Has succeeded very well. Any other comments or questions from the commission . Any comments from the public . Hearing none call the question. I have a motion to approve. So moved. All in favor. Any opposed . Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you you, sarah. Item i. Requesting authorization to modify the existing Grant Agreement with institute on aging for the provision of the Community Living fund during the period of november 1, 2019 through june 30, 2021. In the amount of 700,000 plus a 10 contingency for a total amount not to exceed 10,564,736. Welcome, fannie. Good morning, commissioners. Program analyst for the office of community partnership. I am here to request modification to our existing contract with the institute on aging for the provision of the Community Living fund program to include a pilot for the administration of the Public Guardian housing fund. Currently, we provide the Services Using a twoprong approach of coordinated Case Management and purchases of goods and services. It serves San Francisco residents 18 and older with incomes of 300 of the federal poverty level. They must be able to live in the community with appropriate support and have demonstrated need with service or resource to prevent institutionalization. The modification we are requesting today for the provision of the monthly subsidies and moverelated costs for Public Guardian and conservators. Under the department of aging and Adult Services the office serves at the courtappointed conservator of vulnerable individuals and estates. Due to declining health, some of these individuals are marginally housed for prolonged periods of time while waiting for appropriate housing option. This funding will be used to help them attain or be placed in a safe and stable home such as assisted living, supported housing or similar housing. Those served must meet the c. L. F. And pg criteria. We will provide administration while the p. G. Office is Program Support including Case Management, in person visits, monthly approval of the housing subsidies and other activities to ensure the equitable access and appropriate use of the funds. The p. G. Office will prioritize access based on the conserveties need and the amount will be set okays by case base on the casebycase basis. The subsidy will range depending on the clients need, functional and financial. 30 to 50 of their income while others may be subsidized up to 100 due to lack of income or resources available. Based on the current need the p. G. Has identified for this funding, the fund can cover up to 10 conserveties annually. It will include monthly subsidies and moverelated cost and security deposits, moving boxes, packing and transportation for the move and furniture and other similar items. At this time i would be happy to answer questions from commissioners. I have one question. From the time the process begins for the individual until it is approved and the individual begins to get services, how much time does that normally take . Depending on where they are, we have entered into agreements with the facilities or supportive housing. If that is in place it could be very quick, within, i would say, less than a month. I would say two to four weeks. Then additional time may be required if vendor agreements havent been set yet. Thank you. Any other comments . A question on the operating expense details. The consultants, line 21. Appendix page b1, page 3, line 21. The contractor. Yes, at this time because this is a pilot program, c. L. F. May need to pull in a temporary staff to get this up and running. There is some funding allocated to allow that. Then as you can see on the next year, it is blank because by then we participate there will be an actual staff. Over the page, the purchase of service detail. 304,348 each year. What are they . That is the actual subsidy, the funding for the subsidies and the moverelated costs. Thank you. I have two questions. First should i consider the c. L. F. Similar to purchases services and Case Management. Are those similar in nature like a pace program. Should i think of c. L. F. Like a pace program . I think it would be similar. Of course, pace has something other. I think there are elements, the purchase of service dollars. Other than that, no, this is intensive Case Management to help people who are at risk of institutionalization to come out and live in the community, the community can mean in this case assisted living, but generally living in the community in San Francisco. We have found that the intensive Case Management is often what people need to stay at home safely. I want to add i it is the pay or of last resort. Any other comments or questions from the commission . Any comments or questions from the public. Hearing none, may i have a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Further comment . All in favor . Any opposed. Thank you the motion carries. Item j2019 through june 30, 2021 an additional amount of 200,000 plus 10 continuing been see for a total amount not to exceed 1 million. This item before you was an ad back. It is 100,000 per year ongoing with the idea of supporting cantonese language capacity in Advocacy Services around the Skilled Nursing facilities and assisted living facilities. We are going to do that in cooperation with the ombudsman who are going to use this funding to hire a contonies speaking staff person to focus on that. Ombudsmen provide services. They are known for responding to complaints by residents. They do a number of other things, providing consultations to facilities, families, residents, letting them know about their rights and things like that. Wit to any advance healthcare directives completed in a sniff. That is a legal requirements. Also including legislative hearings and changes in regulations and practices in this area. This is going to focus on skilled nurses facilities. Much of the work is with clients. They will also focus time on outreach and educational presentations within the facilities and within the target population to try to increase awareness and accessing of Ombudsman Services. Beyond the cantonese capacity that will be increased here, the program itself has a pretty good language capacity including mandarin, spanish and french and japanese. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments . A quick one. Within all of this on page 7 of 8. There is the designated community focal point. Is that where it is advertised. If you go there, people would hear about it and be able to know . The focal points are age and disability resource centers. California department of aging wants to make sure that when we do our big area plan we designate community focal points. These are places where hubs where information can be given out about the variety of services available. The California Department of aging wants us to make sure we identify those focal points in our contract documents with every contract that involves cda funding. The idea is here and it will be clear that the Ombudsman Program will say these people are out there. Yes, first the ombudsman can reach out to be sure they are aware of the services. We are also making sure the agencies are aware of the Ombudsman Service should someone come into that site needing assistance related to the facility. The idea is that the sites would know about that. They are informed and could helped. Thank you. Yes on the subcontractors 9 and 10. Chinese mandarin specialists. The other one is another dialect. Why is there a difference of 28,000 versus 16,000 . Is that because of the number of hours or what . Yes, the number of hours. What this represents back here is that the Ombudsman Program is doing whatever they can to get language capacity and get qualified people working for them. Sometimes there are people excellent ombudsman staff who have other things going on not looking for a fulltime job. Benson has done well to work with those folks to keep them in his stable of staff out there in the community so that is the difference there. Thank you. Any other comments or questions . Any comments or questions from the public . Hearing none may i have a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Any further comments or questions . Hearing none, call the question. All in favor. A. Thank you the motion carrieds. Next is to all right. Item 8. A motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during closed session pursuant to San Francisco administrative code section 67. 12a. Do i have a motion for discussion purposes to disclose . So moved. Second. The motion is whether we should or should not disclose. If you are in favor of disclosure please indicate. Those opposed to disclosure. All in favor of not disclosing. A. Any opposed thank you. The motion is not to disclose the items that were discussed in the closed session. Any Public Comment on that particular motion . Thank you. Any general Public Comment . Good morning, commissioners and executive director. I am the director of the Richmond Senior center. I am not sure if this is the time to come in or if i should have come in at the beginning of the meeting. We look to invite you to an event we are hosting on october 19th. The Richmond Senior center in partnership with the round table, a coalition of senior agencies are going to be hosting one hard thing. That is an event we started with our village to recruit neighborhood volunteers to send them in pairs of two or three to the homes of seniors who have requested help with one hard thing. We did it twice a year at the start and the end of daylight savings time. It started with setting back clocks. Then additionally doing Something Like flipping a mattress or cleaning out behind the fridge or changing the Smoke Detector battery, those things that help people remain in their homes. It is so popular we do it quarterly. We wanted to host an event this october that encouraged leadership of agencies that serve seniors so they could see some of the great work other agencies are doing and meet the senior in the community. I did send an insight and you should get an email. We would love you to join us to see the good work that is happening out there. Thank you very much. Any other announcements . May i have a motion to adjourn. Motion. Second. We are adjourned. Thank you all. San francisco entertainment commission. If you are a member of the public i want to speak, there are which are located on the front tables or you can just come up to the microphone when i we ask that everyone puts our cell phones on silent and turns them off. That includes staff and commissioners we will start with a roll call. [roll call] thank you. The first order of business is Public Comment. This is for any item not on the agenda. Do we have any Public Comment for items not on the agenda . Seeing none. The general public next agenda item is approval from our minutes from september 17, 2019. We have a motion to approve . Any a Public Comment on the approval of our minutes . Public comment is closed. [roll call] the Meeting Minutes have been approved. Our next agenda item is a report from executive director. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. I have a very brief update for you this evening. I just want to call attention to our annual retreat agenda. If you look under item three, there is a copy there for you, which is also been emailed. We are really looking forward to gathering this group together and discussing some of the things that are most pressing right now. We are going to have some policy updates, and some updates around the sound diplomacy project. We are going to hear from Senior InspectorJordan Roberts on Residential Development review, and some changes we are making to that process and try to actually better educate you so that you are better prepared at the hearing for those items. And then we are going to have an item around Strategic Planning where we bring back the work that we did it last years retreat trying to work out what our mission and values are. And get your feedback on all of that and make sure we are solidifying that at this years retreat. And then we are going to talk about how we can do a better job of promoting nightlife and entertainment. We would love your great ideas and we will help frame the discussion in advance of the retreat so we can have some good takeaways. I am planning to send out email in the next couple of days for a lunch order. Look out for that, we will need you to respond in terms of what you want. The only other update i have is relative to the appeal that we are handling for the citation for the onetime event related to a sound truck permit. We are happy to share that our decision was upheld. We will not appeal, which was great. The statement of decision is a foz when near packet under item three if you are curious to read it. Any questions . Thank you very much for that report. Any Public Comment on the executive directors report . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Agenda item number four, which is a report the Deputy Director, kaitlyn azevedo. Good evening. Before i get into the report, i have highlighted a couple of areas i will discuss. I wanted to make mention we have seen an increase in complaints especially in the north beach area. Folks, obviously performing on the street, and an inspector in the district has been responding and we have been moving that along to sfpd and reallocating those. Just make mention of it. On page three i will mention arena s. F. We did get complaints, to complaints about them over a weekend and inspector did respond and he did find them out of compliance. He worked to bring the volume down, and then into compliance. We did issue a notice of violation for them being in excess of their salmonella. Page 5 their sound limit. Page 5, ive have located jackson, they place of entertainment they have three sound complaints, excuse me to sound complaints this past weekend and the inspector, upon responding to the complaint they found their front door open so they were given a verbal warning for the front door being opened he did take a sound reading. They were slightly above their sound reading, he just worked with the sound manager to bring them into compliance. We are keeping them on our radar. On page nine, usc virgin hotel is highlighted. Virgin hotel is a place of entertainment permit, however, their rooftop is conditioned where they can only have entertainment until 10 00 p. M. Due to a Planning Commission motion. That being said, we issued a verbal warning and then issued a notice of violation. Finally we issued a citation because upon multiple visits they had djs playing on the rooftop past midnight. They are now fully aware of their permit conditions. I have talked to the manager on multiple occasions. Going through their permit violations line by line. They are not to have any outdoor amplified sound, both the speakers on street level and rooftop area cannot have amplified sound of any kind past 10 00 p. M. This is per the Planning Commission. That is all i have highlighted. Im happy to answer any questions you have about the report. Just again, these rooftop venues are problematic. I appreciate you continuing to stay on top of them and the inspectors. It is frustrating them when they are going above and beyond. I feel like virgin hotel has been on the reports a lot. For a venue, and a hotel that big, it is really frustrating that they seem to be somehow forgetting their conditions. That is my note of frustration with them. S. B. M. West is on here a couple of times. I know they are not doing Rooftop Events anymore but i know it is frustrating for people. And then i noticed them not being really to give the owners Contact Information our inspectors. I think thats rude. [laughter] it is frustrating when staff, at these venues, are not able to engage with our inspectors in appropriate ways. We will be following up with him. We have had complaints about this venue in the past. We have not seen anything since september 2018. They are in an area that has a revelation cafe right in the area. We will be following up and obtaining Contact Information. I just noticed, this is the first we have heard, if im not correct, about jackson, right . Did it seem like after we visited them the first time they continue to operate too loudly . The first visit, the inspector did not take a sound reading, but the door was open. The second visit the door was still open, and they did a sound reading and they were out of compliance on the second visit. Was our third visit on a sunday . Was there a third visit on a sunday . I think i saw a third visit, i could be wrong. It was the site inspection that you seem. Got it. Okay. Did you get the sense it does say that they are, but that they are eager to work with us to make sure they are in compliance i will be contacting the owner directly myself. The inspector spoke with them on the phone on monday and conveyed that he was eager to be in compliance. I will be following up myself, too, just to say if you have a neighbor, dont give them reason to complain. Thank you very much for that report. Is there any Public Comment on the Deputy Directors report . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Moving along, agenda item number five, report from the Sen