Entertainment Commission Enforcement Escalation and Deprioritization Protocol

To: San Francisco Entertainment Commission

From: Kaitlyn Azevedo, Deputy Director

Date: May 20, 2025

Re: Discussion and possible action to adopt criteria for Entertainment Commission Enforcement Escalation and Deprioritization Protocols [Discussion and Possible Action Item]

Background

The purpose of this memo is to formalize longstanding internal practices related to the Entertainment Commission’s enforcement escalation and deprioritization procedures. While the Municipal Police Code (Article 15.1 Section 1060 and Article 15.2 Section 1070) provides the legal framework and enforcement tools available to the Commission, it does not prescribe a specific structure. Over time, staff have developed and consistently applied a protocol based on these tools that have proven effective in resolving neighbor disputes, correcting permit violations, and reducing repeat complaints. This memo serves as a formal reference point to ensure consistency moving forward and provide transparency to permit holders and the public. In addition, staff may bring forward a recommendation during a public hearing for the Commission to formally deprioritize complaint response for a business that, despite receiving a high volume of complaints, has consistently demonstrated compliance. Staff present the business’s enforcement history along with a rationale for deprioritization, and the Commission votes on whether to approve the request — typically for a period of 3 to 6 months. This process ensures that City resources are allocated efficiently and not repeatedly directed toward compliant operators.

The item before you tonight is a vote to adopt and memorialize the criteria for both our enforcement escalation and deprioritization protocols.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the following criteria for the Entertainment Commission’s Enforcement Escalation and Deprioritization Protocol.

Enforcement Escalation Protocol:

1. When an inspector receives a sound complaint while they are in the field, they strive to respond in real time, which is defined as the same day or shift that the complaint comes in, or within the next 5 days when an inspector is in the field again.
2. Our first approach to remediate a permit violation, which includes Good Neighbor Policy (GNP) violations, is by offering onsite education.
3. If a business continues to violate their permit or operate without a permit after receiving education, we will issue a Notice of Violation (NOV), which is a written warning documenting the findings and explaining that future violations may result in further enforcement action.
4. If a business violates their permit conditions or operates without a permit within 6 months of receiving an NOV, we will issue a citation for $100 (MPC Article 15.1 Section 1060.25 Criminal, Administrative, and Civil Penalties).
5. If a business violates their permit conditions or operates without a permit within 3 months of receiving an initial citation, we will issue a second citation for $200 (MPC Article 15.1 Section 1060.25 Criminal, Administrative, and Civil Penalties).
6. If a business violates their permit conditions or operates without a permit within 3 months of receiving a second citation, we will issue a third citation for $500 (MPC Article 15.1 Section 1060.25 Criminal, Administrative, and Civil Penalties).
7. If a business receives three (3) citations within a 90 day period, the EC Director may suspend their permit for up to fifteen (15) days (MPC Article 15.1 Sec 1060.20.2 Limited Suspension by the Director).
8. The Director may issue a 72-hour Suspension for Public Safety if a business meets the criteria as outlined in MPC Article 15.1 Sec 1060.20.3.
9. The Entertainment Commission may suspend a permit for up to thirty (30) days if the Grounds for Suspension as outlined in MPC Article 15.1 Sec 1060.20.1 are met.
10. In serious cases, the grounds for revocation are outlined in MPC Article 15.1 Sec 1060.24.4.
11. At any point in the enforcement escalation process, the Commission may require a permit holder to reappear at a future hearing date for discussion and potential permit reconditioning to impose new reasonable time, place, and manner conditions (MPC Article 15.1 and 15.2).

Director Discretion Clause: While this protocol is designed to establish consistent enforcement standards, it is not intended to limit the authority of the Director, or their designee, to respond appropriately to circumstances, as no policy can anticipate every conceivable situation. For example, in cases involving egregious conduct or other significant impacts, the Director or their designee retains discretion to escalate enforcement actions, including issuing higher-value citations or skipping steps in the escalation sequence, provided such actions remain consistent with the Police Code.

Deprioritization Protocol:

A deprioritization recommendation may be brought to the Commission if a business has received a high volume of complaints but has consistently demonstrated compliance during inspector visits. The following thresholds are used to guide this recommendation:

1. Quantify the number of complaints received and compliant site visits observed over a specified period of time:
   1. In a 3-month period: At least 10 complaints received and 8 or more site visits conducted, all showing full compliance or no permit required.
   2. In a 6-month period: At least 20 complaints received and 15 or more site visits conducted, all showing full compliance or no permit required.
   3. In a 9-month period: At least 30 complaints received and 23 or more site visits conducted, all showing full compliance or no permit required.

These figures reflect our practical enforcement limits: not every complaint results in a separate visit due to real-time staffing constraints or multiple complaints on a single day. The business must demonstrate 100% compliance during the visits that were conducted.

2. Entertainment Commission staff will present Commission with complaint and compliance history at EC hearing.

3. Commissioners will vote whether to deprioritize complaint response at business and will direct EC staff for duration of time business shall be deprioritized.  While the Commission has discretion for period of time, the common deprioritization periods are either 3 or 6 months.

4. During deprioritization window:

a. If a complaint is received, EC staff will not respond to the complaint and EC staff will close the 311 complaint with notes indicating that the business has demonstrated ongoing compliance with permit conditions/they do not require a permit from our office.

b. If extenuating circumstances arise (e.g.: significant programming changes to the business, report of a violent incident, or receipt of a complaint from another City agency or official) an EC inspector may respond to the complaint while deprioritized.

c. If a complaint is substantiated while the business has been deemed deprioritized, the business will be automatically taken off the deprioritization list, and EC inspectors will respond to complaints as usual.

5. After deprioritization window has ended, EC staff will respond to sound complaints as usual, and the clock will reset for the business.

Adopted by the Entertainment Commission:

Ayes: 5, Nays: 0, Absent: 2

Date: 5-21-25

Signed by Maggie Weiland, Executive Director