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 kind of milling

around, and watch here. bam, okay. that gentleman just hit him right in the face. he's going to come in the extort now to get away from -- from all the people that are outside. so now, we've changed angles. that's the gentleman that was hit in the face. he's kind of sitting there, looks like he's going on his phone. also to the right of him is this other guy that's wearing all black. he was just a person that was just standing there, not having to do anything with anything, but in just a moment, you're going to see a large group come

in. one, and another. more people are coming in. you have a different angle. you'll see how many. it's actually quite a bit, and these are the people -- they were at hue before that, or right across the street. throwing the chair, trying to attack -- that person's completely around the bar -- or the counter. more and more people are coming. that guy jumps over the counter, trying to get over.

i would be happy to answer questions at the end, but i'd like to get through the presentation, please. there's the beginning of it. you'll see how many people are going to come in.

you are going to see the guy on the bottom of your screen. he's going to get punched in the head by this large guy right over here. he's not associated with any fight whatsoever. bam. remember our friend with the drink, the person that looked like he was trying to jump over the counter, the man with the collar, the white collar on -- the black shirt with the white collar. he's shoving him back to make sure he doesn't go outside.

and here's an angle, you can see the entrance throughout the store. there's the person. now everyone's jumping in, but now, here's a real good shot of the fight and all the people that are going in and being involved in this.

now, this is the last angle that we have. this is down the cameras from the area of cosmo, and this is going to show -- if you look at the top, the top area of your screen is where the liquor store is, and then, down here is just -- you've got the pizza place, and then, you've got the other night club. i'm going to speed this up just a little bit. so the fight's taking place out

of view, but you're going to see the gunman leave the area. an and as i said, i don't know what the gunman -- where he was, but i do know he was in this area of the fight. there's the guy -- he's running eastbound, so he's going to a

car and getting the gun. you're going to see two people kind of hanging out here very, very shortly, and then, he returns back and starts firing in the air. >> is this before or after the fight? >> the fight is happening still up here. >> got it. >> so during the fight, the one person ran that away. and you're going to see him return very shortly, and then, you're going to see him take his hands up in the air, and you'll actually see him firing up in the air. and then you're going to see him quickly leave the area. and then, we have another angle for the last angle, so you can see it from the camera that's facing that way. so the fight's still going on, they're still watching it.

now this guy, boom, there he goes, and takes the gun out, fires, goes out of range. now, we're going to see all the patrons that were involved in the fight, they're going to go after him, so he's going to start backing up this area. they get real aggressive and start coming at him, so he starts taking off. there, you'll see it. there's our friend with the scarf. he seems to be the peacemaker

as much as possible in trying to stop his friend that was -- okay. and then, this is the last one. this is just the up.

>> yeah, i think we've seen enough. we've seen the other angle. >> okay. >> so thank you. and i did want to address,

there was a question from the audience about asking questions. the way these things are setup, there's no place for dialogue between two of the people, so after -- after the officer matthias is finished with his presentation, i would welcome bennett or mr. bloom to come up and pose questions to us that you might think are useful. >> okay. so it's quite apparent that the san francisco entertainment commission have been able to find the correcti session of conditions that reduce violence, so your conditions are working. we're not getting the same volume of calls for service. i remember, you know, when we were here in may, what you all saw with your own eyes. i'm not talking about c.a.d.s, i'm talking about stuff that you saw with your own eyes. we're just lucky that there's

so much more video out there that we're able to retrieve to investigate an incident, either to prove that people are not involved or to prove that people were involved, but i just feel that your conditions are working. violence has been greatly reduced on broadway, to the point of it's just been that one related incident since -- since you imposed the conditions. do you have any questions for me? >> you remind me of the date of that video one more time? >> that was may 27. that was a saturday night to sunday morning, about 1:30 in the morning. >> on the conditions -- on the -- it says security must have security markings on their shirts and their jackets. on the video, i don't see that, so that's one thing that i want to address with operations procedures.

that's already a violation of condition, okay? again, the incident happened away from the club, you know, whether the -- of course, you could say it came or whatever, but it is far away, and, i mean, i can't really address that situation. >> do you have questions specifically for officer matthias? >> no. it's probably best to go over these comments at the end. >> okay. so security, no identification on their persons. >> mm-hmm. >> correct, right? and other times, have you had visits to the venue at closing, as your other officers report, that they don't have identifications on them, stating that -- >> i would have to look. >> okay. okay. >> yeah, and part of it, i was just -- i would like to hear -- i just didn't understand the whole thing of taking the shirt off and turning it inside out as well as putting the other things away. i don't know -- i know i would

never -- you know, if i was going into a situation, it's not like i'm going to take my star off and takeoff my patches. >> i don't know if john still has his security there. we can ask him, too. but my main thing is following the conditions, and if you're still following the conditions and being a good operator, then i have no problem, like, changing things, but already, i can see in the video, it's pointed right there, they're posed to have clear identification. can't even tell who's the security other than radios. >> okay. officer matthias, thanks for presenting all of that. so this is the only incident. have you gotten noise complaints or anything like that? >> i have not. >> okay. and has broadway overall had a decrease or is it this particular venue? i'm kind of trying to understand what's going on along the street. >> it's not just for hue. i want to impress upon the commission that as you see

here, as well as the video presentation that we did four months ago, you have that spark, and then, all of a sudden people that aren't even -- don't even have issues with each other, it cobecomes almost like a feeding frenzy. we see across the street with that other person being assaulted, so it affects the entire climate on broadway. it's not just hue, and if it's just hue, i'm concerned about that, as well. but it's the whole climate there. can you imagine if you're out -- you're out, you want to go to a night club, and all of a sudden you've got somebody firing shots up in the air? that's just nonacceptable, and i'm not saying that was a hue patron whatsoever, but i will say the catalyst of that happening was that fight, and those were the customers coming over, the guests from hue going right over there and attacking that other person. >> and did hue assist you -- obviously, you got the video

from them. did they assist you in identifying this -- the person holding the gun? >> i would have to look through the report in the statement form. it doesn't always say if the person works at a place, it just lists the -- the witnesses. i'd be more than happy, if i get the names of the hue employees, i can check that versus the -- >> sure. >> the victim -- or the statement forms. >> it sounds like there were police that were able pretty immediately. >> yeah. >> okay. >> right. >> yeah, i partly ask that because, you know, if they have i.d. scanners, i'm wondering how those were or were not used in identifying anyone? >> i don't think that the i.d. scanners -- correct me if i am wrong, but i don't think that the i.d. scanners were quite in operation at that point. i believe it was where those -- those -- i believe -- 'cause they wanted to have enough time to get it up and running.

i believe that was june 1. >> well, we can ask them when they come up. >> okay. >> okay. i think that's all of my questions for now. >> thank you, officer matthias. i think it would make -- it seems that some of us have some questions for the head of security, mr. windsor, is that -- so maybe we can ask mr. windsor some questions. >> commissioners. >> so john, are you still security -- head of security for your company still? >> yes. >> can you tell me why you know the conditions that there is no identification on the security guards other than radios in this video? i want to hear from -- [inaudible] >> okay. but you're in charge of the security. that's your company. >> yes, i am. >> so do you have to follow the procedures or -- >> simple answer. >> well, i'm asking -- >> that night --

>> okay. >> dovetails with the video of the gentleman who's in the t-shirt -- >> no, step one. >> it's a dovetail, so i have to answer both, if you don't mind. >> okay. okay. go ahead. >> so it goes to the gentleman who put his t-shirt inside out wasn't security. that's one of the managers, and he drives a lot of the front door security for that evening, so i wasn't personally there, which is why i put that as context, because the condition is straightforward, but only bennett and mark who's the person that put the t-shirt inside out, followed the instruction. >> if he's the head of security, wouldn't he still have a security marking on himself? >> the gentleman who was holding mark back, that was security. >> okay. >> so mark is a manager, and he's directing security. >> okay. what about the rest of the

security guard? why don't they have security on their shirts or jackets, because according to the permit, it says they're supposed to have some kind of security on their shirts or jackets. >> just really quickly, one there were people that are just part of the relations teams that focuses on overserving and things like that. there is security. there is also in between the time frame of when we were supposed to get it, it does take time to print that, as well, but they does have -- >> okay. all security liaisons or not, all people who are assigned to protecting your patrons should have "security" on their thing. i'm saying on the outside, you had one security guard with a radio. she went out to get a hot dog. >> our v.i.p. hostess has to wear security -- >> whatever. you're supposed to have at least six persons with

"security" on their six. >> just to we can clear it up, so i know -- >> i would think all security who's involved with the patrons should have "security" on their shirts to identify. >> i just want to know what the definition of your security is because we do have people outside that are hostesses, so he want them -- you want them in security shirts, as well? >> well, it's your call. i don't see one person with security, so you're telling me they're all security service people? >> may i point something out? >> sir, i'm talking to the owner. i'm just asking the questions. >> i'm getting a question from you, commissioner lee? commissioner lee, the way i'm hearing it, he's saying there

are six security with labels. they just didn't show up in the camera because they're outside of the frame, and there's other staff that aren't security. i don't know why they're outside. they should be hosting inside, so his question is maybe should they have a t-shirt that says hosts or something. i think the people that you're identifying as security in that video, what i'm hearing bennett say is not actually security. >> these people that your bottle service is helping with your bottle service, your liaison, as you call it, if a fight breaks out inside the bottle service area, are they supposed to be also handling security in case that happens? what is their actual title as a liaison, what you're telling me they don't need to have security. >> i'm not sure what you're asking me. >> security doesn't have

security on their shirts, but you're saying there are other people that don't have "security" on their shirts. there's security by the front door by your barricades. i mean, i would think, walking up and down, i would see at least three -- more than just -- i didn't even see one person with -- even your head of security doesn't have "security" on there. >> what do you mean, head of security doesn't have -- >> well, john. he's in charge to coordinate. >> maybe maggie -- >> okay. can i talk -- never mind. >> that was right when you guys gave us the conditions, and we needed to get everything, correct? it does take time for us to purchase it and make the shirts. >> you got your conditions in may. >> this is may 15, and -- this is 12 days later. may 12, and this is 12 days later. >> you're telling me -- >> i know for a fact. say it again?

>> sorry, maggie. >> can i interrupt? if i look at the permit that i passed around, so all of the added security conditions there is due process that's involved, right? >> right. >> so you guys have a lot of added conditions in regard to their security plans on may 15. i put in writing that they needed to have all of those be in compliance by june 1. >> that's right. >> this event happened on may 27, so that should be noted. >> thank you. >> some people were wearing it. we were able to get it, but we -- >> it was a cosmetic problem. [inaudible] >> okay. and so you're telling me everybody now has security jackets, everything's in full compliance. >> essentially, i think maggie has answered the question. may 15 -- >> all right. i got it. i apologize. >> june 1. >> i'm just saying -- okay. did you have another -- >> i have a question.

>> you can go back to me. >> can you just state on record who was outside so that you can correct the perceptions if they were security or if they were other staff and let us know how many security is actually out there that wasn't on camera. and then, also, who are they reporting to. i just want to understand that a little bit better. >> so, i mean, it was a while ago. i can't say exactly who was there, but i mean there's anywhere -- right in the front door, there's anywhere from three to four security guards right there, and then, the issue is that there's -- the -- the other bar that is monroe, on the other side of it, that's where we put most of the security there because we have to filter out their patrons that come out, as well because there's no -- there's no one else open to the right of us.

that's where we put most of our guards. we do have other liaisons there that are just to focus on over serving. we are the people that when sfpd asked us to identify the shooter, we walked down and did that. our conditions that you guys put on us, we have met them all. they're all there. >> okay. and then how many liaisons do you have employed? >> on any given night, there's three to five. that's not including cocktail servers and v.i.p. hosts. >> and then, on the footage that you watched with us, how many were there? >> two that i saw outside. any given saturday night, we're anywhere from eight security guards to 12 security guards. not including the liaison. >> and then, the security guards, they report to the head of security? >> yes. >> and then, the liaisons, who do they roll up to?

>> report to management. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> and in that particular situation, what's the protocol that you guys use if guns are fired? i think something similar happened with some video footage we saw last time, and it kind of played out very differently. >> yeah. so as you saw in the video, i was already kind of going to call 911 because of the fight. then, that's when, you know, the guns went off, so i was on the phone with dispatch, talking to them the whole time. >> but i think in terms of your staff, your security staff, from the incident earlier in the year, you, like, immediately barricaded, got people inside. there was a very different vibe and protocol versus here, there were a couple -- whether they're security or not, but couple of your staff kind of just watching on, holding each other back, eating a hot dog, i don't know. like, what -- i'm curious why

there's such a discrepancy of response as far as from your security. >> well, i think they were asking me -- i'll let john answer this, but they were asking me if they should go out. >> what they should do? >> and that situation, for me, i was like, i'm not sure. i don't think we can do that. that's when we were radioing to the guards, and everything happened so fast, and the gun went off. >> i think it was after closing last time. >> yeah. at that time we were pretty much closed. >> so actually -- let's do this, if everybody's okay. i'd like to hear from the public. they've been so patient, and i apologize it's been so long. let's give them a chance. looks like there's a few of you, so you can just lineup and whoever's up first is fine.

again, thank you for waiting. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is andrew diamond, and i live at 2 roland street. i've come up here many times before, so i don't want to repeat again. mr. bloom said a lot of disturbing things tonight, so i just want to correct what impacts me. you know, i've always come up here and explained to you the truth and what we face in this area. when i moved here, hue and atmosphere wasn't there yet. i moved in january 2007. atmosphere came in the next year, and it was kind of always issues with them. there was no years of just this wonderful behavior, no. there was always loud music. we -- i've had bennett in my home many times. i've talked to him over and over again. we went through a time where he didn't speak to me. i want to thank bennett and his

security staff. i have reached out to him a number of times about the music noise, and they've responded, so i really appreciate that. so i do want to also say thank you because as long as they operate as a club, we do need them to operate as a good neighbor. we are afraid about the security in that neighborhood. we have two small kids. we grew up -- we hunker down on saturday night. it's really saturday night's their big night, and we know we can't have friends over. we know we can't be out late and drive in because it'll just be a mob scene out there, and really scary. so, you know, this impacts the whole community. i do really appreciate, you know, everything that the commission has done, that the police department has done. i feel like the conditions, you know, about keeping the noise down to ambient level is really important. you know, there's been a lot of people to come out. they always hear the sound. they always hear it. whenever anybody comes down the

alley, hue always knows what's going on. i think we could be good neighbors, but there's always security issues. it just seems like it's the same thing over and over again. also, the sound proofing has been inadequate. we've talked about them doing more things, and they just haven't gotten them done. >> your time is up. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> good evening. thank you so have us. my name is carl prescott. i own the businesses just next to hue. none of those businesses combined have so many problems in whole as what hue has in one month or two months. our businesses are suffering big way. we even sign church to be on

sunday, but when they wants to practice saturday evening, they said we cannot do that, so we lost that client. now, about this security. i have not checked -- [inaudible] >> -- but i can assure you that none of them have the jacket with security. they can go to 9th street, there is a store, and they can purchase it. no, he's liar, bennett, you are liar. >> please, the microphone, please. >> okay. bennett, you are liar, okay? and he's saying, same things. our business, whole neighborhood is devastating. keep those kind of policies as is because it's somehow manageable, but when you give them more leeway, he's going to bring same client, same alcohol, fights, you name it.

bennett, get different job. thank you. >> good evening. thank you very much. my name is francesca valdes. i own and operate broadway studios for almost 30 years. i've met bennett when he started, and i think his license should be revoked. we've lost a lot of businesses, we've lost also some of the luster of broadway. he's still doing the same thing, he's still incompetent, and i think our -- the san francisco entertainment commissioner is too nice to him. thank you so much.

good evening, commissioners. my name is dominick lemandre. i've given testimony on each one of these items as hue comes before the entertainment commission for -- god, it's been almost -- over a year now, and i'm always in that back row, always paying attention. and i just wanted to say a few things. you know, i'm not going to trade tit for tat for bennett, whether he caught them, whether it was their patrons, but i can say definitively that these issues that got us to this point weren't exclusive to sound. they included cleaning up after the venue had closed, which to their credit, are doing, to increase their correspondence with the c.b.d., which they're not doing. i speak to john by proxy for bennett. last time i checked was in

august, to see if he was on the ra radar or the agenda of the c.b.d., and he was not. that lends credence to what officer matthias was saying, it's been quiet in front of hue. i can say that it has been quieter around hue but that is because we believe the conditions are working, and we've seen what hue can perform like when these conditions aren't in place. i believe earlier in the year we decided to pull back some of those conditions on friday and saturday, and lo and behold, st. patrick's day, there was an incident on a saturday, again, this may 27 event, with a video that i have not seen yet which was frankly very disturbing, but more in terms of what we've seen from hue in terms of fighting spiraling out of control and security not stepping in before it becomes more of an issue. same thing, a volatile crowd

coming to broadway that tends to incitigate fights. between 15 -- 2015 and 2017, we have seen a 21% decrease in priority 8 calls on broadway in the 400 and 500 blocks of broadway, so this is very specific to our district. and we've seen a 26% decrease in fights in that same time period. so overall, broadway's becoming safer and that's because of the joint efforts between the c.b.d. and central station, but there still is a nagging issue on broadway, and that issue are the -- is the disorderly operation that hue brings to the block. and it has -- as some of the other business owners mentioned, it is having a detrimental impacts on not only the other nightclub businesses, but with all of the business on broadway. with that said, we want to reiterate our support for

officer matthias's request to keep the conditions on their permit because we believe it is having a beneficial effect on the block. we think when bennett has adequately conveyed and demonstrated that he is willing to operate in accordance with the good neighbor policy and in conjunction with the c.b.d., then we welcome him back with open arms. that's all. thank you. >> thank you. all right. so i had a couple more questions for bennett, so sorry, bennett, do you mind stepping back up. so it just occurred to me, so you -- there was a st. patrick's day incident where, you know, one of the patrons came out, clearly hugged your security. it seemed as if they knew each other, but it's impossible to say -- and then was involved in a street brawl and similar -- not similar, but clearly patrons of hue were involved in

another fight here, and we can't say why for sure. i'm wondering -- i'm just thinking from my own experience, whenever we have a serious incident in any one of our bars, we go through the video and then we ask everybody who was there who those people are, and we make sure they're never allowed into our establishment ever again. do you launch -- do you know anybody involved in that brawl, and have you banned them, have you identified them, have you spoken with them ever? >> we don't know them. as far as people hugging, people hug me all the time every night. i don't know who they are. >> did you do an investigation to find out? did you ask people who work with you, customers, check on the receipts to find out who they were -- do any kind of internal investigation to find out who they are on facebook or instagram and let them know they're not welcome back. >> unfortunately at the time we did not have our i.d. scanner, but now, we have one, and we

can 86 them right away, and being able do that now, and absolutely what you are saying right now, to find out a receipt with a name on it, and if this is that person, we are able to do that. >> so everybody's being i.d. scanned. >> yeah. it's part of our condition. and we finally found one that actually works well. >> that was my only last question. are there any follow ups? >> and can you -- do you know what event was going on that night? is it just typical saturday night or was there something special? >> saturday -- saturday night. nothing special. that's why we were closed, like, 1:30. we usually close at 1:30, 1:45 any ways, but nothing special as far as that's what, like, so ironic with this, is that the sound, as far as -- i don't see how that is tied to the

violence, as far as being able to have music to what we were conditioned before. but -- >> so can you describe to me what you guys do at 1:00. your live entertainment has to stop. does it just automatically switch over to some prerecorded something? >> yeah, a prerecorded mix. >> so as a customer there, do i notice anything different? >> honestly, a lot of people don't even notice. >> so my question for you, then, is if people don't notice, why do you feel like you need to lift this condition when essentially as a party goer, i'm experiencing more or less the same thing? >> i said a majority of people don't notice, but there are people that notice. >> okay. >> there are people that notice. >> sure. and -- yeah. you know, i think we want to move in the direction of lifting your conditions, but i think we need to see just

improvement. i think it sounds like there has been improvement. hey, these conditions are working, so i'm now stuck wondering do we keep the conditions and keep them going for a little bit longer and have you build a stronger record or do we lift the conditions and then something else pops off, and then you get slammed even harder by us to say okay, like, clearly, you need a strong hand on you? so this is -- i'm just talking out loud about what's going through my head right now. because if, in effect, whatever, 10% of your patrons realized that you switch from a d.j. to ipod, do your alcohol sales suffer immediately because of that? do they immediately walk out the door? >> i don't think it's even about that. it's about providing entertainment. it's not about that, it's about being able to provide entertainment for people. >> we're talking about giving

you 30 more minutes. what if we extend it to 1:30? i guess my question is, does that really change it for you? >> what really changes is not necessarily on those day dos, far as what changes it for us, a huge revenue stream for us. >> your corporate events. >> yeah. they don't want to do that with us -- business with us because they can't do it. >> so my very first question is what are you guys asking for, and your best case scenario, you said you want to lift every i think single condition, but now i'm hearing you, on sunday through thursday -- >> i want all our conditions to go back to normal. >> i don't know if the commission's going to be prepared to do that today. >> i understand. i'm just asking for our conditions to go to 2:00 a.m., because we're closing at 1:30,

1:45 any ways. so back to normal at 1:30 instead of back to normal to 2:00. >> by the way, what he suggested on may 15, and to the -- >> can you speak into the microphone. >> which is just what mr. montoya suggested at the may 15 meeting, make it 1:30 seven days a week, and one of the things they would obviate, not everybody would leave at the same time. that's really why it's important. >> i understand. >> and bookings are -- corporate bookings are really important. another thing, you don't have control over this, but the videos that we saw on the 15 south relating to -- 15th relating to st. patrick's day, not one cop, not one police officer.

that's who should be there. that's who should be there at closing time. >> well what i would recommend that we've done in the past from 2008 to 2015, when i worked closely with the community and the sfpd then with those captains was to have that -- we saw that that was always when there was issues, when everyone was coming out at that time. so at 1:30 to 2:15 is kind of like when there's a presence out there, 'cause all the venues are releasing at the same time. we're talking about thousands, you know, of people on that block. >> sure. and maybe we can ask our staff to work with central station to figure out what their staffing pattern is at that time, you know, freak accidents and fires aside, like, what could they regularly do. because i was surprised actually. there were a few years that we didn't hear from you. and something changed, and i don't know what it was, and

suddenly we're hearing a lot about you. >> from 2015 to 2017. >> yeah, it was relatively quiet. >> it's 17 -- 17. >> any way, so i'm -- thanks. i don't have anymore questions. i just need sometime to think about it. >> can i just bring up some things that people said that i just want to bring up. >> i know you have a rebuttal to everything people said. >> i don't have a rebuttal. >> i think everybody is ready to deliberate on this, unless somebody feels strongly otherwise. >> i think i've heard strong enough from your side. you can have a seat. we're going to deliberate on this. thank you very much. >> so what does everyone think? >> well, again, my thing is if he's following the conditions,

if he's clearly marked his security -- i mean -- for me, i say all security. i don't know this thing about liaisons and all this kind of stuff, but security is security. my thoughts, all security should have identification. that means if anything happens outside, we know exactly who's not responding, who's responding, okay? this video, obviously, is before june 1. i'm sorry, i didn't read the very fine print, but -- and we haven't heard anything, and i can't verify unless sean can tell me when he went to the inspected -- if he's seen six security guards there with identification, and if he at least follows that, i know that condition's been done. you've seen that. >> yes. >> okay. so i'm good with that. and then, the next thing is, has there been any incident since the time that these newest conditions happened until now.

so my thing always is closing and closing operations is very important. and my thing is the operator. so if he has the security, and he's followed the conditions, i mean at least -- and there hasn't been any incidents, i wouldn't -- even if -- if there was a fight across the street, i wouldn't send my guards over there. i'd call 911. first of all, insurance companies don't cover that far away. but the mere fact that you see somebody getting beat up, i would call 911, okay? no hesitation. sending in our responsibility so far across the street, i wouldn't do that either. so again, if he's following the conditions and there's no instance, i'm satisfied that he's okay with that. but if he did the -- did follow the condition, and we still had issues, then that's a different story. so the determination is from

that period on until now, what's been going on. >> i see do want to acknowledg that supervisor peskin's office did submit this letter. and in addition to the neighbors that did come up for public testimony, i'm sure that there are more residents that have been in communication with the supervisor's office, and that's something that i would like to acknowledge and that indicate ind indicated in this letter that the safety of my residents are of utmost priority. [inaudible] >> my full statement or just what i'm reading. [inaudible] >> so i'm reading from

supervisor peskin's letter, and he noted that the safety of my residents is a top priority, and many waited through the hearings to talk about the need to finally regulate you. and as a neighborhood representative, i take that very seriously, and -- yeah. i just want to make that comment. >> i have a couple comments, thoughts. so one thing that we've heard a lot from neighbors and the police is that the -- the conditions are clearly working because things are quieter. but i do believe that -- that quite a bit of behavior of the management has changed as a result of the conditions, and i don't think that they're being -- that that change will -- that that change will go away after the conditions because i believe that if we were to modify the conditions, and i'm not advocating for taking them all away --

operating restrictions away because i don't think i'm quite there yet personally. but i do think that knowing at any day those conditions can be returned is quite a motivator or something worse. you know, conditions of 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. is quite a motivator to maintain behavior, so that's my thoughts. i'm actually very disturbed about the management's reaction to the violence just knowing what my own reaction is. it's not in the heat of the moment. that's hard to do. if there was somebody involved in a brawl across the street at the liquor store, i would go over there, i'd get tapes. you'd go through my own tapes, i'd go through my receipts, i'd ask all my friends, i'd put it on facebook. we do it all the time, and then, we don't wait. we take that very, very seriously.

that, to me, is really disturbing. and to me, i'm not quite sure that that -- i'm not positive that that -- you know, that fear of -- that i have of being -- of losing my business is there enough, and we do it all the time, right? and whether or not the management trusts the police at this point enough to actually turn tapes over and work with them, that's between them and the police. but at least to do an internal investigation and put it out there, like, you're never allowed back in here again, and we do it. so that's something. the other thing, i may be a little too optimistic, but i do feel that i.d. scanners which weren't active in that situation may actually be effective to the point of solving some of the these problems. i think when people know that they've been scanned and it's a remainder that they cannot remain anonymous, but the scanners can only work if there's a trust between the

management and the police so that they aren't having to issue warrants to get the information from the i.d. scanners, but there's going to have to be some sort of collaboration there, and i'm concerned that it's not going to be there. the other thing that i'm thinking of if we were to remove some of the operating restrictions, i have heard of situations where c.b.d.s or operators or alongside of operators may contribute to 10-b officers to hiring 10-b. because clearly, central station has a lot of things on their plate. funneling a bunch of officers to a single club or single block, sorry, two nights a week may not be their priority. so that's the other thing. so for me, you know, i am open to removing some of the restrictions hourly, yeah. >> i just want to interject and just remind you that the permit holder is only wanting the

hours restrictions lifted. they don't want -- >> yeah. i keep saying restrictions, but i mean hour restrictions. >> not any of the security. >> none of that. so i am open to amending some of the hours restrictions. i'm probably not open to removing all of them, but i'm open to amending them, but we would have to have a look back. it would have to be, i think personally in three months or six months, not a year, and we would have to hear from community members, from police, and from the operator, and i would want to see examples of them working together and collaborating, and i think that would -- you know, that would -- that would help to hopefully rebuild trust that's not there. i also think that if -- you know, if there's a very strong case, that the operators have been reaching out and getting stonewalled, that we would also take that into account. but to me, that would be the only way -- probably a

six-month look back, and then, you know, some removal of the hourly restrictions for some of the days a week. that's where i'm kind of comfortable being right now. >> just to clarify, you're saying six months from -- if we do change the conditions or six months from today looking back? >> the conditions. >> got it. >> whenever the conditions are changed. >> or are you saying you want to give another six-month trial before we change conditions? >> no. i'm saying i'm open to amending the conditions -- operating conditions -- hourly conditions but then having them return in six months or maybe five so that we can offer -- in order to come back and hear from community stakeholders about how they're working together meaningfully. >> great. thanks for clarifying. i also -- i mean, i did a lot about what you said about the i.d. scanners probably

deterring people from being too rowdy and not being completely anonymous. i do see progress here, so it's sort of again, like i was saying earlier, is it -- is it the conditions that are leading to the progress, and then, we should hold them in place or is it the fact that something's changed overall on broadway? i asked officer matthias that. i think we talked about -- i think the last time we talked about corporate events as well and being able to sell out his space for events. those would probably be -- you know, wednesday-thursday or just during the week. i know some would like to have them on weekends, too, but i don't feel most comfortable lifting the time or adding more time on fridays or saturdays, so i would be open to maybe

going to 1:00 a.m. on a wednesday and thursday and kind of testing that out. you know, unfortunately, i think we can't be -- or fortunately, i think we should be incremental about this because there's kind of like a spark plug going on broadway -- [inaudible] >> -- as we've had for the last six months. so that's where i stand. i can turn that into a motion if the chair would like or someone else might want to say something. >> can i just reflect on what you said? >> please. >> yeah, i agree with you. i think for this -- if i was in that decision, i would want to do an internal investigation on what happened. my issue with this particular -- it doesn't give

me that sense of accountability and responsibility, and i think we've heard that before from other residents that they would talk to the operator, and things kind of go in one ear and out the other. so what i'm seeing in this incident is it happened there and he didn't take responsibility for it. that's my concern right now, is right now, it seems like the conditions are working, and i think the residents are kind of enjoying now a sense of relief and so i'm concerned as a neighborhood representative that opening it up now is going to cause more issues. and then, you're not going to be able to step up to the plate and take that kind of accountability and responsibility that we would expect somebody to do. >> so you're just basically saying for corporate events, just the whole seven days, 1:00. we don't -- we don't -- >> that's not what -- >> no.

i was suggesting a couple more days a week. >> a couple more days a week. >> so wednesday-thursday or we can figure out the days. i mean, we all have to sort of come to an agreement here. i also just want to add one other thing. i think i totally hear you guys about, you know, the general procedures of, like, what do you do when an incident happens? how do you make sure those patrons don't come back, how do you make sure you can identify all of them? i'm interested in seeing a new security plan from -- from them, so whatever conditions we add, i'd like to add that particular condition. >> they were required to submit a new security plan by june 1, when these went into effect, so we have that. >> okay. yeah, i mean, i think -- i didn't feel like there was a satisfactory response two why, like, similar incidents had very different responses. i don't know what to say.

so i don't know, maybe we can have some montoya do that. so i kind of want to move things along. i hear commissioner perez. another option we can do is just to continue this item until, you know, a later date and hold the conditions. >> that would not be my choice. i think we've been continuing this and continuing this. i also want to reiterate that i don't feel that lifting the conditions is going to -- is -- lifting the conditions on two days -- i feel that commissioner tan's suggestion is a good way -- i don't feel that lifting those operating conditions on wednesday or thursday night are going to open the flood gates of bad behavior. i feel like bennett is fully aware of that his behavior from

before has to fully change. i don't think that seemed like an issue for me. i think that i.d. scanners have helped. i'm willing to personally get behind that. i don't think opening them every night is the way to go at this point. >> all right. i'm just going to make a motion just to move this along. i'd like to move to amend the conditions on hue's permit so that their hours of entertainment are limited to 12:00 a.m. sundays through tuesdays and 1:00 a.m. wednesdays through saturdays. and then, all other conditions would hold and remain the same. >> can we put the look back into the conditions, director or is that how that -- >> yes, you can. >> okay. >> i'd like to also add that to a six-month look back. >> oh, yes, sorry. >> where we get input from