i don't know and i can support -- we have to make a decision, but it is confusing at best based on the things we have in front of us. >> based on an issue of due process, i would be inclined to grant the permit, and the think that based on what i have in front of me, my interpretation is that it was denied and based on it being a like food the have expressed my opinion that i did not believe that it was the case here. and for those reasons, i would not consider the evidence about public safety because i don't find that it was the basis of the denial. i think that is what the appellant was prepared to respond to here. it would be a violation of due

process to throw and the kitchen sink at this point. for those reasons, i would vote to grant a permit. >> if i can respond to commissioner hillis's suggestion we continue. i think the burden is on the department had they failed to meet the burden. president garcia: we have seen the the amount of money spent by the -- the appellant, and while it might end up with ms. lewis having a business there, it is doubtful that she will. to continue its is to have them continue to lose money for the investment they have made so far, and get no return on that money. this was a truncated process, truncated because once the police weighed in, the process

that should have taken place did not take place. it is really problematic. what i would want to do is some sort of hybrid whereby she gets to operate their, because there are real concerns. just like down the block, there is a waterfront bakery that can be heard by this. while we are all anxious to do something to help miss lewis because it is a bad situation, we don't want to help her by hurting someone else. also, we have not been presented with in the proper information, the police might have real safety concerns that are directed to the operator. we don't want to put her in some situation where she would end up being robbed or hurt. what i am very comfortable

doing, i am willing to overturn and allow the department to straighten this thing out. i think that's absolutely the issue has to be straightened out as to whether or not she needs a police permit because she is a vendor or because she dpw needs a permit because she is operating at whatever the category is, a mobile food facility. there is also the idea that while it gets straightened out, we have the right to demand and i will certainly -- the police get together and finding a location for this operation. in the cost of notice of intent that has to take place, and what businesses and a certain radius have to be notified, i would ask -- i have no authority to

demand, i would ask him them to resolve those costs. anybody paying attention to this, anybody that sees the materials and has paid attention to this hearing would have to agree that this is been an incredibly confusing issue that has cost to people that are struggling. i'm not trying to create sympathy for the appellant. there is a description of this family of four children, i am assuming the husband and wife, doing without christmas gifts, not buying this and not doing this activity. because all their hopes and dreams and finances are wrapped up into this process. it falls upon us, this board, to do whatever we can to try to ameliorate this situation. i dunno if we can do it properly with the law or not, but short of being able to, i'm

not sure how we can get the things that they asked for, i am going to overturn. but there are real issues having to do -- i will vote to overturn. there are real issues having to do with the waterfront bakery, having to do with whether or not this operation needs a vendor's permit from the police or an mff permit from public works. i guess iwhat can happen, she an can start operating, and because of these problems, they can come and revoke. i would hope that rather than revoke, and they tried going to ward at some of the things that we are requesting -- that i am requesting, pardon me. having to do with absolving whatever costs are practical and that these two people can

operate their business. i will make a motion, to overturn the department. the reason for the denial as we learned tonight, it is not clear and appears to have been a safety issue. nothing has been presented to us for us to understand why a kitten is a problem. -- why it is a problem. it has not been substantiated. the findings are not there to support he denial. i move this board overturn the department and grant the permit. >> with in the hours on the permit application of 6:00 a.m. until 3:00 a.m.. president garcia: and we run the risk of something happening to miss lewis. commissioner hwang: the

department has reviewd thed the hours on a six-monhth or twelve- month basis. >> she does not have the operate between all of them, she can make that the -- a decision. on that motion? commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: no. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> vote is 4-0, motion carries. 4-1, very sorry. the permit is to be granted. president garcia: 02 apologies, we are going to take a short break.

>> we will start with the appellant, you have seven minutes. >> president garcia, commissioners -- >> if you will pull the

microphone, we will use that one. >> sorry. i'ma member -- i'm a member of the chinese-american voters education committee that is seeking a reversal of the entertainment commissioned of the decision to grant the applicant in after hours permit. the entertainment commission's position must be reversed because it was impermissibly in effect and with procedural irregularities and is totally unsupported by the records. stipulated fax including the high volume of volume associated with this neighborhood restaurant [unintelligible] there is no basis to grant this application. there is no right to operate a fast food restaurant 24 hours a

day. furthermore, the commission's decision isn't in deference to this body. this body must give no regard to the decision except the fact that we point out, procedural irregularities and the finding that the restaurant at to be opened because we need a place to make people less drunk. we need a place where drug people can go to become less drunk. there is the articulation of public safety. the business owner must meet the criteria set forth in the san francisco police code, as the commission's own brief, they are at the utmost importance. when the police code as applied, there is no factual basis to grant an after-hours permit here.

we indicated the area around the restaurant, you will hear from the advisory board in the richmond district that the police calls have been a concern for some time. these calls are so problematic that the commander of the police station request of the board to investigate the matter. you will hear from the board in this year. he admitted that there were a new amount of criminal and police calls. the numerous antidotes -- anecdotes that are here, a word of warning. there is a fight here nearly every week. less than two months after we

sat down, a decorated marine veteran of iraq got into a fist fight with a purported gang member at this restaurant and was run down and in a vegetative, today. he sits in the kaiser facility, not responsive, totally in a vegetative,. the problem with this location, i went and inspected it. i will attest that the restaurant's 240 square feet is a lot. the bars on clement street closed down and we have attached photos. you can get a sense of procedural irregularities that are numerous. an amazing amount of people given the 90,000 residents

signed a petition opposing the permit. the staff dismissed a petition saying that it was unclear, it should be disregarded because most people live outside the city. that is false. over 1000 people showed richmond addresses on the petition. the staff also stated that the numerous e-mail's at letters that were received by the entertainment commission should be disregarded because they are to generalize. they complain about the operation of this restaurant. the statement of facts continues, you cannot restate the facts. in this regard, the entertainment commission drops a footnote falsely asserting that

supervisor mar support to that application. it is on record that we attach to that he opposes this. the first vote is to deny the permit. the vote was 4-1 with only the vice chairman voting in favor of the two denied a permit absolutely. without public comment or an opportunity for us to be heard, the amendment permits said that it will be from 4:00 to 6:00, which doesn't really address the public's safety issues because it occurs at 2:00 a.m.. the vice chairman stated that the reason the fast food restaurant should remain open will help people not be as strong. we will have this restaurant to help people not be as drunk. intoxicated people will and buy food and it will help them. eating a jack bugerrger,

drinking coffee doesn't sober someone up. the only thing that does that is time, letting the alcohol get out of your system. paragraph 2, 3, 7, 8 are not satisfied. it states that the application should be denied if it cannot accommodate the traffic that is expected. the police recommended that the establishment stay open, and after hours basis by attaching conditions. and that there would only be 18 people allowed in the rest regent restaurant any time. the next one was whether or not malaise in the community will be affected. the evidence is overwhelming that the noise associated with after hours has been disturbing the peace of the neighborhood.

and we respectfully request that the commission vote to deny the after hours permit. does anyone have any questions? >> possibly not, because the brief was pretty clear. >> i wanted to say one thing before you sit down. in the public, a section that we will get to a few minutes, i want to make sure you understand that board members and officers of the associations would not be eligible to speak during public comment. >> i will represent you that everyone that's here, board members and associations, they will make that clear. >> that's fine, i just wanted to make it clear. we can hear now from the permit holder. the representative?