the project sponsor is very good at saying the right thing and making the right promises but not as good at actually doing the right thing and following through on the promises. the entertainment commission has a watch list of bars that they are worried about and this is one of the top offenders on that list. we have never sought revocation, but we think this is a reasonable mitigation that should go a long way towards solving the problems with this business. and any other deals to create a new smoking area with the potential problems that could create for neighbors, i think that needs to be addressed separately. [bell ringing] >> thank you. >> thank you very much. president miguel: thank you.

>> i'm jim hannah. and i have been here for 12 years and there have been numerous violations and there was problems with the sound system and expand it to trigger and they opened up the patio and that was the main reason that caused the problems is the congregation of the people drinking and smoking and they are not technically supposed to be drinking unless there is an employee present and it becomes more of a party area. and they call in the middle of the night and 12:30, they close the door and will comply to that, but i have to be woken up in the middle of the night to call. it is really, really noisy and

they are having like a who can talk the loudest project. and i do wish they would have the security guards out front and they are just screaming and carrying on and the conflict gets worse. there is no time to rest until 2:00 in the morning when they close up and 150 spill out then. and i am glad that something is being done, but there hasn't been a contact person. the manager never, ever responds to my calls. so i would like to say they do address the issue that when there is a problem, they respond to that. and there have been a lot of police calls there. it's been a strain on the police department as well to come around. that's it. thanks. president miguel: thank you. mark gallagher, ron cox, ellen

beach. >> my name is mark gallagher. i was asked to contribute to the public comment today. i am a member of the dtna and have lived across from trigger for approximately seven years. when i moved into the residence, there was no bar open. soon after a bar named detour opened and there was never any problem. around 2006 a new operator reopened the bar and this bar quickly became a nuisance receiving many complaints. mainly complaints from neighbors and went in different directions either to the police, the commission e the neighborhood association, and eureka

neighborhood association, and supervisors and others. they were put on notice and continued to fail sound inspections. later, some time later in 2008, the same operator reopened jet bar and to the adjoining building and renamed it trigger. the new club is bigger, had a larger sound system, and had an open type of city scape garage door which acted as an amplifier to the noise. this is nothing new. again, the club was going to be put on notice. they received 164 complaints to the police department. and i think kindness matters and

i think it's important to keep the community thriving and especially in a recession, you don't want to close down restaurants and bars. you want to encourage them to stay open. i no longer live there. i needed to move and i couldn't sleep, so i moved out of my rent control apartment. i agree with everything that was said before. sometime in september of 2009 there was a neighbors meeting and the consultant and whatnot and many neighbors expressed concerns and there were promises made but they were going to do this, that, and the other thing. i made a couple of short points. one, the base. it's going through -- the bass is waking us up a couple of times a week. close the garage door after 9:00 and the d.j. goes out and it's loud and people screaming and 2:00 and closes and people on

the street and recycle about 2:30 in the morning. all those things and i tried helping the operator of the establishment press the reset button. [bell ringing] >> i just think that they need to take these things into consideration. i wanted to share my experience. president miguel: thank you. >> i'm rob cox, secretary of the eureka neighborhood business association. and we want to keep balance between businesses and keeping the residents safe and able to enjoy their home. we worked with trigger on the conditions of use before they were opened and shortly after they opened, we started to receive noise complaints. last february we met with trigger on planning enforcement and another group of people including supervisor dufty about

these issues. at that time the organizations agreed to reset the clock to give trigger time to fix the noise problems that were being complained about. and escape and in may the sound checks started to be made and they continue to be in violation and suggesting that the more we take the issue, the longer the problem goes on. we have had neighbors move out of the neighborhood because of problems like this. we want to continue to work with trigger, but we don't want to be led down the path of false promises. thank you. president miguel: thank you.

>> i am the president of the castro eureka neighborhood association. many of you might be familiar with me. i am the one who wrote the 47 conditions for the cafe and worked closely with the cafe. and that has been a model relationship. it has been fabulous. there are no complaints from the cafe. there's been a couple of problems here and there, but the owner of the cafe and the manager worked quite closely with the neighborhood and is very responsive. the experience with greg started when he -- i'm not going to rehash a lot of what was said -- but my experience started with greg when he wanted to open up trigger. and he reached out to us, so i, again, wrote the conditions of use. i seem to be good at that. and we actually revised a number of conditions and felt after the success with the cafe and based on the fact that greg reached

out to us, we weren't quite as stringent. i regret that now because it's been nothing but problem after problem after problem and i know the project sponsor wants to portray this as a couple of neighborhoods or neighborhood activist and i am the neighborhood activist, but the reality is the entertainment commission has found at least five times and every time he had been in violation. and every time he has just ignored them and a month of $250 a day just to go on without even responding to it, just ignoring it. it's a problem and i know that there are other issues that the commission can't address and it will be addressed elsewhere, but i want trigger to be successful, i want it to thrive, but not at the expense of the neighborhood. and i don't want it to be at the expense of the planning commission and conditions of use where in f a project sponsor can just ignore it, what are the conditions for? why are we here and why do we go

through the whole process? something needs to be done about it. i want them to thrive. i think the mitigation effort will be successful. i wish that it happened last march so we didn't have to go on with this. and the one concern i do have is the easterly door on the facade. when greg originally presented the plan to us, that was only supposed to be an exit door. and the interior door was supposed to lead just to the smoking patio, so it was supposed to create a sound chamber. after trigger opened, they decided to make that another entrance. i don't know if it still is now, but it was for quite a while and was kept open a lot. that is the entrance and that door needs to be just exit. it creates a direct access for sound to come out right onto the street. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is

closed. i would like to thank the representatives from the neighborhood associations for trying to work over the last year in particular with this problem. i think the recitations of the number of times that the sound engineer and entertainment commission have been involved is greatly appreciated. we do not always hear at this commission to get that type of constructive detail by which we can make our decision. i think the department's recommendations are totally in order. as far as i'm concerned, any other permits and any other conditions necessary to the creation of a different smoking venue within the property is a totally separate matter and not before us at this point. and i don't think it should be taken into consideration until

it is before us. with the consistent thing in my mind for this commission to take this action, consistent with what we heard earlier today, for that matter, as far as the enforcement is concerned, if i refer back to the academy, and if there are fines, there are fines just as there are with the academy. that is not within our control. everyone has acted in the proper manner in this one as far as i can see and am in full support of this. commissioner olague. vice president olague: i remember when this -- well, we have worked with a lot of the neighbors and community groups on a lot of issues that have to do with revitalizing the night life and the castro area and the upper market area and it's something i fully support. and san marcos, is that the cafe we are thinking of? and then there was -- what is the name of the cafe across the street again?

i forget the name. the one at the corner -- there were even some others when they remodified the conditions and there was discussion and i remember we removed a couple of conditions that the neighbors wanted. but i think so far both instances have been pretty successful. and we have been able to sit here and all sort of years later applaud what everyone's work on those two projects was. but with this one, again, you know, what we try to do is reward those who are good players and give everyone as much room as possible to do the right thing. and if there are violations, then i think you have to take certain actions to ensure that the original sort of intent that we all had to create the space is going to be a good balance for the neighbors and the businesses and it all works out. unfortunately, that is not the case here. i support fully what the staff

is recommending here. and hopefully, you know, look back and look at this other condition and the smoking room and moving it or whatever it is as president miguel mentioned is not really before us today. i think it's fortunate that we're here because we always do the best to have to not re-visit these conditional use permits. so i'm going to go ahead and move that we approve with conditions and hopefully moving forward things will improve for everyone involved. president miguel: is there a connect? >> isn't the motion to disapprove? vice president olague: to support. commissioner moore: support staff's recommendation. president miguel: approval with conditions. vice president olague: yes. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: my only concern with removing the existing smoking entrance, i

guess you would call it, that faces the street, and not replacing it with something else, may to some degree exacerbate the problem and people are going to smoke and what they'll do is smoke out on market or wherever they have to go, so that might make it worse. i assume that we certainly could come back with it at a future time with the c.u. to establish this smoking area within, which i guess would add another hearing. i think i am in support of the conditions that the neighborhood wants in terms of mitigating the complaints and that is part of this motion. and i'll be supportive of what's in there, but i think we could be more efficient by including the smoking lounge, too. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i fully support the statements commissioners miguel and olague

made and having done the homework for us and what i would suggest to mr. paul is if trigger is starting to come forward with another application to very carefully review that also with the exits and including smoke exhaustion because it's not just adding a room when you do that. and you have to really provide quite sophisticated ventilation equipment in order for that room to function as a smoking room. and that becomes the question as to whether or not you can even vent that out on the sidewalk. so i think that is application which i think has to be looked at by the building department including obviously the department it. i would strongly recommend you do that in addition to discussing wit the neighbors. -- to discussing it with the neighbors. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: in terms of

the new idea that mr. paul put forth with this other storage room, i guess it is, there are some concerns that it should be thought about if that is going to be brought back before the commission and that is whether or not it isn't possible to have a more enclosed and permanent connection between the club area in that room and i don't know what the configuration is and whether that is a fence. and just thinking about the problems created even though you have moved the room into something that is totally enclosed with a small window and a doorway. and to tackle the sound issue that might be generated out of that room.

whatever you can work out with the architects and sound people. with respect to commissioner antonini's desire to have it all in one, i don't think we can do that because it's not before us at this point. >> first of all, i got personally involved at the request of the supervisor who attended a meeting and had discussions about this. and what seemed like a workable solution is if we could close the front patio and potentially relocate the smoking room. it wasn't until later after the notice went out that we discovered that the location for the new patio expanded the square footage which is what requires a new c.u. and it wasn't noticed for that and we could not take that action. >> so potentially we think that's a workable solution and i just wanted to make sure that

you knew what your action was today is not whether or not there is a smoking room but whether or not it's the enclosure. and you would take the additional square footage off at the future meeting. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: and perhaps they could comment on the issue of the fire department and they have other rules that come into play and you mentioned another one. >> we'll work with the department of building inspection and the fire department to make sure that whatever proposal they have is code compliant. and there are issues with the department of public health and smoking and they regulate that and work with them as well to make sure the project would be code compliant. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: a procedural question. a note here in the staff memo that the administrative penalties as it reads in amount of x and is that still -- are we still collecting that? we are not negating that by this motion, are we? >> this motion would have no

impact on the administrative penalty that are accruing and that would be dealt with separately through the board of appeals. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion before you is for approval of staff recommendation. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner olague. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. secretary avery: commissioners, you are now at general comment where members may address you on the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission. they can address you for three minutes. president miguel: is there any public comment on any nonagendized item? >> thank you, commissioners. i am happy to report that mark building and the developer has just started their second

project located at 2245 third street. i recently started at townsend street and what is so special about this one on third street is about a block away from my union hall. i am very grateful and thank you very much for your support because they come so us for san francisco residents. and again, i thank you. thank you for your support and have happy holidays. president miguel: thanks. there is no other public comment, we will close this meeting and we will open a special hear iing at the auditorium at san francisco state college at 6:00 p.m. with the special hearing concerning the partner said project. >> thank you. secretary avery: we are adjourned for now.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please turn off your cell phones and

pagers. >> welcome, everyone to the december 8th, 2010 police commission. we have one substantive matter and then one disciplinary manner to take care of in closed session. the first item is approval of the consent calendar.

>> this is for the period of january 1st, 2010, through november 30th, 200010, and january 1st, 2009, through november 30th, 2009. then the acceptance of an award by the policemen of the year. the police commission disciplinary case summary as of december 1st, 2010. >> we will start with the whole first item. to the commissioners have anything that they would like to discuss regarding the report? >> thank you, president. no, there's nothing i would like to discuss.

>> the second item is the sentence of the reward for the policemen of the year. commissioners, you also have this in your packet. any questions or comments regarding that? >> yes. >> you can donate the award. how common is it for officers to express even a small amount of questions. >> officers occasionally receive rewards like this and according

policies brought to the commission's attention, but they make their own decision based on the merits of the reward. >> any further questions regarding this. >> the statistical summary as of december 1st, 2010, dunhill will note that compared to last year and the year before, these numbers are down significantly and i would like to thank the opportunity to thank the commissioners for working the case loads and the staff for making it possible to have these hearings. thank you for the management control. these numbers are 100 times better than what they have been in the past. we would like to say a special thank-you to professor hammer who has consistently had hearings on these?

>> each case is only assigned to one number slot. for example, is not going to appear in the disposed of year to date column or line if it was a settled case, is that correct. >> sure. >> this is through december 1st. these are included in the total of 19 for that year. >> that is included in the line- item. is this also included in the disposed? >> these are the different types of dispositions. cunh>> thank you.

we have reviewed all three items. progress is being dealt out well the case is continually being defined. this is not like anything stops and you get to jump into the pool. >> in reference to line item one, do i have a motion to accept these items? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> is to any public comment regarding these items? >> hearing none, do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> all in favor. let's go on to mine that and number two, public comment. >> members of the public may

address the police commission for a time not to exceed three minutes. >> do we have any public comment regarding matters which are it within the public matters of the commission? >> i would just like to have a news release document regarding a lecture magnetic weaponry. i thought want to have this information. >> thank you. any further public comment? >> good evening, commissioners. i am a private investigator from santa rosa, california. thi