>> i motion to approve the permit with the good neighborhood policy, all police conditions, and that's it. >> and -- >> oh, and planning, of course. is there a second? >> i second. >> commissioner perez? [ roll call ] >>clerk: motions passes. >> your permit is granted conditionally. congratulations and please follow-up with director weiland for the next steps. thank you. moving along, one more item in our general permit calendar. >>clerk: okay, so final permit application for the evening is a place of entertainment and billiard parlor permit, and this is for jolene's located at 2700 16th street.

i'm excited about this new addition to the mission neighborhood. this is going to be an lgbt-queer bar, and i think it's really great any time we see anything that's adding to the lgbt community, and so without further adieu, mark is here this evening, along with the three partners from the business. so take it away, mark. >> president bleiman, commissioners, and now executive director weiland, i'm here tonight with alicia jolene linsangan and ashley wilson and shannon amatan. they are the partners and are currently building this space out. as maggie noted, this is a new queer bar and restaurant. it's located in the northeast section of the mission, sort of close to -- close to the spca

over there and the portrero center. right on the bus line. a million buses go back and forth and stop right in front of the building. the -- i'll just touch on, excuse me, this neighborhood is a former heavy industrial area, now zoned production description and repair. not a whole lot of neighbors in terms of residences, but there is one sort of condo unit sort of catty corner. other than that, dandelion chocolate and sort of big spaces, outreach, always important. we've reached out to all the neighbors and businesses in the area, but last night we held a -- if i could get a little --

we held a community meeting and about ten people showed up. this will give you an idea what the space looks like. it's going to be nice. haven't got the chairs in and everything, but it's a fairly large kitchen. space holds about 250 people. and actually was well attended. i was surprised. so, community meeting, met with doug mcneil, who's the president of the northeast mission business association, nmba they call themselves. seem to be pretty active. i didn't run into a lot of other groups in my research, however, our crew is on the agenda for their september 27th meeting to give a presentation. and if you have any questions, we're here. oh, there will be a pool table also. come on by.

>> hi. >> hey. >> i live two blocks away from here up until april, and i no longer live two blocks away from there, so i'm a little sad you're opening a queer space when i could have frequented a lot easier, but i'll come by once we make sure this passes. question for you all. is there a dance floor? it says there's deejay entertainment and dance performances. are you envisioning more of like a nightclub type of space, or is it, like, stages with dance performances? kind of just paint a picture of what we can expect or a patron can expect if you walk in. >> yeah, so the space is kind of divided between like a restaurant/lounge area, and then there is a back room kind of tucked in the building that has no exposed wall to the exterior. that's where the deejay setup will be, and there will be a small dance floor.

>> got it, okay. sounds like even though you're serving food, will that, like, end at a certain point? or how is that going to work with all that? >> we'll have food from 4:00 to midnight on weeknights, and we will do a brunch starting at 10:00 a.m. on weekends that will serve into the evening hours until midnight. >> okay, great. yeah, i think it was a great space, and i think having more queer things outside of the castro and soma are wonderful additions to the city, so i look forward to it. thank you. >> can you give us an idea of the kind of programming you're intending on having there? so the kind of music. i'm sure there will be deejays, et cetera, but are you also thinking live music, et cetera? >> so, jolene has been running women's events in the city for about ten years and has also been involved in queer events for probably just as long, so we

will be doing deejay setup, we'll also be doing a lot of community events. we work closely with nclr and women's march and things like that, so art shows they want to do and community outreach, but primarily we'll have different nights focused for promotors within the community that want to do fashion shows, deejay events, things of that nature. >> got it. and from your community last night, what was the general sense from the community? generally supportive? >> everyone's excited. we didn't have any negative comments at all, actually. >> anymore questions? you may have a seat. thank you very much. >> thanks. >> we're going to open up public comment for this agenda item. is there anybody from the public who'd like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. we'll open it up for commissioner discussion and for

potential motions. >> i'd like to move to approve this permit for both billiards and a place of entertainment to jolene's with place conditions. let me double check that. >> they didn't provide any. >> they didn't provide any. with general conditions, which is our good neighbor policy, so that's my motion. >> second. [ roll call ] >>clerk: motion passes. >> the permit is conditionally granted. congratulations. please follow up with director weiland with your next steps. thank you. and that -- all right, and the

next item is number eight, which is the review and possible action to change the conditions on place of entertainment permit ec-953, dba hue. >> okay, everyone. so, if you pull out your -- this item in your binder, it begins with a notice to appear. that's just how i formalized the permit holder's request to come to hearing this evening to present to you on why they would like you to consider a potential change in their permit conditions. specifically, the purpose of this hearing is for you to consider revising the conditions listed on their permit as hours of entertainment are limited currently until 12:00 a.m. sundays through thursdays and 1:00 a.m. on fridays and saturdays. and so in your packet, as well, you will see a letter from mr.

bloom, who is the attorney for permit holder bennett montoya, who's here this evening, as well as documents from central station permit officer steve matthias. he has included two cad reports here and one arrest report from may 27th, 2018, which was just after we heard hue the last time. i also sent you video clips from that evening, just to let everyone know i have provided all of this documentation and information to the permit holder, as well. we also did receive one letter from a neighbor nearby from the diamonds that you'll see in your packet, as well as one complaint from the same complainant from within that time period since we

last heard hue here at the commission. and finally, i did receive a letter that i passed out to all of you about a half hour ago from supervisor peskin's office, so that should be taken as part of the file, and i did just provide that to the permit holder, as well. we should note that they weren't a party to this agenda item. i did ask both the police department and the permit holder to provide any comments on this item at least a week in advance, which they both did do. and without further adieu, mr. bloom and bennett montoya. >> thank you. good evening, i am robert bloom. hello again, nice to see you. i have a few things to say. what's this about? what's going on here? 15 months there have been a limitation, a devastating limitation on this man's

business for no reason. he has done everything he's supposed to do. he's done it right. he's done what he can do. it has devastated his business, and there is no reason to continue this. i'd like to know why it should be continued. and i want to say what i think it's about. he opened this business during business's atmosphere ten years ago in 2008. it's in the central station of the san francisco police department. the same station, by the way, that former commissioner frost's son has a high-up position. something that should have been an issue, something that should have been disclosed 15 months ago, but it was not, so let's leave that for another moment. since 2008 to 2014 there were four, count them four separate captains from that precinct, from that station. not a problem with any of them.

he, mr. montoya, got along with all of them. there were no warnings, no complaints, nothing, until captain comes along, and captain lazar said on more than one occasion to bennett and the presence of one other person, your hip hop music that you bring here, it is bringing in the wrong crowd, a crowd we don't want. that's called racism. that's racism in san francisco. that's what this is about. captain lazar is a racist person, who did racist things. and one of his underlings is here, and he implemented certain racist aspects of what happened here and the punishment that has been forced upon my client, all my clients. that's what's happened here. and you know how we know that?

not just because i say it, but a few weeks ago, the avc appeals board made a finding and expressed opinion well detailed, well documented, that hue and mr. montoya were selective prosecution, selective enforcement. that's the finding, that is the only finding so far in this case. now it is pending, as you know, a federal civil rights action, 1983 action, that we filed before district court judge dinardo. he has been considering the city's motion to dismiss, and he has not decided yet. there are three defendants in this case. the city of san francisco, captain lazar, who's now been promoted to commander, and officer matthias.

those are the three defendants, and there has been, as i say, i repeat, there's been a finding of selective enforcement against this club, against my clients, for the reason stated as expressed by lazar. wrong crowd, a crowd we don't want. basically, niggers, that's what this is about. this is the 21st century. a real decent, wonderful city of san francisco, and captain lazar and the police department want to stop black people from coming to the 400 block of broadway. that is what this is about. face it. you may not like it. nobody likes it. i don't like it. mr. montoya doesn't like it, but

that is what this is about. now, the mechanisms used by captain lazar was he stationed a manned police car in front of or across the street from this club. two-fold purpose, one, is to intimidate black people, because as you are aware, there's been a history, including a recent history, of san francisco police department acting in a racist manner against african-american people. that has happened. you may recall there are two, let's call them, texting incidents, where hilariously, and i say that in quotes, san francisco police officers texted racist messages to each other. that happened.

that was whitewashed by the city of san francisco, swept under the rug. well, fortunately, the united states department of justice had a report more than a year ago where they found extreme racism on the part of the san francisco police department consistent with what has happened here. that's what this is about, and you'll have punished by your order 15 months ago, you have punished mr. montoya and the club and everybody associated with the club. and it's been done based on particular false documents. the second reason the police car, manned police car, was located by captain lazar was utilized in the efficacy -- sorry, the actions of the defendant in the federal case, matthias. he submitted some 52 reports to

you and to the abc. the abc appeals board eventually after evidentiary hearings before an administrative law judge found that only four and a half of 52 complaints against this club could be validated. that's 92% not valid, 8% valid. and that was a part of a decision of the abc appeals board, that what was submitted by mr. matthias to you, for your consideration, that you considered or were available for your consideration in june 15 months ago, that was before you. that's what happened here. and as a result of that, and other things that i'm going to talk about, you decided to basically devastate the business of mr. montoya and his club. that's what you did. and if it can be argued that at

the time you didn't know those 52 reports, 92% of which were false and invalid, if you did not know then, you know now that those are fake reports, false, fraudulent, fake, phony, dishonest. moving on to another subject. weiland has indicated that mr. and mrs. diamond have a complaint about noise. first thing i want to say about that is, when you move to a venue, when you move to a condo, which is the busiest entertainment block in the city, you're going to expect there's going to be noise. the people who sold them that should have told them that, they should have known that, and here they are. nobody wants noise, but mr. montoya has given them, the diamonds, his cell phone number, and he's given them the cell

phone numbers of several staff members. on four or five occasions, i want to make this clear, every time there's been a noise problem, mr. and mrs. diamond has called. they have turned down the volume. but let me say this, never, never once, has there been a violation of the decibels, the level of decibels that have been mandated. never once. never once. never once. now, yeah, the thumping, the bass is a problem. so call. and mr. montoya, every single time he's gotten a call, he has turned down the bass and there's not been a problem. that's what you do. police code, article 29 talks about repeat complainers. what we have here, mr. diamond, a repeat complainer. he's supposed to be ignored if there's not a problem, and

there's not a problem. there's never been a violation, a noise violation. there's never been a determination, as far as i understand it. i stand to be corrected if i'm wrong about that. send people out. send the -- mr. burke, if he gets called, he's supposed to go out. mr. montoya can give you further details about that. sound is not an issue. rowdiness, let's talk about what happened on may 27th. on may 27th, there was an incident involving a gun -- somebody firing a weapon. mr. montoya himself called 911. he called 911. i'm going to say it a third time. he called 911. and when the police came to investigate, mr. montoya had one of the security employees assist him in identifying the person.

that's called being a good neighbor, doing what you're supposed to do, doing what they had to do, doing what they were required to do. they could not do any more than that. they can't chase the person, they can't arrest them, they called the police, mr. montoya personally called the police. he did what he was supposed to do. i'm almost finished. these documents and photographs that were sent to the commission and by officer matthias, they depict a discussion, an argument, just outside a store, a convenience store, across the street from this club. it had nothing to do with this

club, nothing. now, even assuming that maybe one of the people may have been in that club, i wonder if i today, right now, i'm allowed in this room. i have been in this room, i have license to do what i'm doing here. what if i go out in the hallway and i shoot somebody? does that mean everybody in this room is responsible for what i do outside this room? of course, not. it's absurd. that's absurd, and that's what they are doing with this club. anybody who may have been a customer in this club, i don't know if he or she was or was not, but you cannot hold a person responsible for something that somebody who'd been a patron in your club did not do in the club, and indeed, there was cooperation, as i said several times, by mr. montoya and his security staff. i don't know what you expect of him. what is the reason -- what is

the reason, limited hours, what is that about? what is that about? how does that deal with the noise? how does that deal with the rowdiness? we're talking about people drinking, people coming out of these clubs all at the same time. that's the problem. the police, that's when they should have a presence there. last time we were here, officer matthias told us something that was not subject to cross-examination, that there was not a police presence at closing time on the night of st. patrick's day, and he told a story about, well, there was a fire in north beach earlier in the day. well, wasn't somewhat earlier in the day, it was 12 hours earlier in the day. had nothing to do with why there was not a police presence. if there's ever going to be a police presence, it should be at 1:30 or 2:00 a.m., at closing

time when these clubs get out. that's one police officer in uniform, whether it's officer matthias or anybody else, or former commissioner frost's son. anybody in uniform could obviate the problems that are caused by everybody full of alcohol gets out in the street. so, if there's going to be some action, it should be against the police department. now, of course, we'll answer any questions. pardon my tongue, but this is really gotten me agitated. this is really wrong what has happened. it has devastated his business, when this civil rights action in federal court gets resolved, i'm hoping for some positive results, especially in light of the clear and detailed and well reasoned finding by the abc appeals board, which i hope you have a chance to read. you want to speak? let me sit down here. it will take me a moment.

>> commissioners, i know you're all tired, so i'll make this brief. but i am also tired. not just tired right now, i'm tired of the past four years that i've been put through. i'm tired of the lies, sit here and listen to the false reports that are presented to you guys. you know, in 2014 this same commission when i was up here, commissioner tan and commissioner lee, you were on the commission, as well, and i took cab reports that were given to me, line-by-line, compared them with video, our own video, compared them with a third-party security company on the street, and compared them with our reports, our own security reports, and showed there were false supports. commissioner joseph at the time even stated that really brings

into question how these police reports are generated. there are a lot of discrepancies between these videos and police reports. sfpd later, as mr. bloom stated, brought 52 accusations and revoked my liquor license. four and a half of those had merit. we're talking about 90% that were dismissed. just recently, as we stated earlier, the abc board of appeals ruled that sfpd was selectively targeting my venue. in june of 2017 this commission ruled to commission my permit of 65 cads. that's nine years of no violations, no sound violations, and commissioner lee even touched base on c-mac about how cad reports don't necessarily represent what's going on. roughly 80% of those 65 cads that were presented to you guys,

matter of fact, this was from 2015 to 2017, we're talking about three years here. about 80% of those had nothing to do with you. in fact, out of these 65 cads, only six police reports were made, that's in three years. from that time period of 2015 to 2017, well over 100,000-plus patrons have patronized our venue in those three years, meaning that we are operating at less than 1% of incidents happening per patron that came to my venue. as far as sound goes, we have always operated with our guidelines and we stand strongly that we have never been outside our sound guidelines given to us by this commission. i have a simple question of why hasn't this commission had an inspector come out and run tests on my venue? why haven't we got our neighbors

together and run a test? from 2008, that was the last time. just to give you guys a little update on sound, every night we take our test, video, take pictures, they are e-mailed to me every night by our staff. the space is taken pictures of outside to make sure that it's clean, neighborly, just so we have that documented. i'm here to answer any other questions, but i'm just tired. tired and frustrated what this has done to my family, our business. i'm here to answer any questions, if you guys have questions. >> thank you both for coming up. i am curious what you're asking for today. are you asking to have no

conditions on your permit in terms of, like, hours? i see you're nodding. what are you asking for? >> i'm asking for my conditions to go back to what they were before in 2008. >> seven days a week, 2:00 a.m. >> great. from my memory, i think there was a sound test done at least a year or two ago, and that you passed, and that, you know, despite complaints from neighbors, you were in compliance. and i don't think that was the issue that we were the most concerned about. you know, we are on this commission concerned about sound, making sure that you keep it within the limits, but also about security, and i think that's where -- i hear what you're saying, i remember the cad reports not matching and, you know, maybe they are located at your intersection, but they didn't always triangulate back

to you, but i think the most recent conditions that we put on there really resulted from seeing that evidence that your security wasn't the tightest. and so just so you know, the way i'm thinking about it, as time goes on, i think i want to see a record that is clean, where we don't have more incidents, more complaints. to me that shows that you're finding some sort of equilibrium with your neighbors and the neighborhood and the police. and i hear what you're saying about, you know, i'm not here to support any sort of racist police system. i know there's some evidence towards that. i know that you guys have your suit, and i can't really speak to that. i think what we're concerned about is making sure that there's safe -- a safely run nightclub, a safely run street that draws in patrons. i'm kind of curious, you know, i don't want to get into the second amendment or anything, but people have the right to have guns in this country.

how do you try to make sure that they are not in your venue or within the proximity of your venue? because that's eventually what sort of the police come to us and say, hey, shots were fired. whether or not that was related to you, how do you as a community member and as a business that, you know, gets people from all over the bay area coming to your nightclub, how do you make sure that they are not bringing these kind of weapons? >> we've never had a weapon in our venue. we have metal wands, and we do full pat-downs and search bags. we have never had a gun or a dangerous weapon in our venue. >> right. they might keep it in their car or something. >> or there might be people who don't even attend -- enter my

venue, which has happened a lot in the north beach area in the past couple of years, past couple months, you know, happens up the street, happens down the street. i don't know why that doesn't ever get discussed. that happens. >> yeah, i mean, i think it's a wider community issue that, you know, you're not the only person that's a stakeholder in that neighborhood to talk about. and i don't like that anyone would want to scapegoat any one place or any one industry, but, you know, there's a role that you have to play, and i'm kind of curious, this is stepping away from just thinking about the conditions on your permit, but this is a concern of the community. >> very serious concern. it's a very serious concern not just for the community, for me, for the safety of my staff, for the safety of me, for the safety of the community, for me to run a business. it's a huge concern. and i don't think it's just a concern just for one person. it's everyone's.

>> i'll have more questions or comments later, but i just wanted to kind of at least start off by saying, you know, i think we are here to try to support the night life community and night life operators, and that, you know, i think there's two sides to every story, and we're going to try to uncover that the rest of this hearing. >> so, i want to just say for myself, i don't base my opinions on cad reports, even when i ran a club, i felt the same way about cad reports, and i stand everything i say about cad reports in whether it's c-mac or anything, it's all about the evidence, okay. what i saw on the video, you didn't have enough security, in my opinion. whatever happened to make my decision wasn't racist. my decision as an operator, i see poor security planned outside that venue when that incident happened.

now, that's my opinion. and i don't know if they have the experience, but i've been in this position before at my own business, and for my opinion, mine was based on poor security planning. you didn't have enough security. why did it put a condition on your permit to say you had to have at least six security guards outside? i mean, that's basically my opinion. and again with the sound issue. the sound issue was a physical problem, okay, and according to our inspector, he said he was out there making the tests. or not that you wouldn't have gotten, you know -- well, i have to remember, been so many times if you did get a violation or not, but obviously there was an issue where you had to spend some money on getting your soundproofing done. if you had such a strong case

that sound wasn't an issue, then why even do it? anyway, i'm just saying we're going to get further, if we are going to get further, but this is how i based my opinion, and whether you showed me videos on your side that counteracts what the police were showing me, but me as a club owner or former club owner, i wouldn't have run my security. i wouldn't let people hang out front. i would get them on their way, and that's my own opinion, that's not theirs. that's how i base my vote. >> can i respond, please? as far as the security goes, i would love to send you the video that wasn't shown of all our security helping out and saving probably someone's life that night. and i would like -- i would like to, you know, point out that there was a huge issue up the street separate that we're not even talking about on st. paddy's day. as far as the sound goes, as far

as making improvements to something that we have already within our limits, we're doing that to be a good neighbor. we're doing that to decrease the sound even more, even though we are under the sound limitations that were supposed to be, that we are given by you guys. as far as there actually being a sound test, no, there hasn't been an actual sound test since 2008. we've been presented with something. we've been presented with being at 110 dbs inside, which i have, which after running tests myself, have realized that we can't be running 110 inside, because that would put us over our limit. >> bottom line is, you got approved, our sound inspector had to give you the grace period and say, yes, they are in compliance. so there has to be some kind of official test. >> in 2008, yes. >> no, you just got -- before you got kicked back, we let you have your sound -- we patched your sound, and we did give you

that extension back to at least to 130. >> what i'm telling you -- >> you're telling me there's no official sound, from the city, our inspectors that go there to give you your permit, there's no official -- you're telling us there's no official -- they are not official? >> i'm not saying at all they are not official. >> you're saying we didn't give you an official sound check. >> i'm telling you, commissioner lee, there was not a sound test done. i was presented with a piece of paper, a permit, saying what our sound level should be at. that's what i'm telling you. i'm not saying at all that you guys are not official. you guys are 100% official. >> what we're saying, there is no violation. there is no finding of any sound violation by anybody, nobody, nobody. this commission has not found a violation. >> you appealed this, didn't you, sir? >> appeal what? >> this whole process that we did something wrong, that if there was a problem with our

sound check, or there's no violation, if you don't agree with our findings, you would go to the board of appeals. >> what is the finding? can you cite a finding that there was a sound violation? >> funny that you mention that, because we did appeal that and we haven't heard anything back. i have the documentation here. >> i'm sorry, can i interject? i'm so confused. what did you appeal, and also last year when we went to board of appeals -- okay. huh, all right. >> it's a certified mailed certificate saying that you received it, as well. >> that we received this? >> not necessarily you as far as the commission, but where it is sent to the city as far as the board of appeals. >> okay. i'll have to look at this, bennett, because this is the first time i've seen this, and i don't know exactly what this is from, so this is from december of last year? >> yes. >> that's right. >> okay. and you appealed this to us, or

to board of appeals? >> board of appeals. >> so you've got -- it's all written in here that you can appeal, okay. >> as you can see -- >> why wouldn't you have reached out to me about this? >> because that's the way you're supposed to appeal. that's what they tell you, appeal by filing something with the court of appeals. >> mr. bloom -- being yelled at, thank you, i think we can communicate by talking. okay, this is the first time i've seen this, fyi. thanks. we came and did a sound test for you after you went to board of appeals last year, because of the fact one of the commissioners on board of appeals added a commission to have you at ambient. >> who did you do that sound test with -- >> what do you mean, inspector burke did the sound test. >> who did you do it with? >> you mean which of your

employees did he do it with? >> or -- >> how did he get access to hue? >> we'd have to look at the records for that. honestly, i think we're getting sidetracked a little bit here on the procedure issues, and i know you might argue otherwise. let me just lay out what i want to say, and i really want to hear from the police, and then i want to hear from the neighbors, and then i want to bring you back up here and i think some of this conversation would be best suited, my personal opinion, for the end, where we kind of have to maybe ask you more questions based on the information we're getting. for me, when your license is approved, it comes along with the good neighbor policy. you know, there's some very measurable sound science and you're stating very clearly that you've not violated any of the sound science from what we had there. the good neighbor policy's a little more -- it gives a little more room in our minds to make

decisions that are for public safety or are for great neighborhood relations or is kind of ensuring that the operators they have are acting responsibly, and i can just say from personal experience, my personal experience, that i also, as commissioner lee said, as a business owner myself in the nighttime business, i don't believe any cad records without a lot of backing. and i know that i was here and, you know, the police made that presentation, but to me that wasn't where my decisions were coming from. so i want you to understand where my decision was coming from, and then i want to bring up the police, i want to bring up the neighbors. but for me, we saw very compelling video evidence that violence occurred outside, directly outside of your club, and that patrons were involved, who had been in your club. and we saw that from the st. patrick's day video. >> we did not get to cross-examine that when officer

matthias presented that, and i would like to talk about that, so please save room for that. >> thank you. that evidence is very compelling to us, and previous to that, when i see something like that, i want to make sure, okay, certainly, violence happens, it happens in clubs all over san francisco, right. that wasn't run-of-the-mill violence. that was higher, significantly higher than the regular order of violence. and the next step what i want to see personally, have a trust that the operator is taking his or her responsibilities very seriously, right, and when i was first here, which these -- when we first imposed the operating restrictions on you, it was due to a series of -- well, there was another violent incident, but it was due to a series of neighbors who came up, who maybe detailed sound issues, but for me that's not compelling to me, you know, clubs are loud.

if you're not in violation of -- and this is personally, if we're not finding violations of sound, then you're acting within the limits of your sound, and maybe somebody could take issue with the science that's being used or the code, but that's just a fact. but what i do like to see and have seen, and i have to do it myself is kind of you have to live in the ecosystem with neighbors, and you have to respond to them, and you have to be responsible, and if you make a promise, you have to keep it. and for me, i saw a series of neighbors who are claiming with verifiable evidence that at that point, and that was a long time ago, at that point there was a series of broken promises. that's what they felt. and they brought up a sound curtain, i.d. scanners, things according to them you claimed would have happened, you would take care of, and ten months to get a sound curtain, things like that. to me it showed a lack of trust, certainly between them and you, and maybe lack of trust for you if you were to act on those, it would make them go away, et cetera, but for one reason or

another seemed those weren't being acted on. so for me, i personally have to feel really confident that as an operator you're going to take the issues that come to you very seriously, whether or not you think they have merit or not, i have to do it every day. i have neighbors who complained, who never heard the music, i want to see others are doing the same thing. at that point, even up to the st. patrick's day information, that session, you know, i didn't have a sense in the beginning that you were taking them seriously. now, that i can say, and you may take issue with that, and that's totally fine. i can say, i can see how a process like this might cause you to, first of all, lose trust in the police that you clearly have lost trust in the police, and possibly in your neighbors and possibly with us, as well, but i would just encourage a kind of new way of thinking when dealing with the powers that be

around you or the nonpowers and the neighbors to really jump on issues and try to solve them. i think you made the case you have been doing that. i've definitely anecdotally think that i've seen a visible change in how you're handling situations, so to me that's a good sign. i'm sad it had to take a destruction of your business for that period of time, but to me it is promising. so, you know, to me that's the issue to me. and we can talk about appeals, and we can talk about noise tests and these things. they literally have no bearing on the decision that i'm going to make personally going forward. so, i just want to make that clear. i don't want to cut anybody else off without asking questions, but i would like to hear from the police. does anybody object to that? >> two words. >> yes, please. yeah. >> i'm more than willing to work with anyone in the community. the only one that is even giving me an opportunity to work with them is actually the diamonds, so i would just like to get that on record, that i'm more than willing to work with the community.

>> okay. okay. and, you know, others may say differently, but at least saying that publicly, we might have an opportunity for something here. so, can i ask you to sit down? we're going to ask for the police to come up, we'll hear from them, then we'll talk to the public comment and hear from that, then we'll probably have you come up at the end for some more questions. >> hello, commissioners and staff. steve matthias from central station. i'd like to start off by saying i'm not going to respond to the demeaning accusations. we are here for a review of the conditions that were imposed on hue back in march -- or in may. i'm going to talk about what's happened since that point, and i have -- you've got some cads, a report, and we also have some video. luckily, at least for the police

department, we have other video in here, but in general, i think in the past when mr. montoya has been able to come up here and show his video with the scope of right out in front, as you saw in the last hearing in march, or in may, there's quite a bit happening outside of those angles, and you saw with your own eyes that the customers, patrons from hue, are involved in that. i'm not going to rehash all that from st. patrick's day. tonight i'm going to talk about what's happened since then. there's been one incident. we've had some cads and a report. i've got some video. i would like you to see it. this is regarding an incident from 5/7 at approximately 1:30 a.m., saturday night to sunday morning. there was a major hue-related fight across the street at broadway liquors, that's at 460 broadway.

numerous hue patrons exited hue and walked directly across the street and began to assault a man on broadway. the man retreated into the store and then was swarmed upon by up to eight to ten hue patrons. during the video you're going to see the patrons leaving hue and going in that direction, then you're going to see them then across the street. an incident bystander inside the store was also attacked by the group as he ducked near the corner, near the counter. the person who was hit was close to -- the person who hit the man was close to 100 pounds heavier. the assaulting hue group then exited the store. next a person ran eastbound on broadway and retrieved a gun and returned. the gunman then fired three to five shots in the air. the gunman was then chased by the numerous hue patrons who were incensed at the firing of the gun. numerous police officers responded and took the suspect into custody, along with a

glock .45 caliber smith & wesson .45 caliber and rifle and 28 rounds of ammunition. i do not know if the gunman was inside any club that night, so i'm not going to infer or insinuate anything. the video footage that i have only showed from 1:23 on. i wasn't able to look at any video, so i am not standing up here inferring anything as far as the gunman. i have no idea whether he was in a club or not in a club. however, i will say the hue patrons most definitely -- however, i will say that the hue patrons most definitely were the catalyst that sparked and set the entire incident into motion. i am relieved that no one was shot or killed that night. other than this one incident, i have not heard of any other incidents since our last hearing.

we have a few vignettes. you should have gotten copies about this.

>> okay. i can't bring up this file. is there anyone -- bring this up. >> while we're doing this, can we take a short recess for a bathroom break? is that okay? vignet . >> can we proceed again? let's just wait for commissioner tan.

>> all right. we're going to reconvene the meeting starting now. we had some technical difficulties to be worked out. >> okay. so this is video that shows the entrance to hue. i'm going to fast forward a little bit. there's probably about five to

six minutes of really no activity. what i'll be showing are the patrons leaving hue. this is about 1:30 in the morning. you're about 2:20 in the video, so if you want to go forward -- >> yeah. it's right about 1:28 where they start coming out. so the helpful point to look at

is the entrance. you see the barricades coming up, and entrance you'll see at the top of your screen. so i'm going to be pointing out people that you'll be seeing later on in the assault across the street at the liquor store. this gentleman coming out right now. i'll go here, i'll go back. he meets up with another friend. now they're kind of hanging out in the front. and part of this, i'm going to narrate what's going on. as things start to happen in this small part, it happens

pretty quick, you are ache going to start seeing activity and people are going to be drawn across the street. there's the two guys from the club. now they're walking over. they're going to the north side of the street. >> officer, not to interrupt you, but how many security -- i've only seen one so far. >> there's -- there are more than one. let's see if i can start pointing -- that might have been mr. -- that could have been mr. montoya walking in right there. i'm not sure. and this gentleman coming out, you'll notice the black shirt, the collar has kind of -- some -- a white portion on it. he'll be readily identifiable later on. he's hitting the cigarettes right now. he's going to walk down toward the bottom of the screen. he looks intoxicated by the

gait, as far as how he's walking. he's walking across the street. people are going to start coming out of hue. more patrons that you'll see later on. so now they're looking across the street. something's got their attention. he's going over, trying to get the rest of the group, come on, come on, come on, still looking over there. she's -- definitely some attraction across the street. she's pointing out, she's getting one of her friends, pointing over there, there's

something going on. >> who's that with the radio in the back pocket? >> i assume security. >> what does she have in her hand? >> here, more people coming out, appear intoxicated. they see something going on across the street. there's -- so we've got all these. they're moving over with a purpose. this guy is clearly intoxicated with a drink. i don't know what's in the drink. could be water, could be soda, could be alcohol. i don't know, but he's crossing the street. a lot of people -- i did have a question here, and maybe later on, mr. bennett -- and i say mr. windsor -- saw some windmr here, as well. so we had all the people rush across the street. security's kind of looking over there. i believe this was mr. montoya

here at the entrance. he's stepping back. they're still looking across the street. looks like she's reaching for her radio. mr. montoya sees something. looks like he's reaching into his pocket. could be a phone, and the phone went back in the pocket. this gentleman coming out, you'll see him later on in the video, as well, with a scarf. this person appears to be security -- that's when the shots were fired. there's security there. the gentleman -- okay. there's mr. montoya picking up the phone. i assume that's when he called police. but i want you to look at these

two gentleman. it looks like the security guard on the left is trying to keep the right back. but i'm confused here. what i've never seems before is he wants to get over there, which is fine, but you're going to see him all of a sudden take his shirt off, and reverse it around, and i don't know why he would do that. i don't know if it's a security practice. there it goes. shirt goes off, and then, putting on there, so it looks like before, there was labels on it, but now, there's no labels. i'm curious as to why he would do that. now, he's putting his phone kind of -- i guess he has a pouch on the inside. but maybe we can address that. that was something that i was really curious about.

maybe this'll go in the right arrested. okay. so if you look outside here, this is now across the street, and he's got the gentleman in the long sleeve red shirt. he's discussing something with the person that's going to be hit later on. they're kind of going back and forth. shortly, there's going to be a scuffle outside. looks like the gentleman in the shirt was trying to separate them a bit. i don't know if he's the one in the white shirt, but it looked like it. now, the guy in the white jacket, it seems like he's trying to give him a hug or something. i don't know. it's hard to see from that angle. the man in the sweatshirt, the gray sweatshirt with the blue, he's the shop owner. so if you still look outside, people are