that is good. it is reported that there still smoking in that area which is a violation. >> has there been recent complaints? >> the most recent complaints were earlier this year. >> what is the final amount of the sanctions you are seeking? >> i believe it was $30,000. >> can i see a show of hands of women and people are interested in speaking on this item?

>> ayman neighbor in the district and i am a board member -- i am a neighbor in the district and i am also a board member of the neighborhood association. the inconsequent noise violations and other complaints that have been violated since the club is open from a random check from my personal records the other day showed over 30 complaints assisted with the cast members from april through september. all of them were told, i will fix it. we're still talking about it.

if you will be able to walk with a penalty that demonstrates that a well-connected businesses will trump city rules. >> i am president of the -- neighborhood association and we serve 3000 houses by the castro market and older. we have been involved in this project since the beginning. we wrote a letter supporting the project. why would like to submit this. we thought that the business was compatible with the neighborhood. in may of 2009, the club opened. i was there on opening night.

shortly thereafter, the issues started to pile up and the file shows that there was probably about a hundred calls over the course of the year regarding this. the zoning administrator went to impose fines. i personally called president dufty's office and asked that the fines not be imposed so we would not be here. i asked for a meeting and we had the enforcement staff, we have the planning staff, we also have supervisor dufty, we have the neighborhood associations, we had mr. paul. coming out of that meeting, we were really hopeful because the project sponsor indicated that they would mitigate the noise. we did not want to come here and talk about this.

the enforcement officer talked to mr. paul and told him that they would keep piling up. you're forced to go to the planning commission under the threat of the revocation. this was not a very hard compliance. it was pulling the garage door down. i know the people that work in the business want to frame it in terms of what it's going to do to the business. that's something you need to consider. i also want to frame it in terms of what the business did to the neighborhood as well as, by reducing or eliminating the fine to a great extent would do to the conditional use process. i think we need a process that has integrity. the project sponsor signed the conditional use application thing that if he didn't comply, there would be a $250 a day

penalty, which there was. i think any substantial fine will send a message to businesses that they can't break their promises, keep getting second and third chances. even with that equipment, nothing happens and we're forced to fight these things. i think eliminating the fine or reducing the substantially will hurt the integrity of the process and some substantial fine needs to be imposed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> it's my letter to bill hayward, who was the aide. >> good evening, my name is alan nelson. i'm the president of the neighborhood association. i was here in july and spoke to you. i actually wrote the conditions of use for trigger.

i worked with greg braunstein and i worked with his representative to come up with agreeable conditions of use that would be good for the neighborhood. greg agreed to them. he loved them. he was reaching out to the community. it was fabulous. unfortunately, right after he opened, everything that we talked about in the conditions of use he started violating. lots of the conditions he was not adhering to. we had numerous complaints. i called greg, i talked to greg. i talked to bev and dufty, i talked to beau hayward. it got so bad that we were engaging enforcement. enforcement was doing sound checks repeatedly. i think at least nine times the sound checks were done, and he was in violation of his conditions of use. the noise was so lloyd and so pervasive across the street -- loud and so pervasive across the street. it was closer to a bar across the street, you could actually

hear trigger, and you could not hear the cafe, which is also a dance club. we decided to get together in february, because we didn't want to get to this point, as dennis mentioned, and we agreed to reset the clock. the agreement was between everybody in that room, which dennis has outlined, was that by the end of march, greg would be compliant. greg committed to that, and mr. paul committed to that. we talked about it. everybody in the room. so end of march comes by. we do a sound check. guess what, he's not compliant. he hasn't done much. so then we have sound check done at the end of april. then another one done at the beginning of may. greg is not compliant. so then he gets the notice of enforcement. greg ignores that notice. i even called bev inn, a friend of mr. braunstein's. nothing happened. greg did not respond to the notice of noncompliance until august 8. i believe it was august 8 or august 10, 2010.

that's an awful long time to be just ignoring a notice. the whole issue here is greg has made promises. i know this is a huge setback. but if we're not going to adhere to the rules and if people aren't going to have to pay the fines, why have them? it basically neuters or whole process. if i run a stop sign, i get a fine. i don't get out of it. greg should not get out of this. and that's really our whole position. it's been a lot of work and taken an enormous amount of city resources and an enormous amount of the community members' time, to actually be a neighborhood-serving business and have respect for the neighborhood. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, my name is david troupe. i'm on the board of the neighborhood association. i don't want to be here

tonight, and i didn't want to be at the planning commission hearing where mr. braunstein's c.u. was nearly revoked. i didn't want to be at any of the other meetings we had over the last two years trying to get resolution on this noise issue. but this has been a litany of broken promises and lies from the very beginning. greg came to our organization. he had the existing bar on the site. there had been a lot of noise problems there. and one of the reasons that we supported his plans to basically completely reconstruct the building is that he promised that the noise issues would be addressed and we wouldn't have them to worry about anymore. that didn't happen. and even very specific things that he agreed to. the building has sort of an air lock door system where there are two doors, and you have to go through one door and then another door to get in. the conditions of use specified

that the outer tour always be kept shut. he said the east most outer door would only be for an emergency exit. for most of the last couple of years, up until the he began complying, that upper door was open nearly every night. we had multiple meetings where he feigned ignorance of that and promised it would change. it didn't, and the sound would be blasting out of there. the meeting in february of last year, where there were promises made about resolutions, he gave a phone number to the neighbors who were complaining about noise. said this phone will be carried by someone all the time when the club is open. if you have a complaint, just call this number. the folks that lived across the street and were experienced these problems told me that they never once reached anybody on that number. they would get a number that said the mail box is full and

nobody ever answered the phone. so this is somebody that talks a good story, but by his acts he's demonstrated that there was never an intent to comply with the conditions he agreed to. and frankly, i don't believe he would have ever done so had he not been forced to do so, that things came to a point where he was about to essentially lose the business by virtue of the revocation of the c.e.u.. so drastically reduce the fines would be to undermine the process and to take away the incentive of any business in this city who operates under the kbs. -- conditions. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is judith and i'm on the board of the caster eureka neighborhood association. i want to say that both neighborhood so,s are dedicated to working with businesses in

order to have a vibrant business community. we have an entertainment district there. same thing. we want to have it, but we also want the residents nearby to be able to enjoy their homes and not be driven away by a business that simply does not respect the neighborhood. as a person who has tried to work with greg, has gone by to see what's going on there, it's just very, very frustrating and demoralizing to work with this person. we've never spent as much time in a business as we've spent with this business. and we think he's gotten multiple chances. just a simple thing of keeping the door closed and rolling down the door to the patio, which is a roll-down door and

is glass. it doesn't create a wall. it's glass. he couldn't seem to bring himself to do that even when the fines were rolling up. if there have been no complaints in the last three months, that does not mitigate what he's been doing all the time. now suddenly he's going to be a good boy. no. we don't believe that. he's got to be made to recognize the law is the law, an he's subject to it, just like everybody else. and that conditions of use on a planning department permit is real. it's not just do it if you can. it's an agreement, it's a contract. and he doesn't seem to recognize these things. we're very discouraged. we still want his business to

succeed, but he has to know that it's serious. he can't just keep getting away with this. we really expect that businesses in our neighborhood will add character and value to the neighborhood and it's been just the opposite with this business. so we ask you not to take jurisdiction and allow this fine to stand, which is actually not so much, considering the potential of his business. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm a neighbor. i live across the street from trigger. i've been dealing with -- i've lived in the neighborhood for over 10 years, and there's always been a bar across the street. it was a neighborhood bar, not noisy or crazy. since greg took over and made jet, that was a problem. when he did want to make it

into trigger, he had to have all these special conditions, which he hasn't complied with. especially the noise. and even as recent as monday night, the bass sound is still just booming out of there. i've sent emails. i don't even call him, because he never answers his phone. he never responds to the emails either. so enforcement -- paying these fines would maybe send him a message that people are serious about what he's doing, that it's not good. i've gone across the street. i've talked to the people who are running the door, and there's people screaming on the streets. they're all kind of drunk and out of their minds. that's like 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning. so i don't even get to sleep till 2:00 in the morning after he turns the sound down. i've dealt with greg. i've gone to the entertainment commission meetings, i've dealt with kate o'connor so many times and i've been -- seems like taking up a lot of people's time for greg, who doesn't really want to deal

with the problem. so i hope that he gets the message this time and that he will do something about that and have to pay the fine. thank you. >> did you want to say your name, sir? >> oh, jim hannah. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is pat, and i'm a resident that lives behind trigger, over on 16th street. and i want to echo the feelings of the debose triangle neighborhood association. the neighborhood has tried to work through the association. unfortunately, not everybody can come to these meetings to voice their opinion. and so the neighborhood associations try to represent the neighbors in that area. before trigger opened, you

know, they had meetings with the neighbors. they made a lot of promises all the time and said we're working with the neighborhood associations on what the terms of operation were going to be. everybody thought that it was going to be great, and then the bar opened and it was don't plan on sleeping until after the bar closed. i will say that more recently the noise has been not as consistent. it's sporadic, but it still exists. and there's a pattern of nuisance and violations here. as residents of san francisco, we expect businesses, neighbors, we expect compliance, and we depend on our government to reinforce when there are repeated violations. and so i would urge you today to let the fine stand as it is

and let it be paid, so that those of us who have made this journey with this business to try to make it comply, and it hasn't complied that, we know that we have a system that works. thank you. >> is there any other public comment? ok, seeing none, then, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'll start. i'm almost sorry mr. braunstein is not here. just curious to see what he would look like. but he is -- has artlessly transformed people who supported him in his business into adversaries and he has ignored the conditions of his c.u., which allows him to be in business. and worse yet, he has ignored

the needs of his community that he finds himself doing business in. and for us to grant jurisdiction in order to consider lowering the penalties i think would be much more than unreasonable. i do not intend to support granting jurisdiction. >> the issue here is whether there were circumstances or due process issues related to the case whereby jurisdiction may be an appropriate way to deal with it. it's not dealing with the actual case itself, either the fine or the conditions at this point that are apparently not being met. on the one hand the

presentation on the reasons for jurisdiction were very minimal and they were not extensive enough to be granted. the question is whether or not we can, through the office of this board, sometimes assist in crafting a solution. perhaps that's the optimist in me. whether that is an appropriate reason for granting jurisdiction or not is to be determined. i'm not sure yet where i'm going to go with this. >> well, then, i'm happy to go next. tonight is about a process question. i heard nothing compelling to combrant jurisdiction this evening -- grant jurisdiction this evening. i think we're not really supposed to consider the merits, but you hear the merits

and you hear a long attitude of, perhaps, disregard with respect to the neighbors. everybody deserves their day in court and it certainly seems this person has had plenty of opportunities through either the entertainment commission, planning commission or otherwise, to craft compromises with neighbors and so forth. so i would not be inclined to support the jurisdiction request. >> i don't have much further to add, and my inclination would be not to grant as well. >> and i agree with that as well. and i need to put on the record, too, that i was absent for the july 13, 2011, hearing on this matter, but i did watch the video. is there a motion, commissioners? >> i'll move to deny jurisdiction requests. the request for jurisdiction, excuse me. >> if you would call the roll, please. >> on that motion, from commissioner peterson, to deny this jurisdiction request.

[roll call taken] >> the vote is 4-1. jurisdiction is denied. thank you. >> and we'll call item number six, which is ateal number 11-079, matt patel doing business at 7-eleven. subject property is at 3898 19th street, appealing a suspension of a tobacco permit imposed on june , 2011. the reason for suspension is selling tobacco products to minors. it's on for hearing today and we'll start with the appellant, mr. patel. you have seven minutes. >> thank you.

good afternoon, commissioners. it's quite unusual -- sorry. thank you. my name is matt patel. i own the 7-eleven, and i've been a franchisee there for 16 years. i've been in this industry for 23 years. it is a matter of a situation where reading the report -- is the report correct? it's creble. i'm not here to question the report or how the whole process was handled. i'm here to move forward to the next level which is, yes, the tabakco sale was sold to a minor. there are two different issues here. one is, what is the penalty for a franchisee versus a penalty for an employee, an employee who's there trying to live a

life. it's not an educated employee that we train, coach and guide to make sure they do the proper job going forward. i've been helping the court for two years, especially in 2009, 2010, which was part of the small community court by jackson gee. in the district, working with andrea, vells al harris. most of the cases that we used to get there were similar type of cases, and the penalties for them were usually $50 to $150 and eight to 10 hours community service. penalty for a person being the first offense -- if it was alcohol-related, it would have been a fine of $1,500 to $2,000. this is the first pent that has ever occurred at this location or in my history of dealing with this retail industry. having a 25-day suspension will

definitely hurt the business. a, it will take a longer time to bring the business back to normal conditions. however, the worse scenario would be for me to terminate or lay off two employees, as well as our important issue here is the san francisco cigarette tax, which i have always supported, saying that it always helps the city keep it clean. in this situation it will actually hurt, because the city will lose the revenue of $1,800 to $2,000 a month, especially during this time. yes, the lesson's been learned that there was a mistake that's been made. precautions have been made already that all the employees have been retrained. now, is it fair for a 25-day suspension? am i going to learn the same lesson whether it's for five days or 25 days? i think so. i think even a suspension of one day is going to teach me a lesson to make sure that i need to stay on top and retrain and recoach the staff more frequent.

there are many different aspects that's already been in place here as of a secret shopper that's been doing it for the last four or five years. it has come negative all these years as selling tobacco products or alcohol product to a minor. so, again, it was a legitimate mistake. it was a mistake done by a clerk. and i'm moving to accept a penalty. but 25-day suspension is a severe penalty. thank you. >> thank you. you can hear from the department now. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm representing the san francisco health department. i think the appellant made my work very easy, so i'm not going to make a very elaborate presentation tonight. i want to say that the clerk

was acting on behalf of the appellant, and, therefore, the appellant is responsible for the actions of his clerk, his agent. the health code allows the department to suspend a permit, tobacco sales permit, for up to 90 days for the first offense. the department only suspended this said permit for only 25 days. the appellant also stated that he has provided adequate training for all his employees. this very case is actually very disturbing in the sense that the clerk actually asked the minor for her age, and the minor told the clerk that she wasn't 18 years old at the time

that the purchase was made. but the appellant -- i mean the clerk or the appellant went ahead to sell the cigarettes anyway. i'm wondering how thorough the training has been for such a clerk to go ahead to sell a cigarette to a minor, after the minor told him that she's not 18 years old. it is very apparent here what transpired. somebody was not paying attention or willing to adhere to the law. and i was sitting with the police officer who was with them at the time. the person was 16 at the time and looked her age. in addition, the decoy told the clerk that she was not 18. they proceeded to sell the

cigarettes. many establishments that came before the board in the past have always argued on the side that such suspension will cause -- they should have taken adequate precautions to make sure to adhere to the dictates of the law. the department strongly feels that the 25-day suspension is very reasonable and the department is respectfully asking the board to deny the appellant's appeal and to suspend the permit for 25 days. thank you. >> doctor, i have a question. we heard about and we read about a cash register that automatically checks the driver's license when the driver's license is swiped through. can you talk about that? how expensive is it,ow