the police are usually the -- traditionally the group that's a little more conservative, so me personally, i would be more comfortable just going with the police recommendations here, and if there are enforcement issues that come up later, then we'll handle those, and we can revisit the thing. i don't want to -- and -- but that's my personal feeling, so... >> we have public comment? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. was that a motion, commissioner -- or is there a motion? >> i would like to make a motion to approve this permit with the police department's condition, with the entertainment from saturday --

thursday to saturday ending at 11:00, and friday and saturday ending to 2:00 a.m. >> i second. >> a friendly amendment, doesn't it say sunday to thursday at 11:00? >> i'm sorry. i thought he said -- >> and friday and saturday until 2:00? >> yeah, that's what i meant. >> i second that. >> all right. any conversations? all right. then let's move for a vote. >> so that's the only condition. the other condition that's on there, we did not talk about. >> well, 12 -- >> no, no, no, there is another -- kind of silly. >> that beer and liquor must go through -- >> yeah, that's a lengthy issue. >> if you guys are okay with it, that's okay with me. >> well, we have to vote. >> okay. move for a vote. >> i actually agree with supervisor lee -- i mean,

commissioner lee. >> let's take a vote. >> who was the second? >> commissioner frost. >> all right. here's the vote. [ roll call. ] >> okay. it passes. >> all right. so that -- that passed. you have your permit, but please take our concerns seriously and the concerns of the supervisor, and we very much hope that we don't have to have you back here at any time, really, but certainly not within the next six months. so please be a good operator and take care of your neighbors. >> sure will. thank you.

>> okay. that is agenda item number 7. moving onto agenda item number 8, discussion and possible action to adopt written comments and recommendations to be submitted to the planning department regarding a proposed residential project. this is our rdr calendar. director weiland. >> this is an rdr for 1525 pine street, and this is for a proposed residential and retail project. if you will recall, this is also the same address as grubstake, which is an extended hours premises permit, so you will see the owner of grubstake here, nick piggett. this is located within 300 feet of play land, which is a

permitted place of entertainment. >> we just have a quick overview of the project. gr okay. great. good evening, commissioners. alexis peloni. the project sponsors asked that i give just a brief overview of the project before i turn it over to randy walldeck. he'll talk about the akucoustil analysis. it's the current location of the grubstake, and as noted, the sponsors are the current

owner of the grubstake restaurant. they're proposing to demolish the existing cable car system and replace it with a residential unit. the project sponsor also intends to replace grubstake on the site and has promised a design that will hpay homage t the old cable car. its frontages is on both payne and auste and austin. there is one bedroom on pine or austin, and the remaining bedroom will open on a proposed light well adjacent to the well. on the fifth floor, the billion

steps back a little bit, and there is a deck for the fifth floor residents, and on each floor, there's at least one bedroom that will open onto pine street or austin alley. so this just quickly shows the ground floor and what the refurbished grubstake will look like. here, again, you can see the cable car theme that will run through the proposed development. and then finally, and most important to the matter before the commission is the exhibit that shows the proposed project in relation to the two venues. that is the reason why we're here. so before turning it over to randy again who will discuss the acoustical analysis, the owners have reached out to holidayinn and play land.

play land did not express any concerns or put anything in writing, but in general, they are supportive of the proposal, and i'm going to turn it over to randy to talk about the acoustical analysis. >> thank you. again, i'm randy walldeck with the cfda here in san francisco. i did the acoustical analysis with my staff, and that consists of kind of a standard acoustical analysis, and you measure not just during the week to see how noisy it is but also over the weekend. so we did that. we measured in october, starting on october 19th, which is actually a thursday, and we ran the measurements through monday, the following monday. so we picked up all the weekend hours. obviously, as she mentioned,

there's a couple bars close by, but not right next door. long story short, what we found, noise levels aren't that much different on a friday versus a weekday, and a lot of that reason it's on paine street, and pine street's pretty noisy to begin with. we did do the measurements for almost 96 hours. we then -- the little small -- i think we got it flipped. but we did a measurement on pine, which is in blue, and we did a measurement on austin alley, as well. obviously, pine street is the noisy one. just to give you an idea, i super imposed the mitigation what will be on pine street for the windows and facade element. at the restaurant level, you do have some requirements from cal green to protect it from noise. obviously, the residences what

matter, and that calculated out to an sd-42. the max windows you can buy these days is a 50, so you're pretty high up on the ratings. again, there's some over night noise, but it's just pine street's busy, and you've got all these businesses bouncing the noise back. i'm happy to answer any questions about the study, and i don't know if it was submitted, but i'm happy to supervise it, as we provide it, as well. >> any questions from the commissioners? yes, commissioner perez? >> hi. thanks for coming in. so right now, i don't think the restaurant on the ground floor has a permit -- an entertainment permit? >> they do, an extended hours permit. >> so are you doing any additional soundproofing between the first levels and the rest of the floors? >> yeah, we didn't gotten there yet, but the part of my scope

is of course dealing with what we call architectural acoustics, so we will be dealing with that, absolutely. >> but you're not running entertainment, you're just serving food, food late, right? >> but in the future, they might potentially do limited live. we don't know. >> yeah, later. >> and i guess there's no -- are there windows facing -- >> the grubstake is entertaining on its own without needs for a permit. >> are there windows facing polk, or it looks like it's just wall, right, wall with a light well? >> a number of the upper units will have facing windows. >> but they're not facing up above the roof line?

>> they are. >> they are? >> polk? >> folk. >> any other questions? >> i'm just -- no, i'm just...oh, yeah, ill ac'll get that. so the -- you know what the -- obviously, say, the windows on the upper portion above the roof line, you're going to probably do standard 50 -- what were you thinking for the windows? >> i got it. the windows and the light well, i didn't include all the stc ratings. the light wells are the mid30's for the light well windows. >> 30's? >> 'cause they're not -- the thought process behind that is the exposure's similar to the

meter that was on the alley because it had line of sight to polk from the alley. we typically do a pretty good model to be sure. >> and these windows, can they open the windows? >> if there are bedrooms, they have to be probabop rabl. >> -- operable. >> okay. >> so any bedroom or living room has to be operable for egress. >> and the -- okay. the full disclosure of being that it's kind of not officially entertainment zone, but the people who buy will know that there's going to be a lot of verbal noise from people at 2:00 in the morning. >> it'll be rental units, and our intention is to hold the building, so we have all of those thoughts in mind because they'll be our tenants.

>> a lot of times, tenants will complain with their windows open, and then, we get a flood of complaints. we can only justify if the windows are closed, so as long as you know that. >> so a couple comments, and we haven't gotten to it, but any project that we work on like this where we're in a noisy area, we always acknowledge part of the lease language acknowledge what they're signing into, so it's made clear to them, when their windows are closed, they're still getting fresh air. >> as long as they know what they're getting into. we just want to make it clear that there's no future complaints. we got a lot of these future complaints. and then, the lighting, you do have a lighting plan on the outside of the building to keep the sidewalk or in front of the building well-lit, part of the plan? >> not yet. >> okay. can you put that in part of the

plan? >> sure. >> we usually recommend that, especially when there's a lot of people walking around. >> great. absolutely. >> any other he requesquestion commissioners? all right. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> thank you. >> no public comment? public comment is closed. commissioners. >> well, i move to approve the -- or make recommendation to planning. i want to see them have a lighting plan instead. they are planning on telling the tenants that they are moving into a little bit of a noisy neighborhood, and if they keep their windows open, they're not going to take -- likely to take a serious complaint if their windows are open. anything else that i missed? >> no. i think that's it.

all right. that was a motion. was there a second? >> i second. >> and a second. we move to a vote? >> okay. [ roll call. ] >> all right. congratulations. i'm very sad to see the grubstake close. a lot of history in the spot. >> it'll be coming back. >> the neighborhood won't be the same, but it'll be exciting. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. that's item number 8. item number 9, review and possible change the conditions for hue, located at 447 broadway. >> okay. commissioners, if you take a look in your file, there's a pretty hefty amount of paperwork. everything from our previous hearing is reincluded, and the

front of the paperwork, you will see documents from the entertainment commission. basically, the permit as it stands so 235far, the affidavi from the board of appeals so you can reference that as it's in the permit, hue's timeline as the inspector has updated. administrator timeline, and in the back is the new sound abatement test results, new from august that they've been complying with based on the board of appeals decision. and then there are a decent amount of documents here from mr. montoya, as you had requested, in regard to their soundproofing and sound mitigation plan, and then, there's a lot of letters in

there of support that were really from previous hearings, the board of appeals hearing that they had gathered. you'll then see newer documents from the police department. so i know it's a lot to go through. there's also letters from the neighbors, the diamonds, in particular, as well as dominick lemandry from the cbd, so let me know if you have any questions from that. just to refresh your memory from our previous hearing when we had to continue this, the permitee was asked to come back to commission today, you know, with a letter of recommendation including data from an independent sound expert or company. the sound mitigation plan, provide copies of that plan and notification to the neighbors, and also documentation in writing of security management.

so here to discuss a little bit more is mr. bloom and mr. montoya. [ inaudible ] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is robert bloom, and good evening, commissioners, and good evening, staff, and thank you for hearing this. and i ask your indulgence of my limitation now. i had surgery, and my right leg isn't working so well. and also impacts how i'm able to dress. so forgive my semi formality. i'll try to be brief because i know you're familiar with the circumstances, but there are some things i would like to highlight. mr. montoya and his wife, karen king, opened this club.

first, it was named atmosphere, for several years, in 2008, nearly ten years ago. i believe the record will show that he's a responsible and responsive owner. he's a good neighbor, and he does care about the community, and he does care about the neighbors. for a period, there were four successive captains in the central station. for a period of four years, there were no violations, no warnings, no problems. beginning in 2014, new captain took charge of the central station, captain lozar. that led to some problems, and

i'm not going to go into the details unless, of course, you want to know about them. i'm happy to tell you about them. as a result of some of the actions of captain lozar -- and again, i'm not going to go into them -- this commission was given information that there were a number of violations. there were evidentiary hearings before an administrative law judge in the context of an abc hearing. of the 52 alleged violations, eventually, the appeals board of the abc found that 4.5 of the 52 were sustainable -- less than 10%.

8.5%. they recommended no punishment. found it was not a disorderly house, and there have been other proceedings, however, other proceedings are pending. i believe it's fair to say that one of the, perhaps the most important and most significant impact before this commission was the fact that there were some 52 allegations. let me backtrack. one of the things that captain lozar did is he stationed a manned police car either directly in front of the club or directly across the street from the club. one of the consequences of that is whether there was any activity, fights, disorderly conduct, anywhere on that block, the very busy 400 block

of broadway, the complaint to cad was attributed to this club. i believe that was an important factor, and the findings of the administrative law judge and the abc appeals board rejected almost all of those complaints. excuse me one second. as a result in june, and then, effective in july, this commission limited live music after midnight i will tell t. i will tell the commissioners, and surely, you can understand, it has been devastating to the business of this club. the reason i attached or represented to the commission

six or eight letters of support from the african american chamber of commerce, from the naacp, and a number of organizations who have been served by this club, by mr. montoya, by his wife, and we've donated time and donated moneys from this club. he is indeed, a good neighbor, and this club is a good neighbor. when we were here last month, on the 5th, particularly commissioner lee, had a couple of particular issues. and one was noise and two was relationship with the neighbors -- i'm summarizing. there has been significant progress with regard to noise issues, and within the packet,

miss weiland is work that has been done by a highly respected sound engineer, kevin connor, and his cv and other information with -- and other aspects of his credentials are presented -- are before you. his company is known as bay city, and there's an invoice that is before you. most recently, the work was done as recently as five days ago, and mr. montoya can give you more particulars of that. kevin is not here. he is unable to make it because of other employment engagements, but he 134submitta report, and the report is before you as to the work that has been done. i -- to the extent that there

are further details with regard to noise abatement, i would defer to mr. montoya, who is obviously here, as are other people, who will identify themselves as they speak. so let me leave the noise issue for a moment and address the neighbor issues. i notice that in connection with a different issue, two of the commissioners, commissioner frost, and i believe it was commissioner perez -- i'm not sure -- and at one point, miss weiland asked if there was comment, is it one person complaining? and we found in this case, although there are people who chose to buy condos within walking distance, 20 yards, 20 steps of ten clubs, only one of the prime -- and i understand

it to be somewhere between five and eight other condo owners, the only condo owners who complained are mr. and mrs. diamond. whatever their reasons for complaining, i don't question, i don't have any information. i don't question their motivations, but it's curious, and i've noted with interest that, as i mentioned, that the question regarding other clubs and other issues isn't one complainant, and we really hold there, too, it's husband and wife. and i would ask the commission to take note of that. now they called -- they've called inspector burke on a number of occasions, and he went out, and he found in terms of noise complaints, the club was operating within the

complainant levels. i want to interrupt myself and go back. when the midnight limitation was imposed on the club, total compliance. at no time has there been any complaint that there's been any type of live entertainment that has took place after midnight. it's been very costly to their patronage. both their patronage and their corporations of private rentals, particularly during the holidays, it's been devastating. but despite the devastation, mr. montoya and his wife and the club have been 100% compliant on the limitation that was imposed upon them last summer. back to the neighbor issue. mr. mr. montoya has send two, maybe three e-mails to the diamond family, explaining the

work that has been done, explaining the ongoing work, and explaining what needs to be done. the club and mr. montoya, and miss king, his wife, with a positive force in this culture, in this community, of the endorsements, if you want to call them that, before you, attest to that. it's not just organizations that are well known, like the african american naacp, and the african american -- i correct myself, naacp, and the african american chamber of commerce, but there are smaller organizations that have benefited by the use of this club and by the input of mr. montoya and miss king. one last thing, my third point, also, i have submitted some

recent reports. none of them are of any significance. i think it was -- they were missi missing -- two cases of missing cell phones, which was resolved. in fact, the security force at the club, if a woman were to leave a purse or pocketbook hanging on a chair, they will take the purse, put it behind the bar, and when the woman comes and asks for it, there it is. they've done their best to avoid those kinds of situations. it's a responsible security organization and there's a representative here who can speak to that if the commissioners want to hear. there is one issue that i'd like to defer to mr. montoya. there was a violation, and i am less informed and less coerceant with the details -- with the violation. i think the actual violation

was on the 24th, and the actually violation was issued on the 27th. i feel that i can't present an adequate detailed explanation of what happened there, but i would call on mr. montoya to address the commission about that, please. >> if you guys have questions about that, i could address that. as far as everything else goes with the sound improvements that we've done, i can go into detail with that, as well. we've seen a significant drop in the decembibel levels that we've done with our alley rolling doors, which are three doors. we've also done a sound study, as well that we've got a lot of information of just on the broadway street that we're at.

>> you're talking about kevin o'connor's e-mail? >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear the question. could you say it again? i'm sorry. >> i said is the sound study the e-mail from kevin connor? is that the sound study? >> that is about the sound actual study that we have done. >> where is that? >> it should have been provided in your document. >> when did you submit that? >> it was e-mailed today? >> why is it getting e-mailed to us today? why not, like, a few days ago so we can have a chance to -- >> in order to complete the study -- i mean, the person that did the study is here, if you have questions for him, as well. i have the report here, as well. >> i think -- can we see that report? >> it's more of a -- >> can i see that, too, because i don't know if i received that. >> right after that.

>> and i printed everything you sent. >> this is not the whole report, this is just the memorandum. >> oh . this is from mr. pauli. this is in the back. >> you've got one. >> kevin connor's is just the timeline of what he has done and what has been recently done. >> okay. so when i'm reading kevin o'connor's on january 10th, he said he turns the music up as loud as he could, but doesn't say how high. how high is as high as he could? it's very vague. what is the internal decibel in order not to bleed out? >> sorry about that.

inspector burke reporting. the internal sound limit is 98 decibel a-weighted and 110 decibels c weighted, and that's designed to keep them in compliance with the city's code. in this particular case, i can test compliance in the alley using the city's code. >> well, i'm just saying is the report, whatever the report should say is if you play it -- i'm talking about independent study now. if you play it at that level, what is the readings outside the alley or whatever the problems are happening? and i don't have anything. >> so maybe i can try to clarify what i -- what i read, what -- the external ambient

level at broadway and roland is 80 decibels, so they were required to stay within 80 decibels c-rated along the alley. >> so in order to stay within that, they have a certain rating that they cannot go any higher than a certain level, correct? >> i asiphsigned them an inter level to help them prevent exceeding the ambient level outside. >> and what is that? >> the ambient level outside is 80. >> no, inside. >> 98 a and 110 c. what i read in the report from kevin o'connor is if he now turns their system up as loud as it will go, they are in compliance with the ambient --

>> 80 decibel. >> correct. >> you concur? >> i have not been on-site since... >> just, i ask inspector burke to hold off on giving them a new level at this time. >> well, first of all, they're saying their soundproofing is only 90% complete. we like to have it all completed and then rechecked just to have a -- >> if i could respond to the 90%. the only thing that's missing on the 10% on that is an actual sound -- sound sweep, an automatic sound sweep to one of the doors. not even -- it's not our external doors. >> do you expect us to wait or just approve it without the door sweep? what happens if it's not the door sweep? >> well, there's a total of three doors.

two doors that are external to roland alley. the one that's missing is an internal door that goes to the second external door of roland avenue. all the external doors have been completed. now the internal door that are missing that sweep, it's a special order. it was a 48-inch door. it had to be made, with that, it's going to help with the decibels. so with what has been done already, 90% of it, it has already dropped the decibels reading from three to seven decibels. i would like to say this is just an added bonus that we're doing to try to make it as soundproof as possible, what we're thinking was recommended to us by sound consultants to -- or to -- where the

leakage is. right now, this is something that we're doing to find the leakage. before that, i'd like to note, though, that we have always been in compliance for ten years in the alleyway or in just compliance in general. this is just something that we're doing to help improve our -- >> but you just got a ticket. >> yeah, and we could address that, as well. i mean, there's a number of things that we've found that are inaccurate with that ticket. >> okay. you want to tell us? >> from paperwork -- numerous paperwork from the report to the name on the ticket to the case study to where we have found that the -- to where the level was actually taken, and to where the case study is showing that in the alley with is actually the sound waves are getting increased.

i did not speak to more in detail about it, but the person that did do the case study for us is here, if you would like to ask him questions about that. >> okay. >> hello. commission. my name is jordan pauli. you guys know me well. i'm a regulatory consultant. it's getting a little crazy right now, but i wanted to get it to a point where you guys could really understand it in a very simple way. so if you have any questions, specific questions, i'll answer them, but we can talk specifically about sound in the alley and some of the issues that i found. i have data, but i just takes time to turnaround a report. we just finished last week. >> okay. obviously, you see when rdr's come in here and they're sound -- >> no. i'm not even -- i get that -- >> i mean if you guys are not ready and prepared, why don't you continue instead of everybody coming here, and we have to listen to this again, but i'm just saying.

i'm open to give you back whatever. it's all like -- the data's very loose. >> sure. >> you're telling me -- >> i'm not telling you what you should do. i'm trying to help the commission understand the issue the best that i can as help. >> i think at this point, i think the commission wants data. >> sure, sure. >> in writing. if you put your name to it, let's have the data, that's all. we hear a lot, and we've -- >> no, of course. >> and -- >> of course, of course. >> it's a matter of trust issue, and instead of like he said, she said, whatever, let's put it in writing. >> of course. >> let's have the data so we c can analysize it. >> if we could work together outside of the hearing so we can set parameters. the point of what i'm trying to

do is make sure the questions that i discovered at my work deal with this issue. >> that's fine. >> let me finish. let me finish. the parameters are set in a way that brings accuracy to the report. i love the commission. i'm not here to make anyone look bad or nothing like that. >> well, i want to -- >> let me finish. i think maggie does fine work, and sean does fine work. i think when sean comes out, we'll bring clarity to the sound issue. one of the issues is there's a standing wave issue. and basically what happens is at a certain level -- the study is not -- they were closed one weekend, and we came out and we did some sound tests, and we found there were sound waves, and the sound distortion in the alley is the easiest way to think about it. now, at the same time i thought it was going to take time to

compile a report, something that you can get behind or -- >> let me ask you a question. >> sure. >> so if you're saying the standing wave is causing the influx of level to go up, so what happens if we wait for that standing wave, and we set the level when that standing kw wave hits. i'm just saying, that could lower your internal decibel if you're going by the standing wave. >> that's something i need to write a report about, because trying to explain it off the cuff, there's no way where i'm going to be able to explain it in an intelligible level, especially under these circumstances. what probably needs to happen, and it's up to you and it's up to staff, we need to sit down and go over some of these things and go out and do a follow ups set of tests. but given the tests that were

done about mr. o'connor last week, they're going to be fine. we brought the sound level to maybe 76 at the peaks. it was 74, 75, 76 at the peaks. >> what was playing on the inside. >> various, like, a play list from spotify. >> no, what's the decibel? >> in the main room, it's anywhere from 100 to 107. >> when kevin was in the back, you were playing it at 107. >> what do you mean, in the back. >> well in the alley, where not the noise was leaking. >> yes, in the main room, the interior. >> so you were playing it at 107. >> anywhere from 100 to 107. in the front room, we're looking at 95, anywhere from 90 to 95. >> okay. so in a report, especially if kevin's going to do an e-mail, it would be nice if he tells us what decibel he's playing it at so we can -- because he doesn't say. he just said he can turn it up

as loud as he wants. >> well, i think in the report he said he can turn it up as loud as it can go to where it doesn't peak over the ambient that was given to us. >> i have some questions here, and they're actually more for the director and inspector burke. so it seems like the sound is causing serious issues for the neighbors named the diamonds. are they -- when the initial readings were taken, were they -- was their house part of the equation or their front stoop when the initial limits were set? >> inspector burke here? >> i have been inside the residence. sound levels inside their residence did not factor into the establishment ambient level, nor the setting of the internal limit. >> yeah.

>> i have -- i've experienced what -- what it sounds like, what it feels like in their unit, but i stick very closely to the code and the instrument in my method alleology. >> but they were playing their internal music at the legal limit that you set when you took the reading in the apartment? >> i didn't take a reading in the apartment. i entered the apartment to get -- gain knowledge about their experience and have a discussion with them about their experience with the -- with the sound coming from hue. i wanted to gauge -- >> have we done an actual reading in their apartment? >> we have not. that's not required by code? >> so in this case, the -- >> the code only speaks to at the property playing of establishment. >> we've gone into neighbors

having these issues. >> we have, and i think that in the past, when we -- the code does not speak going into residences and doing readings. you know, it really speaks to at the property plane, and so it's a little tricky because when we do go into neighbor's residences and take a reading, what part of the code does that speak to, how can we regulate that? we can't. we would have to justify that with a change in code, honestly, so -- >> yeah. and then, when you say the soundproofing's 90% done, when the soundproofing's finished, we're going to go in and set new limits. >> we can go in any time and test. it's all science. >> the idea would be wait until they're finished -- >> my idea was to hold off

because this was last tuesday i believe when i spoke to mr. bloom, and he said they were going to be having this hearing on wednesday. sean could come out after that time and have another meeting with the sound engineer. based on what the commission said, i thought it was best they use their independent contractor and that we would wait. i could take my guidance from you guys this evening to have sean set a new limit or we could do that independently -- it's based on science, so if they've made any improvements, it will likely reflect in a higher reading, but i -- i basically just wanted to bring this before your guys's attention before i made any move. >> can i add something about 90%? the internal soundproofing is 100% done. >> i understand, yeah. i'm just thinking for your own sake. >> gotcha.

>> if you're going to get another reading, you probably want to make sure that's 100% done, not 90% done, but i understand what you're saying, that it could lead to a higher rating, which probably could create its own set of circumstances that would then have to be mitigated. >> can i add one thing, too? we have no intention of trying to raise our sound level in our venue. we have no intention of that. i don't think anybody has an intention. somebody the d.j.'s get deaf. >> it's not possible for our rating for the d.j. to turn it up with our compressor and our limiter. if the d.j. cranks it up as allowed as he wants on the mixer, it is not possible for the d.j. to make it go over the levels that we have set. >> can i ask another question

through the director? let's say the soundproofing's finished, and we set a time to have a new sound test done and perhaps a new limit set. outside of the science, which is the code, what other -- what other options do we have as a commission? what kind of conditions, etcetera, do we have? trying to help the situation? >> just to kind of clarify, i think as a commission, you would have to take action to lift the board of appeals condition which set them at, you know, ambient at the property plan, which is not what our code says. our code says they can be eight above ambient at the property plan, so if we went out and did a test, i would want your guidance on whether or not we're having sean, you know, keep it at ambient at the property plane, and based on, you know, whatever work they did inside, their reading could go up.

it could go up significantly though, if you were to condition it back to code at eight above ambient at the property plan, so that's why i would really want your guidance. am i answering your question? >> that's good. it seems like the sound issues to me, it seems like they may be within code, but it's still causing serious, serious issues for certain neighbors of yours. that seems to be unarguable. >> which we've seen in other places, though, as well. >> yeah, and it may be that it would be worth a change to the code, but that's not our purview. >> well, we are -- this is a totally separate topic, but we have been working with dph on making improvements to the code in regard to how -- the sound. >> if we were to grant them the

ability to operate, if we were later back to the original hours, it's kind of a nightmare snow area that they could turn their music up, which people would find probably -- people would find probably for other reasons for you to be here, and it would never end. i'm thinking what options do we have to make sure that doesn't happen. >> i just want to make one clarifying point. inspector burke. so if they don't have an intention -- if they don't have a need to become louder inside the venue, if they're happy with their current level inside, and they're doing improvements to outside, there's no reason for an additional sound test. the ambient stays the same, their limit stays the same. the sound abatement improves. >> but it's still getting -- we still got a ticket, you know what i mean? i mean, it would be nice just

to have here's the data, they're in code. we took it at these levels, regardless of the standing wave. they're in compliance to the plane, and we're done. >> and this ticket was issued before this work was completed. >> huh? >> just for timeline sake -- >> yeah, so now that it's almost done, make sure that you're finished, and let's take that final reading and get that data. >> i think there's something that internally by itself and our sound engineering should be working with sean and maggie and the director because of our studies that we have found, and i mean, i don't think this is the time and place to go into the details about this, but i think we should be working about this violation as well. >> here's what i think. i don't think we're in a position at this point -- and correct me if i am wrong -- to rule on the hour restrictions, or the conditions that were put on there.

i don't. i think -- i think you've done a lot of the work. i think you're close. i think there's some sound reports that haven't had a chance to be compiled yet. you still have a few things to add onto the end. it seems like you have done a significant amount of work, and i commend you for that. it's not easy. i would not feel comfortable personally yet ruling or making a ruling when they're close. to me, it would be very helpful if -- you know, if we were to delay this or put it off, and the next time, if there was a more coherent presentation or method of where we're at based on data, which we need -- >> as far as the data goes, what exactly -- are you guys wanting the actual interval data of the time samples. >> that's something you can

work out with director weiland. >> so just to clarify, this is something that is usually done by a third party contractor, but you know, we -- >> we can look at the sample and see what we get. >> i can share with you some versions of that that we receive on our end, and i'm happy to offer inspector burke to go out. we actually included in our legislation sound requirement c. it's almost better i think to have an outside party for this. >> so let me make a suggestion. like the last, the previous applicant, with the grubstake, their sound was checked. i guess they have a meter just sat there, and it recorded from 6:00 a.m., all the way for 24 hours, and they gave us the data. but the neighbors, they see

that you're in compliance, you've got that data. how can the neighbors kind of like fight the actual data? now, the data shows that you're not in compliance, then, we have to find out where that leak is coming from so then that data is taken care of. >> so this is -- >> for both parties: for yourself. you won't have to take these calls from the neighbors if you're in compliance, and we don't have to continue to -- >> if i'm not mistaken, was this not done before with my entertainment permit before? >> no, not -- not in this detail. usually, the inspector goes out, and now -- which he's doing, and then -- but there's still a leak. >> with -- when we first got our entertainment permit, there was intense research with sampling done. we have not had a violation since that date. >> but you have done some

remodelling. >> i've had done remodelling, and in each remodelling, we have more soundproofing. >> okay. maybe you're not missing something. >> i am not missing anything because we are in compliance. there's going to be data that -- >> well, if you're getting -- give us the data -- >> where you take a sound measurement to see if someone is in compliance is not in -- you have to be four -- perthe code, you have to be a certain amount of feet away from the venue. you also cannot be standing next to a wall, which will amplify it more than six decibels just by standing next to a wall. >> okay. so if we get an independent sound person to -- to say -- say if that's the case. i don't know how it's tested, but we just need data. whether -- we just want to -- >> the data that is in front of you guys right now is not enough data?

>> not enough. >> and also, you say it's 90% complete. >> external, the external soundproofing is 100% done on both doors. the internal -- i should say morli morlike -- more like 98%. >> i have a letter in my packet that said we're 90% completely. bear with us. once we get finished, you won't hear us. i'm saying once you get everything. >> before we did this soundproofing, we were in compliance. we've been in compliance. we've been in compliance for this ten years, before we did

this most recent soundproofing. >> but obviously, there's a problem. >> so that 's what you have that's going for you. i think that's why everybody wants to find an amiable solution that you're happy with. unfortunately for us, we have a multiple set of concerns that we have to take into account, right, and one of them is the letter of the law and the code, which we cann enforce to a certain rate. but another one, we sat here i think it was six months ago for the hearing, and there was an incredible amount of evidence, and you may argue every single point, and you may completely disagree with it, right, and i'm sure you do. but there were an incredible amount of people who were saying very consistent things about what's going on at hue and how it's being operated, etcetera. and we have to balance both of those things together. you have to feel like you've been dragged around the streets

in an unfair way, but we -- you know, we're trying to balance, two very important things. and in order for us to make a decision for you that you're happy with, we have to have every single box checked at this point, right? and you know you say it's 100% done on the outside, it's 90% on the inside, we need that finished. if you're going to have jordan come up here and talk about the data, we actually need to see that data. it's like the last check box on this thing. that's the way i feel. but that provides you and it provides us all the justification that we need to then make a decision that maybe you're happier with. that's the way i see things here. i would like to hear public comment on this. i -- and have other people present here, but i don't have anymore specific questions for

you guys. but you just have to understand when that many people come out, we have to behave in a certain way, and we have to be very careful because there's a lot of pateople who care about thi unfortunately, for us. >> may i ask a question? >> yeah. >> maybe i'm misunderstanding but my sense is you're conflating that many people come out with the noise issue. >> no. we have to make sure everything is covered, right? and if -- a lot of the complaints that people had were around noise issues, right, so now, we have to make sure that everything is completely compliant. they were, and they were. we heard them. they commented, right? >> we're not addressing anything but noise, now. >> i'm sorry? >> we're only addressing noise. but commissioner seemed to indicate that many people -- it wasn't about noise. it was about fights happening. >> a lot of it was noise.

a significant portion of it was noise. some of it was about the fights and the police incidents, but a lot of it was noise. >> of the 52 complaints that was filed and submitted to this commission and to the abc by the police and officer mathis, 4.5 out of 52 were substantiated, 8%. so when you say -- and it's our position that because of the positioning of the police car, the reports, the incidents were attributed to this club. that has been substantiated. that position has been substantiated by the abc appeals board. >> sorry to interrupt. it has also not been -- been substantiated by the abc, it has been substantiated by this commission. commissioner tan was part of that board, and it showed all the inaccuracies o