space. as i understand it, the suggestions were so cost- prohibitive i would not be able to hold a charitable event at the new location due to the cost constraints. [tone!] the gentleman here said they could not do outreach with the community in the last three weeks due to the logistics of the team put in the place together. how can they establish a community-oriented space without contacting the committee? how can they establish a team to create a space that will serve the community without costing -- contacting the committee they are attempting to serve? [tone!] pictures i have seen today are described as being caused by the former tenants. what proof is there that it was

damaged by former tenants? i have more to say. thank you for your time. supervisor elsbernd: thank you very much. next speaker. >> i am a local musician. i am not a san francisco native, but you may have seen my baby back they're making noise. he is a san francisco native. we intend to stay and build our home here. when i found out eli spear was taking over the tavern, i cannot tell you how excited i was. as a musician, i knew this would be a place where musicians were honored and treated with respect, where music and art would thrive. as i am sitting here listening to everything being said, i understand the concerns that spaces that are safe for the lgbt community should not be

taken away absolutely. i consider myself an ally and activist for the lgbt community. i want to the size -- emphasize eli spear should be considered an asset in keeping the history alive of the tavern and moving forward operating on some of the same principles of openness. in the city, i often in up in a bar or restaurant where i fear i am not wearing the right clothes or should have put makeup on or something like that. i feel so relieved to know there could be a space that is truly about community where anybody is truly welcome. [tone!] supervisor elsbernd: thank you very much. i want to call the last speaker card i have. nick hudson. if i have not called your name and you want to speak, please

fill out a card. otherwise, we will do the last three speakers. >> my name is seth munter. i am here to ask you to table the motion. tabling this motion will bring all parties to the table and enable consideration and collaboration. a little background. i am a licensed real estate salesperson. i hold an m.b.a. from uc- berkeley. i am director of the leather alliance. i also represent mark frazier, the owner and operator of the dallas eagle. we do not seek ownership of the bar. we seek collaboration. over a year ago, mr. frazier and i approached the owner of 398 12th street to discuss a lease arrangement. he made two demands. pay the back of a previous lessees, over $50,000. second, do all of the building

of the ada compliance at our expense. he would not discuss a lease unless these demands were met. working with the manager of the eagle tavern, we ran financial analyses and found these unreasonable preconditions made the business of feasible u -- unfeasible. we spoke with mr. wiener and bevin dufty. we have the ability to move forward, but we need to make sure the double rainbow team does reach out. we need to delay consideration of the transfer to give the team a reason to collaborate. nobody wants a vacant property. it is mr. nicotopolus's fault

it is still vacant. let's work together and find a solution for all of us. [tone!] supervisor elsbernd: we have the board rule, no applauding or hissing or anything else. that is a rule. i wanted to point that out. i was going to compliment you on having a perfect two-minute point. that rarely happens. >> you can blame my speech and debate coach in high school. >> one of the overarching question as i have, do you believe the owner of this property has negotiated in good faith with all members of the committee, including members of the lgbt community? >> i do not know about other people. i know his interaction with the previous owners was not always positive. i am sure he did not negotiate

in good faith with my client who owns the dallas eagle. there are eagle bars across this country that are very successful. there is no reason we cannot have an eagle in the tradition of that are here in san francisco. >> thank you. supervisor elsbernd: thank you very much. next speaker. i also have a speaker card for doug. >> my name is jeff whitmore. i am the owner of public works in san francisco. the reason i got in this business was for the diversity and bringing people together. everything you and everything i have been involved in, that is my first and foremost objective. i think we have succeeded with out in public works. eli spear, i am another supporter of his. he was an integral part of public works from day one. public works does everything

from techno to straight and ga y after parties. we'd do everything. we seek to bring people together from groups that usually do not hang out together. it works, at times. i am here for the fact that eli speer from day one was a big community influence. i would definitely say anything he is going to be involved with, he is going to bring that to the table. supervisor elsbernd: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is nicholas hudson. i have been a business partner of andersen pugosh for about five years. we run the hospitality business together. i have known him to be very open to the community and also beat a very sophisticated and good business owner al add a lot of

vibrancy to the community -- that will add a lot a vibrancy to the community and growth. i see it only as a positive thing happening. i would like to note my brother is a local musician and played the previous eagle talon and -- tavern. he enjoyed it as well. he has connections that we as well. ironically. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you for hearing all of this. i want to go on record as requesting to table this transfer on the basis there is so much passion in the community. there needs to be more information as to whether there was discrimination against lgbt qualified people that wanted to lease the building.

they have a license that does not need to be transferred. they have signed a lease with a landlord. i understand the landlord owns the lease in the mission. that is why he wants to get it moved into soma so the facility can benefit the most financially. it is understandable. but it seems like they could do more community outreach. i would request it would be tabled pending more investigation and community outreach to see if there has or has not been discrimination going on. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. mr. renny. this will be the last public commenter. >> supervisors, my name is mark rennie. i represent double rainbow. my name is on the letter

requesting the start to and a half months ago. i want to address a few things that have not been touched. i know you have questions. there have been talk of gay discrimination in leasing. i got on this lake. i came on in may when the letter was written. at that time, i was told by the owner that alex and michael going to be intended lessees -- mike were going to be the intended lessees. i later learned they had gone through eight least incarnations over six months. the huge outcry was in may of last year. that was approximately 12 or 13 months ago. the owner made the determination he was going to lease to a gay operator. he started with might and alex. i was not involved in negotiations with at that point. i understand it fell apart. they could not come to terms. at that point, other people had come to the table who were also day -- gay.

specifically, the owner of a very successful establishment on the arty side that caters to both the gay and lesbian community and the street and business community. he sent an e-mail out to kylke. he basically said, i am gay. i was signing a lease on the eagle. negotiations fell apart. it fell apart at the end of june. i tried twice to get him to do it. that was another successful bar owner. i went to the guys that own rebel asking them to consider the eagle. the contention, he was not trying to discriminate against gay people. he was trying to get a day operator. [tone!] supervisor elsbernd: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i appreciated

you spell that out for us. did you give public notice to everyone within 500 feet of the building? >> yes, we did. supervisor kim: when was that done? >> i was not involved, but i spoke with the licensing rep. assured me posting had been done. -- she assured me the posting had been done. she had the affidavit of mailing. the only thing she was not lacking was the pcn determination. it was done sometime in 2011. supervisor kim: to get a better sense of the time line, you initiated the transfer in august of last year? >> if you like, i can go get it. there was quite a bit of consternation in the community

and press. i believe louis april-may of 2011. sometime after that, there was the issue of keeping it closed too long and losing your non- conforming status. it was thought the owner would put -- find a liquor license, put it back on the premise sought least have a license intact on the premise and then work out a deal with alex and mike. that went on through the fall. that was still going on as late as april and may of this year. i came in in may. there was another attorney who had been doing the leasing. they did bring me in to sit in on the final negotiations. that was a done deal. i was surprised it had blown up. that is when i went to gus and other day operators and hoping we could bring in someone from the community to put that to rest.

the issue before the board today is a public need and convenience of the entire community in the city and county of san francisco. it is not just one little segment. i think it is a dangerous precedent for the board to be getting into the minutia of lease negotiations. i think it was done in good faith. i think these guys are amazing in with a beautiful job. supervisor kim: that was not my question. i appreciate that. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: one of the other gentleman in the partnership behind a proposal indicated you do not have to be gay to have a license approved. i do not think anyone is saying the decision should be based on sexual orientation. there are many gay or straight individuals who could take over the license. the question is the sensibility they have to the larger

community and issues that are relevant in the code. one of the things that is concerning for me is the fact we have had a number of people during public comment and even in correspondence, people that have made a serious allegation about the landlord in terms of his willingness to negotiate in good faith with the lgbt community. that is a very serious allegation. it is one that i think we have to make sure we are fair and do not jump to conclusions. i do think it is something we have to look at. if it is the case that by virtue of being gay potential owners or people who would run the establishment were denied the ability to compete in good faith, i think that is relevant

for consideration. i am wondering if you can address that issue. second, i believe to the extent those allegations have been made, they were even said in public comment. i personally would like to hear directly from the owner. i think it is appropriate for the honor to come to this body and specifically address that issue. i am wondering if you can address the issue raised, the possible discrimination, and is there a willingness on the part of the property owner to come to this body and address this committee and the community? >> i believe he will. he did do a lot of outrage. i believe he was beat up pretty bad in april and may of last year and got a little gun shy. i have read all of the reports. i did put in the record today a

blog dated april 29 of 2011. this is the true story of what happened. it shows the previous owner of the eagles ran it into the ground, refused to negotiate in good faith with the dallas eagle person. he ran it into the ground. he did not want to compete. he brought in the skylark lounge. it was not my client. my client was painted with a broad brush of anti-gay. i believe that was a ruse to get the community riled up. please look at that document. you have been given that document. that is from the same vehicle as of april of 2011. the eagle is gone. -- that is from the save the

eagle as of april 2011. the eagle is gone. anything of value was stripped out. holes were put in the wall. a $600,000 rehab is needed. that is part of the trouble. they do not have the money for the rehab. my group did not have the financial wherewithal to rebuild this place and do the life safety upgrades. we're talking life safety and ada. this group is extremely successful in various ventures. they want to preserve the eagle. i have lived in the neighborhood since 1974. i do not want to see this place they can forever. i do not want to seconde is built there. -- i do not want to see this place stay they can forever. i do not want to see another solution that could not work.

this trust has not had income. two years. we were getting hate from the abc. we let it slide to see if we could, everybody down -- calm everybody down and find a good operator, hopefully a gay operator. i got pressure from the abc to get it done. that is why we're here today. under the 2358, there is a time frame on this aspect under the state code. there is precedent over city code. we're trying to do what was required by the abc. we want to reach out to the community. obviously he would not have an even amount of people for and against because there had not been outrage. they would not be here today. supervisor campos: is the owner willing to come and appear before the committee? but my client is not here.

he is involved in some other things up state. i will speak to him and asked him. but we will not agree to a continuance just because of the time constraints and abc telling us to get this done. supervisor campos: you talked about the business and professions code 2358, that section also says in the context of reviewing this kind of application, the government must investigate all matters connected with the applications that affect public welfare and morals. i think the issues raised in terms of interaction between this property owner and the lgbt community are relevant and should be considered by this body. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. supervisor olague: . supervisor olague:

we have a liquor license transfer before us. there was a lot of information we did not have. it can wait. supervisor elsbernd: is there any additional public comment? yes, ma'am. if you want to make public comment, come on up and state your name. you have two minutes. >> my name is colleen. was the agent and negotiated some of the deals between john and some of the people that wished to purchase it. there were people from all walks of life. john was dealing with mike and alex the last year-and-a-half. i came on at the beginning of that negotiation. the biggest problem was that both of them were not using an agent. they were negotiating between each other. i was a consultant for mike and

alex to help them come up with ideas and to make a deal between the two of them. as time went on, they got nowhere. they kept fighting back and forth. the big issue was the amount of money it would cost to refurbish the eagle because it was trashed. the people that had been there before, they sucked the liver out of the building. it was collapsing. about a year into it, starting last march, january or february, john nicotopolis called me and said he would like to do a deal with these guys. i put them both together. we had two meetings. we had come to a purchase agreement and lease terms.

[tone!] supervisor elsbernd: that means you have 30 seconds. >> we had come to lease terms. they started to go back and forth on arguing final bits of the lease. they got very angry with each other on both sides. there was a lot of fighting. no decision was ever come to as far as signing any agreement with mike and alex. [tone!] at the very last minute -- supervisor elsbernd: thank you. supervisor campos: what is your role with respect to the current bill before us? >> after this, i started working with john and the gentleman that came in and wanted to purchase the eagle. the criteria, the only thing different on the offers is that they were willing to do the

money it took to put the condition of the building back into shape. that was terms of a long of any negotiations going on with anybody trying to purchase it. the gentleman spoke earlier that said that was the terms for his client and it was too prohibitive for his client to come to those terms. that is what he was asking for all along during all of the negotiations. supervisor campos: were you representing the two different sets of parties negotiating with the property owner? >> not at the same time. i was representing the first group that asked me a year-and- a-half ago to get a hold of the owner. i had a hard time reaching him. that is when they went and contacted him. he was talking directly with them. i was a consultant in the background working with them to make a deal with john. that deal fell through.

that deal fell through because they did not want to do the agreement the way john wanted it. what happened was they signed the agreement, probably between the time the agreement was given to sign and for john to sign and when it actually got signed, it was somewhere between six weeks and one month. maybe even longer. the they were still arguing about terms and conditions. john said that is it. i am not going to negotiate with them anymore. i am done. he went off and started talking to other people. supervisor campos: i have never heard of something like this where someone represents one party and then turns around and represents the other party. that is interesting. >> i did not say that. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. is there any further public comment? see none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any comments?

supervisor olague? supervisor olague: i do not think we need to continue this item any longer. we can vote today on whether to deny the license or not, right? i do not see the point in continuing the item. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i was going to ask the we continue the item. i do not think there. outreach was done. -- i do not think community outreach was done. normally when we get liquor license transfers in neighborhoods -- i understand this is for the public necessity and convenience of the city. with any neighborhood bar, they always do outreach in the neighborhood and community. i usually get letters of support from neighbors that we do not know, folks that live in the neighborhood in terms of the hour each plan and what the actual business plan is. i have not gotten a firm sense of that in this hearing either.

no sense of what security will look like. no sense of how they will make sure the neighborhood is safer, issues of lighting, floor plans. these are things are a regular -- i regularly ask and and provided with an offense of the hearing. none of those things are things i saw today. i think a lot has not occurred. this is not an issue of whether the owners have to be lgbt or not. i am not quite sure why that is to continually came up from those supporting this. i have always felt very welcome at the eagle. to imply a new ownership would be more open than the eagle, i have always felt very welcome there in an lgbt establishment. there is diversity in the lgbt

community that was blown over in this conversation. there's a difference between badlands and the eagle versus the cafe. there is diversity in the lgbt committee that has to be acknowledged as well. that is not with the liquor license transfers about today, for me. for me as a neighborhood supervisor, i need to see that outreach has been done. i need to see support in the neighborhood. this is not market street where less out reach needs to happen because it is a more commercial district. i think this is very much a neighborhood. there is definitely residential in this area. there are also a number of small businesses in the area that could have outreach with them. for that reason, i was going to motion to continue. i am more than happy to give a list of folks that the applicant can do out reach with, whether it is the western soma task

force. there are many groups that have a stake in the neighborhood and what it wants to look like. that is a fairly common process with any businesses that come in, even those not applying for a liquor license. even tech companies and other small businesses typically do a lot of outreach and spend time getting to know the committee they are moving into to get to know the history. included in the plan to present before the board, whether it is a commitment to doing the beer bash on sundays, i heard the loesser's -- lessors not willing to commit to that. i think a lot can be done to honor the legacy of the business. there is a lot of explanation that needs to be done in terms of how this will serve the neighborhood and a lot of other questions i havethose sorts of . the last thing i will say is folks that came out in support said if d