesn't directly relate to our work, they did step in a big way during our transition and during my on boarding. they are also on the front lines in sacramento when there are continuous efforts to curtail local control. i also learned a great deal from pamela, not a full time

employee. i'm supportive of the increase. i think calafco does a great job of advocating on behalf of all lafcos in california. i was going to ask you to appoint me as a delegate to attend the calafco conference, but we have been made that the hyatt regency in sacramento is on an active boycott list by unite here. for that reason, and it's not in my memo, i recommend that we honor the boycott and not attend the conference. pamela miller did talk here and explain to the membership that the conference was booked several years ago and it would be very expensive for calafco to change it. we already paid the registration fee. it's about $500, but we're eligible for a refund. so instead of attending the conference, i am asking you to go on record in support of the

new due structure, but we will not get to vote on that because i'm recommending that we not attend the conference because of the boycott. >> okay. so, you're requesting today that we approve the new corrals association of local agency formation due structure. >> that's right. >> so we have a motion? >> moved. >> great, i second it. >> we need to take public comment first. >> oh, public comment. public comment is now closed. [gavel] we can take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number 6. >> item number 6, authorization to amend the 2019 lafco regular meeting schedule. >> commissioners, this item would amend the regular meeting schedule so all future meetings begin at 10:00 a.m. instead of 11:30 a.m. we only had two meetings left

this year, october 18th, november 15th. at our next meeting, i will be bringing you a proposed schedule for 2020, and also recommending that the meetings next year begin at 10:00 a.m. this was with the input from the chair. i recommend your approval. >> thank you very much. making a motion to approve the meeting schedule. >> public comment. >> oh, i'm sorry, public comment. seeing none, public comment is now closed. we take it without objection. thank you very much. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call item number 8. >> item number 8, an update on the request for qualifications for a renewable energy expert. >> thank you madam chair. i'm happy to say that our request was finally posted last month. i outlined the potential scope of work in my memo to you. the consultant or consultants

will bring in, that we'll bring in, that will support our oversight work with cleanpowersf and make recommendations on a local build out of renewable energy projects, and also work to identify proposed programs for communities of concern. the deadline to submit is next friday. i already have three firms that i know are submitting proposals. i may very likely extend the deadline because it was a very short turn around and i'll continue to do more outreach so we get more proposals. i am hoping we have this process wrapped up by our november 15th meeting and at that time, bring a contract or contracts to you for approval and also to consider the exact scope of work that you would like to see from this consultant. >> great, thank you mr. goebel. no action is required. public comment on this item?

>> good afternoon again commissioners, eric brooks, cleanpowersf advocate. i wanted to bring up something in this process because it's really hard for the public to be involved in the selection. i want to bring this up ahead of time so it's in the mix and that is that something experts have talked to us about, both in public and behind the scenes and in meetings. that is that whoever we hire to help us do all these things, especially plan the local build out, needs to be somebody who understands the dynamics of what is called a virtual power plant and how that works. i talked about that a long time ago, but i'll explain it again. it means you are in your local area, like that 9 county bay area region that was shown to us by the sfpuc. you're building renewable resources, battery storage,

demand response devices, and you know, offshore wind. you're creating a very diverse system of efficiency and renewables, so that once you built out that network, or that big area network, you have the equivalent of a power plant that's on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without hiring an expert and future experts that understand how a virtual power plant needs to work and the economics around it, not just logistics, but the economics on how to build that system out, without that expertise, we're going to be behind the ball. so, it's important that as your staff pursues this, definitely ask the bid respondents and r.f.q. respondents about this issue of understanding how to manage a virtual power plant for

the area. thanks. >> thank you very much mr. brooks. any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is now closed. thank you very much. yes commissioner goebel, item number 9 please, madam clerk. >> i'll be brief. >> oh, and just to clarify, no action was taken on item 8. item 9 is the executive officer's report. >> madam chair, and commissioners, i wanted to point out that we had two pretty positive stories in the media recently. there was a feature on lafco in the san francisco weekly called lafco, the nerdiest commission you ever heard of. [laughter] >> i thought the report did a really good job explaining lafco's history and our mission to a broader audience. there was also a story in the national online publication city lab, mentioning the work of our labor study and driver seat

cooperative, specifically it was a broader story about how drivers worldwide are fighting for access for their personal data, so it included quotes from the driver seat app and myself. so two positive stories in the media. you already met dan, but i wanted to welcome dan to our intern team at lafco. i'm excited to work with him. he's worked as a reporter in san francisco since 2012. he was the editor-in-chief of the city of san francisco, city college of san francisco student magazine. he's covered a lot of policy. he's covered uber from a critical perspective. he's lived in san francisco since 2006 and he is going to be keeping tabs on ab-5 and assisting with our labor study, particularly around ab-5. we're concerned that the enforcement is not as proactive

as it should be. >> yeah. >> so, anyway, welcome dan. >> welcome dan. thank you very much. okay, we don't need any action taken on this. public comments please? seeing none, public comment is now closed, [gavel] >> now we have item number 10 please. >> item 10 is public comment. >> seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> item 11. >> future agenda items. >> thank you very much. any ideas, future agenda items? seeing none, public comment on this item, please. >> yes, so eric brooks once again. just a couple of things on future agenda items. i assume that the governor is going to sign it into law. we just got legislation on the state level that allows san francisco to have a public bank. that effects everything that lafco is working on and lot of stuff that the lafco isn't working on yet, but should. so, i hope that you have

hearings as soon as we know the governor has signed that legislation that we start having hearings here on how are we going to use the public bank to do the objectives of lafco and the city of san francisco. the other one is very serious. i have talked with your staff chair fewer about this. we really need this year to get out ahead of legislation that's going to come forward again next year, specifically ab-235. so ab-235, you may remember, ab-1054 was the sort of 10 to $20 billion pg&e bailout. it's a terrible thing. it happened so quickly that we couldn't stop it. ab-235 is a pg&e bailout on steroids. the public is on the hook for maybe $10 billion or more because of 1054, the public will be on the hook under ab-235 for

potentially $40 billion or more. it could be up to $50 billion if pg&e is held accountable for the tubs fire, and they could be sued on it. so this bailout of pg&e, if it passes, would make it so we would never get a chance to buyout pg&e locally because it would make them too protected financially and it would perpetuate them existing as the terrible company it is right now. i ask that next month you bring forward ab -- and proactively this year. >> oh, i think our attorney has that comment. >> oh, the adjournment. okay, thank you for the public comment. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> madam clerk. we have one item. should i call it now?

yes, yes, please. >> i don't know, is this working? i just wanted to mention that we will bring back a resolution that formally changes the meeting time of the commission to 10:00 a.m., but until such time, can you adjourn the meeting to 10:00 a.m. on october 18th, just so we can put that on the record. >> oh, okay. a motion to adjourn the meeting until 10:00 a.m. on october 18th. okay. >> second. >> second, we can take that without objection. thank you very much. [gavel] >> madam clerk, we don't have any other items today. >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you very much. [♪]

>> i am calling the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m. hello and welcome to the tuesday, september 17, 2019 commission. if you are a member of the public there are speaker forms on the front table or come to the microphone. we do ask everyone turnoff cell phones or put them on silence. we want to thank sfgovtv and media services for sharing this meeting with the public. we will start with the roll call. (roll call).

>> we have the first order of business public comment. this is for any public comment for items not listed on the agenda. seeing none, general public comment is closed. next is 2. approval of minutes for august 20, 2019. i will ask for a motion for approval of the minutes. >> motion. second. any public comment. seeing number none, it is closed. (roll call). >> the minutes are approved. the agenda item report from executive director. >> thank you and good evening, commissioners on my topics to discuss with you this evening, i

wanted to first apologize as i mississaugmiss reported somethiu at the last meeting regarding streamlining. i think i said it had passed when in reality at that point it passed through first reading. my apologies. i will give you an update. it has passed now. that is great. on wednesday, september 11th mayor breed signed the legislation and it will go into effect on october 11 to enable retail businesses to diversify offerings to attract new business models to vacant storefronts and increase opportunities for retail and nightlife businesses to sell vacant storefronts. it will support live music by

limiting doilycative inspections and will reduce the food service requirements for new and existing entertainment venues. it will clarify planning codes provisions around liquor license types in order to bring consistency to the process. update on implementation. as we approach this effective date in october, the office of economic and work force development will meet with all departments impacted by the legislation including us and we will discuss implementation and outreach included in the package. our role in this, too, not only are we going to be educating ourselves as defendant staff on how -- department staff on how we will handle the permits differently. we will do an education campaign to definitely incorporate educating constituents in a

newsletter as well as at the summit this year. moving right along, i want to give you all an update on the special events steering committee born out of the mayor's executive directive supporting special events. a copy is in your binders. you can follow along if you want. you have seen it a couple times. this calls upon city departments to review the current permitting process and identify solutions to make the process more friendly, streamlined and efficient for event organizers as well as city employees and residents. the mayor convened the committee to handle the review and make recommendations to the mayor. she designated two co-chairs the city administrator as well as

director torrez. all role in this. i am serving as a member of the committee. we are also assisting the co-chair in the mayor's office to provide research and support for the meetings. we kicked off the first meeting at the end of august. this is going to run through the end of november. from her directive the mayor is asking departments to look at a few different buckets. we are looking at digital permitting, fees and ways to reduce fees, as well as organizational structure. i don't want to get too in the weeds with those because they are ongoing topics with in the committee. as we have drafts i want to share those with you so you are informed throughout the process. the group is engaging event

organizers in the process which we did prior to this committee which was the impetus behind creating it in the first place. by way of focus groups and small interviews to continue to understand the pain points around the process as well as ideas from their end on potential reforms. i will keep you informed. if you have questions along the way, i am available at any point. finally, we have an update for you. i think i mentioned this. i might not have mentioned this at the last hearing. it might not have happened at that point. we issued an administrative citation relative to a sound truck permit that was appealed. in that process the appeal goes to the controller's office, and they assign a hearing officer there. it is much different than appeals to the entertainment

commission or by way of entertainment commission decision to the board of appeals. it is handled administratively. you will see the pre-hearing statement we developed to support our citation and issuance of it as well as response to the appellant. we had the hearing last week. we are waiting on a decision from the controller. it is over a minor infraction of $100, but, you know, we will keep you appraised where that appeal process goes and whether or not we win. do you have any questions? okay. >> one comment on the previous item and just pointing out that in the executive directive from the mayor the actions are taken

by the entertainment commission and staff. i just wanted to take some -- i want the entertainment commission taking credit for moving forward and laying the groundwork for the special events work being done. i am glad you are representing us in that process, and i hope it makes things easier for all of our applicants and people looking for permits. i am glad you are involved. >> as we all know, our department as well as commission are a little bit biased. we support our constituents who are organizers. by nature of that we want to find where the holes are and where there are potential improvements so dillon's work is vital in all of that and it is great that we should always say

thanks. we are looking at that work as part of the steering committee on how to improve it and how we can utilize that in potential future reforms. >> i just want to sort of second that. i want to commend the mayor for assembling the steering committee. it is way overdue. it can do a lot of good to make small cultural event in the city more frequent. i also think it is fantastic we have a meaningful seat at the table that is a wonderful thing. i am happy that you are doing all of this extra work on it. thanks. i want to give a shout out to oawd forgetting the streamlined legislation passed. there is a long road. i know that ben is watching this and i am excited for him and everybody and i commend the

mayor for signing this. the hard work paid off. >> is there any public comment on our director's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. item 4 is report from the deputy director. >> thank you and abou good even. i will take you through the report on the highlighted sections. page 1 with club 26, you have seen this on your report for a few weeks now, and i want to let you know that we are responding to complaints that come in on the weekends. i have spoken with the head of security and it is about the outside dispersal at 2:00 a.m. they are in compliance with the security conditions on their

permit. however, during the week that is when we receive the complaints. we don't have inspectors in the field on sunday through thursday at 2:00 a.m. i have asked the station to help us. we are still working that out. i will say of the times we have responded on the weekend, they are in compliance so that is where that stands. if we go on page 3, looking at royal oak, just letting you know we have received 8 complaints since the last hearing about this location. they are not having live entertainment, it is streamed music they are playing with doors and windows open, and we have been receiving neighbor complaints. the inspector has responded and determined it is not live entertainment. i have spoken with the owners and let them know we are receiving these complaints. they are not eligible for appeal

due to the zoning district unless they do conditional use authorization. they are willing to go for llp. the bulk of people come after 10:00 p.m. we will see where that gets us. i looped in northern station and asked for support on this as well. on page 7, just bringing to your attention there is a flea market on saturdays and sundays. we are receiving complaints about them, quite a few complaints. again daytime events unless we schedule an inspector for the daytime we are in the field at night. it is hard to respond to. now we received complaints two weekends in a row we will coordinate an inspector to determine if they need a permit for this and what has happened.

inspector roberts is in contact with the complaints, and we are doing our best to respond when we have people in the field. moving on page 12. virgin hotel. the inspector went to conduct a routine site inspection and this is a complaint i will let you know this came in on sunday after he responded -- excuse me. this came in on sunday after he conducted the routine site inspection on saturday night. we have been receiving complaints about this location specific to the rooftop bar. on saturday night when the inspector went to do the site inspection he did find the dj after 10:00 p.m. it was close to midnight. it only allows entertainment on the roof until 10:00 p.m. they were issued a notice of violation for this. financi want to bring to your

attention there was an outdoor event that happened with quite a few complaints about it. we did contact the event producersers. we will set a sound limit for outdoor entertainment events prior to the next event that they host. we were informed no more outdoor entertainment with music events happening until next summer. the rest of the year we will have and into the beginning of next year we are keeping that on the radar. that is all that i have highlighted for you. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i am curious if they don't have a poe and they are playing their music just cranking it up, what do you tell them? they have no permit and no dj, not in our purview.

they are disturbing the peace. what is the next recourse? >> royal oak? that is one example. anybody for my own information. >> what generally happens the inspector collects contact information and then i reach out to the contact information, hopefully, the owner to follow up to say this is not permitted. you must have an entertainment license for this. sometimes that works. some people comply because they didn't know. in the event it is an out vitthat they are not wanting to get a permit, then we have to bring in pd. >> correct me if i am wrong. are you referring to places that don't host entertainment at all? >> if they can't get one and just play streaming music way up there without disregards we can't do anything about it, what is the next recourse. >> a venue that doesn't host

entertainment we would take investigation in pursuing that. they don' don't want to pursue e would engage the police department to enforce. we are looking at code relative to this today. it is not that common where we are dealing with a place that has no oversight from the police department to regulate. within police code, you have to be in compliance with the eight decibels. >> are we allowed to give them a ticket? >> that is where it is very odd. when we look at actual staff within the city that use sound meters and understand sound code, it really is us relative to entertainment or music. we could set a limit. it is not attached to an entertainment permit. we are trying to sort that out. we don't want to use staff hours on things we can't cost recover

on through the permit application or license process. we want the neighbors to be able to enjoy. >> we don't want them to say, well -- i don't think that is the issue. we reglate sound when somebody has a permit and the police regulate if there is no permit. in this case the applicant may be applying for limited live. in that case we will have the opportunity to talk. >> so say if they get an llp and do entertainment until 10:00. after 10:00 they stream music, if they want to go louder after 10:00 thanks is not acceptable. they have to be in compliance with the sound limit at all times. they can be regulated by us. if the place has sound

complaints currently pd enforces that and says turn it down when they have the availability to do so. they are working on heavier things. >> the neighbors have a number evera numberof -- number of the. >> you know you have local pd, local politicians, neighborhood groups. all of these things get together, trust me. i know. i have never been on that side of it. >> we have never had a problem. >> his all have permits. >> my personal feeling that is not -- we have laws around what it is we can and cannot do. >> we keep responding to the calls and we are not getting recovery from it.

>> when we respond, we look to investigate on the entertainment front. i am not going to have my staff go out multiple times if we are not finding entertainment. at that point we have to send it to the police department. we have a sound monitoring fee so we could cost recover on that if the police department wanted to utilize our services in setting limits and enforcing them in some way, shape or form. >> i think commissioner lee is bringing up an interesting conversation. i want to go back to where we started at the meeting with both executive director's comments. i am looking at the flea market right now. i certainly don't want to understate the frustration of the neighbors. i also think this could be exactly what we are talking about when we talk about small cultural events. maybe we could get in front of these things and see if we can get this to be an approved event

because i think we are just so darn bureaucratic, it is a complex process. part of our charge is to promote entertainment. this flea market could be a good fit. i know there are a lot of things to overcome. as we have said in the past. this flea market would be easier managed if they were actually permitted. what i am putting forth to you and your staff is seeing if we can license them at least in some capacity and actually turn this into a positive and make this to what president blieman was saying earlier, a real cultural event. i have no idea what the flea market is. it could be a asset and attract people. i think that is what we are all shooting for.

instead of looking at these straight up violations, which it is, but if there is an opportunity to make good out of it and meet the mission that is put upon us to promote entertainment and bring about these little events, this could be an easy one, and, hopefully, satisfy the concern of the neighbors. >> thank you very much for the report. any public comment on the report? seeing none, public comment is closed. moving along. we are on number five. police department comments and questions. i don't see any officers present. we are moving to number 6. the next item is hearing and possible action regarding applications for permits under the jurisdiction of the entertainment commission. deputy director please introduce the items on the consent agenda.

>> the two permits on the agenda are accessory permits. they both received an outpouring of support. the police department had no added conditions and i am happy to answer any questions you have about these. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> so there is a motion to approve the consent agenda. any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. (roll call). >> all right. congratulations.

your permits are approved. please follow up with the deputy director at your earliest convenience. the final agenda item number is number 7, commissioners comments and questions. >> i just would like to propose we close tonight's meeting in the memory of a dear friend who passed away presently. he and his band mates were my introduction of the san francisco live music. i would like to dedicate the session tonight to the base player of native elements jamie durand, jimbo, may you rock on forever. >> anybody else have anything? i have a few things. first to congratulate commissioner coulcommissioner cg reappointed. i want to point out the three

cultural institutions near the ballpark that closed this week. padros and pete's tavern shuttered out of the blue. nobody saw it coming. it is an indication of the state of small business in the city right now. the costs and everything that is going on that is making it regard to do small business. i am just want to continue to think about ways, for example the streamlining legislation and steering commission to make small business easier to flourish. i want to say the 4:00 a.m. bill which became the 3:00 a.m. bill died in the assembly, never came out of the assembly. it is not on this calendar this year for legislation which is

very sad and i think it will show us the rest of the state still views nightlife as a nuisance. in san francisco we see it as a economic and cultural driving force. it makes me proud to live here. knowing senator wiener, it will be back. he is the energizer bunny. maybe the 12th time is the charm. any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will close tonight in honor of jamie jimbo durant, and the meeting is over at 6:01 p.m. thank you.

>> welcome. we are glad you're here. this is the regular meeting of the board of education in the san francisco unified school district. this is september 24, 2019. roll call please. [roll call] >> i would like to open this meeting and honorable hooks who said, what we do is more important than what we say, or what we say we believe.