. >> thank you, director weiland. it's a pleasure to be here. i'm excited to announce that ab 2020 was signed by governor brown last wednesday. this bill basically authorizes the state of california to create temporary event licenses to be held at any location that is a municipality to have cannabis consumption, distribution, activity. so now, establishments are allowed where they want to have cannabis events in their jurisdictions, and this goes into effect january 1 of 2019. the status quo is that district agricultural associations or d.a.a.s as well as some state and county fair grounds are currently the only places allowed to have cannabis events separate from dispensaries that are allowed to have consumption areas, where they can have an event inside. so just -- i'll try to run through it really quickly, some of these general rules. so the california bureau of cannabis control will still issue the license based on local jurisdiction approval, and according to director weiland, we assume that the office of cannabis will be the local regulato

director weiland, the next item. >> okay. next on the agenda is another limited live performance permit. this is for rock bar, located at 8020 9th street, and this is an area where we're seeing a lot of limited live performance permits coming up, which is exciting. the only reason this is on regular agenda is again, because of one complaint that we received at the end of last week as a part of the extensive neighborhood outreach that the owners were doing in the area. a nearby resident reached out, saying that they, you know, took issue with sound coming from patrons exiting the venue, and to the owners immediately addressed that complaint with the complainants and are working with them, but again, since there is a complaint, i wanted to put it on regular and let them speak to that. so without further adieu, i'm going to bring up the two owners. and this is josephine and kevin. >> hello, commissioners. how are you? we're from rock bar. we are on the corner of tiffany and -- is that -- okay. we're from rock bar. don't let the

please follow up with director weiland for additional steps. congratulations. >> okay. the next permit application for this evening is for san francisco proper hotel. and this is a place of entertainment permit application, so i may need to help him with his u.s.b. stick here. this is -- i don't know if any of you have actually been to charmaine's yet. it's a rooftop bar that's a part of the proper hotel. it's right down the street. that's going to be part of the place of entertainment, so we're looking at an indoor and outdoor permit application here. so here to tell you a little bit more about that is one of the owners, alex samek? >> commissioner bleiman, president bleiman, chairman bleiman, and fellow commissioners, my name is alex samek, the developer of san francisco proper hotel and also the operator. i think there's a lot of information in the packet with respect to our operation. and some of -- you know, dryer matters, i brought a little presentation just to familiarize yourselves with the hotel and with charmaine's, which is the rooftop. i first want to thank

please follow up with director weiland with your next steps. thank you. and that -- all right, and the next item is number eight, which is the review and possible action to change the conditions on place of entertainment permit ec-953, dba hue. >> okay, everyone. so, if you pull out your -- this item in your binder, it begins with a notice to appear. that's just how i formalized the permit holder's request to come to hearing this evening to present to you on why they would like you to consider a potential change in their permit conditions. specifically, the purpose of this hearing is for you to consider revising the conditions listed on their permit as hours of entertainment are limited currently until 12:00 a.m. sundays through thursdays and 1:00 a.m. on fridays and saturdays. and so in your packet, as well, you will see a letter from mr. bloom, who is the attorney for permit holder bennett montoya, who's here this evening, as well as documents from central station permit officer steve matthias. he has included two cad reports here and one arrest report

. >> reporter: protesters say the priest in question, father stephen weiland, was found liable in 2006 by a civil jury of molesting a 14-year-old boy in 1969 and 1970. and now as an adult, the victim is speaking out. and, speaking out for years against clergy sex abuse. today, that man, joey piscitelli, was joined by members by the diocese of oakland, by the survivors of those who work with priests, or survivors, that goes by the name of s.n.a.p. a few weeks ago, he says that he found in the initial catholic directory that father we'll end was listed as working at the institute at don bosco hall institute. an attorney for the institute tells us he is 79 years old, retired, he does live with the order, but they think he's considered a restrictive priest. that means he's not allowed to be involved in public ministry or be alone or have physical contact with minors. he says that he has been protected for years by the catholic church. >> it has been very and remorseful, they spent millions fighting me for years. they haven't stopped. they keep enabling him, probably to spite me. and, i thi

will talk to you i say most people all these years the one person who would never talk to me was jay weiland. most people would talk to you. the problem with reagan was this. there is a specific problem. in 1968 nixon had been nominated. and reagan was going around the country speaking for republican candidate. the way they put it to me as they said you will have more time but actually it was mostly because reagan was afraid to fly. they liked having someone in there to occupy his time. i know the second night in. i would interview him during the day. i took notes. to see and i realized he have told me he told me almost word for word what he said in a memoir. where is the rest of me in 1965. i feel anxious about this. i said this is very interesting. but you've artie told the story. and he looked at me and cocked his head and said do you want something new. in every interview after that included it was always something that he would tell me that was new. and i remember going over there with a colleague from the washington post many years later he was complaining that he just repeated the spe

he weiland in philadelphia to speak to the national electrical contractors association. this will give him another forum to tout this new trade deal between the united states, canada and mexico, the usmca as it is being called. the white house it is very clear the last 24 hours, the white house is very confident once this trade deals makes it way to capitol hill for a up-or-down vote likely next year, the white house believes democrats will be on board. here is the president just a little while ago from the south lawn before departing on marine one? >> even many of the democrats, including chuck schumer came out and said nice things. so that is very nice to hear that. so it is nice to see a little bit of a bipartisan approach. reporter: the president also continued to defend his supreme court nominee judge brett kavanaugh. mitch mcconnell says there will be a senate vote at some point this week, but three republican senators, susan collins, jeff flake and lisa murkowski appear to hold most, most of i should say the leverage here. here was president trump speaking on his

would indicate we are not going to have in all of the above approach coming into the notion that weiland cass can't survive when you also do renewable energy is false. in fact it's ludicrous. look at the states like colorado that has a robust oil and gas industry and they have a robust renewable energy portfolio. it could be and should be better. but here's the situation. if you are saying that you don't have sufficient resources, but you just ignore the leadership just ignore the leadership and the diversified economy to make sure you are growing the economy and the san andreas fault you were forced to cut education, then you are right back to violating the requirement that you would give our kids a solid public quality education. but worse than that, we are denying any kind of a real future in the state. and i want to be clear that my opponent, when he was a legislator, he cut $300 million out of the public education. and as the congressman hasn't voted to take $145 billion out of education. so, you could say that you think we are not spending enough, but you've done everything you can