Entertainment Commission moves to pursue suspension hearing after shooting at Stratos nightclub

The San Francisco Entertainment Commission voted unanimously to pursue a formal suspension hearing for Stratos nightclub after staff reported a shooting at the venue and multiple failures to comply with its permit conditions. The commission's executive director placed the incident on the record during the commission's regular meeting, saying staff learned on June 11 that a gunman had entered Stratos and shot three patrons outside the restrooms on June 10; none of the injuries were reported as life-threatening.

Director Weiland told commissioners that the venue, at 358 Ocean Avenue, had a history of security-related problems including a prior shooting last September that prompted a director's order requiring a revised security plan and a prior public-safety suspension. Staff reports and inspector interviews showed that on the night of June 10 the venue did not meet permit conditions: the permit-holder was required to have six security guards on Saturday nights but reported only five on duty, staff provided proof of guard cards for only three guards and only two of those cards were active, security personnel were not wearing identical identifiable uniforms, bag checks and wanding were not employed and staff could not recall the last time metal-detection wands were used.

After hearing the director's summary of follow-up calls with SFPD Ingleside, the city attorney's office and Supervisor Safa's staff, commissioners voted to place Stratos on the schedule for a suspension hearing. Commissioners discussed precedents and the scope of the commission's authority, noting maximum administrative suspension authority under the entertainment permit is 30 days. Director Weiland said staff will issue a 72-hour public-safety suspension that will apply to the first weekend the venue attempts to reopen while the commission considers next steps. The director also said other agencies (including the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control) may take parallel administrative actions.

Public testimony at the meeting included consultant Stefano Casalado, who urged the commission to send a stern message to the venue and suggested either an extended suspension or a change in ownership or management if the business cannot comply with safety requirements. Commissioners emphasized the resource-intensive, courtroom-like nature of a suspension hearing and noted the earliest feasible hearing date would require at least 30 days for due process. The commission called for staff to coordinate with SFPD and the city attorney as it develops hearing materials and recommended conditions.

The commission did not adopt a final suspension length at the meeting; it voted instead to move forward with the suspension-hearing process and to implement a short interim public-safety suspension prior to any hearing.