>> could evening, mr. garcia, hit my name is arthur bryden. we service a consulting firm in five states. we are not legal counsel. i think in this case, this gentleman owns the franchise. he has done everything that -- and gone beyond that at the entertainment commission and the supervisor mar recommended they do. he is trying to be a good neighbor. they have not even opened yet. they spent the last month going around the neighborhood trying

to build bridges and cooperate with a fellow -- the fellow residents. i believe it would be unfair, they have done every single thing. everything conditioned on the permit. they have gone beyond that. yet they still have not opened because they continue to want to build bridges with the the neighborhood. i think it would be unfair for them to be closed before they get started. we went to two hearings with the entertainment commission. very exhaustive. the gentleman from the police department supported the permit. now you are being asked to revoke it before they get out the starting gate. that does not seem fair and it seems a denial of due process. they have not done and read --

anything wrong. we are sorry about the gentleman who was hurt. severely injured. it could have happened anywhere. it was an isolated incident. nobody likes of violence. my mother was a victim of violent crime. what can you do? this was an isolated incident. the police department supported the permit. there have been no other incidents. i cannot see a compelling reason for you folks to overturn the permit that has not been activated. i will turn to mr. kahn. >> let me add something over here that in 2011, july, i was invited to visit and listen to their hearing. on that hearing, not even once

did they mention 2:00 and four o'clock. a member of the sea pact -- cpap was there. in 2010, the police were called many times. i was misquoted that i told him the majority of the calls was because of the homeless issue we are facing in the area. this suggests that following the recommendations and go from there. i said that was fine. they came down over to visit the store. we followed all of the recommendations. in august the -- they are praised our effort and said things are fine. so, again, in both meetings, it

was not once mentioned. all of a sudden, i do not know why this issue came up. i do not understand. look at the permit and look at the conditions attached to it. i am willing to adopt all of these conditions. give us a chance. >> i think the issue is we are sorry about the isolated incident. the policeman, the police department have approved our permit. we did everything they asked us to do. i believe it now, to try to be a good neighbor, this gentleman and his manager and staff are trying to build a bridge.

they have not even opened between 2:00 and four o'clock. out of respect for the neighborhood they did not. now it seems unfair and of a borderline violation of their due process because the governing body told them what to do and they did it. as far as the permit having lapsed, this gentleman and someone else our franchisees'. they bought the store from jack in the box. they paid for the permit. somehow in the mumbo jumbo of moving paper it never got issued. it is not like he has been ignoring the law. they did everything they are supposed to do. as far as regulations, health the san francisco, all of their deposits are made on time and perfect. i know because i set them up.

all i am asking is that give them a chance to prove themselves considering the fact we went through the hearings and did what we were asked to do. there is nothing missing. questions? >> you say this is new, you have not been opened since 2:00. the restaurant was opened before you bought it in. during this time when there was confusion about the permit, where you open? >> it has been open since 1988 for 24 hours. until 2011. >> when you purchase to the franchise, you kept it open 24 hours. how long?

>> until december. i acquired the store in 2008 and until december 2011. we do not have a permit for the hours, we immediately shut down. >> the day we found that the permit has not been extended, they closed the store. no problem. i would ask the board to consider the fact that these gentlemen have done everything they are supposed to have done. the entertainment commission, the supervisor made suggestions. they followed every one of them. they have not even opened the store. it is only fair to give them an opportunity to implement the safety features they have installed. other questions?

>> mention supervisor mar -- you mentioned supervisor mar. >> i did not mean him as the appellant. >> you mentioned supervisor mar and the appellate counsel mentioned him. did he take a position on this? >> as i understood it, with the conditions put in place, he supported it. initially, he did not. i did not have face-to-face conversations with him. i do not know. i know his staff suggested various things, security guards on the weekends. that came from him. they did it. >> this could become a political issue.

we just got caught between a two issues. public safety, my employees and my family, if i think it is unsafe, i would not be open. >> any more questions? >> thank you. >> we can hear from the department now. >> good evening. entertainment commission. i apologize, i am nervous. i have not done this before. we issue a lot of permits but do not get many appeals which hopefully speaks to our process. hopefully you had a chance to read the brief. as somebody mentioned, it was

pretty clear. i do not want to repeat a whole bunch of things but i will explain there has been some question about why the entertainment is -- commission is involved. we have been, since we have been doing regulation, in charge of extended hours even when there is no entertainment provided. anything open to the public that serves food, and this is in the definition of the police code, come under art jurisdiction. -- our jurisdiction. we found out that this 24-hour restaurant was operating without a permit from us. by virtue of a terrible incident that has been recounted to you. we reached out to the jack in

the box operator and informed him that he could not continue to operate. he needed to come in and work in our department -- with our department. there was a permit issued in the 1980's for 24 hours, issued by the police department. for the same location, the same facility. so, long story short, they came before us. it was continued once. the involvement of the community in supervisor mar and sued. there was one continuance and then it came back to the commission on the 24th of january. as was indicated, staff provided an overview of what was in the file, including the recommendations and the passage

of inspection from the fire department, planning department. they indicated the use was appropriate for the location. the police department did send a recommendation to approve, with the conditions. i all of those conditions were included in the permit that was granted. to make a comment, or to respond to the appellant with respect to my staff and the way they might have described the file, i think the description was done in such a way that he wanted a commission to understand that the most useful conditions they could consider, if they were to grant this permit were ones that were formed by virtue of

specific complaints and ones that could be tied to the venue. what i think he was indicating was that many of the lenders were describing neighborhood issues as a whole, describing the context of the neighborhood at night time but not necessarily tying those complaints to the venue. so that the commission could be clear that they should consider conditions that are relevant to these locations as opposed to tying every possible police called to this one location. so, everyone got two minutes. the appellant made a comment regarding that they could not speak. everyone got the same amount of time as far as process is

concerned. his comment relevant to a vote that was taken and then not approved and another motion that did not pass after testimony had been concluded, and another motion was put forward. we do not allow public comment after failed motions. i want to leave some time for the officer to respond because i think public safety will come up over and over. with respect to the numbers, the specificity of complaints, officer more has information that will be helpful. >> as far as the calls to that

location, i brought up 3000 calls in 24 hours. i do not know at the time line or dates. i ran all calls to the exact location, 4649 geary blvd. i also ran all calls on that unit blocked, the 4600 block as well as the intersection of 11th ave. i broke that down into the 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. period. i went through each call for service and figured out which once belonged to jack in the box. since january 18, we have 37 calls. that is about one for every three weeks. the 3000 calls is a little skewed. that is taking into account some

calls the cannot be considered calls for service such as traffic stops, self initiated activity, that is not necessarily our call for service. i did another incident because the actual crime was almost two blocks away. the the actual crime where he was ran down was almost two blocks away. that is not included. the former captain agreed that these conditions were fair and relevant to the situation. the new captain also believes they are fair and would limit the cost for service in the area. >> what was the other comment? >> i cannot speak for the

commander. when he was promoted to commander, the officer in my position went with him. i took over with the new captain. i cannot recall what the comment was. >> did you run the numbers of calls during the time when he is now closing at 2:00? >> i did. there have been in two calls per service. both were made -- one was made by jack in the box. it was of a customer refusing to leave. the other was made by a neighbor about a vehicle in the parking lot revving their engines. the police responded to that in the car was not there when we arrived. >> i think your review and of the calls for that two years

find there was one call every three weeks at that location? >> there was an average of one call per three weeks that were jack in the box-related. there are different ways an officer can be dispatched to a location. they can say there is a homeless issue. that will not -- it may be a jack in the box patron causing a disturbance. i went through each one report and extracted the jackpot -- jack in the box calls. >> how long have you been a police officer? >> five years. >> what do you think of that call average? >> it is not high. >> what would be highly? >> 1 a night.

maybe even a couple low week would be considered an issue. -- couple a week would be considered an issue. >> what would be the procedure if the security guard, down the block somebody is making noise and disturbing the sleep of someone, what would the security guard to do about that? >> they are not responsible for something one block away. they would be responsible for the restaurant and the surrounding area. on the security guards, when a bar or a club has their permit issued, it is often one security guard to 75 patrons. their occupancy man is 49 and they are required to have two cards.

i think that is more than fair. >> the occupancy of this establishment is 18. what is your experience to when that is exceeded? >> that was put into the recommendations based on a phone call i had to one of their managers. they counted the number of seats and told me 18. the fire department is two sets the official occupancy for the restaurant, that is at 49. >> i am curious about whether or not more than 18 people are in the restaurant. >> more than 18, i would say yes. >> on a regular basis? >> regularly. >> what do we do about the fact that one of the conditions was that the posted occupancy, 18 persons, shall be adhered to.

>> that was our recommendations, not adopted by the commission. the commission made it clear that the police department did not set occupancy rates. >> the entertainment commission did not adopt a findings recommended by the police. >> not all of them. >> i must have missed that. where do we find that? >> it would be in the document appeal. >> i will look at that in a second. it seems, this is a question for you, it seems as though that more than 18 people are there. it goes to the issue of -- let me see if i can find that language -- we have so many

papers appear. -- up here. basically it says that is the building adequate to accommodate the type and volume of business anticipated. if 18 is set by the department and if they have more than 18, it would seem that a finding should have been made that they were not in compliance with number 2. >> if i may, 18 is the number of the seating capacity which is different than the fire department's occupant load. that was the restaurant's decision to put that many seats in. typically when we have places of operation where there is a set occupancy and there is some

notion that, on occasion, there might be more people than can fit in. there are counter's at many nightclubs. making sure the amount of people does not get exceeded, there is some way to manage however many people might be standing on a line on the outside of the building so as to not overcrowded. using security to allow those people to come as the next person leaves. it is not exactly the case where we would suggest that this is not in compliance because there might be 19 or 20 people coming and going. it has never been a matter of fact how many people are coming to the jack in the box at any one time between 2:00 and four o'clock.

there have been all kinds of numbers thrown around. i think the applicant indicated maybe 100 people over a span of those two hours. 25 at a time. you can manage that with the security guards that are in place. >> it seems as though, since it was a finding that had to be made, the entertainment commission would be able to say that it would not be exceeded and have some indications as to what would happen when there were more people than could be accommodated and what would happen to them outside? let me finish, how do we deal with whatever noise might be going on outside for those people who cannot be accommodated inside? maybe i missed it. it does not seem as though adequate attention was given to that.

>> the way we manage that is by referencing the security plan. that is referenced in the permit, it is not necessarily up part of the permit. it is not going to be even sedated -- elucidated. they would describe about problems that might occur by people waiting to get inside the restaurant. that is how that is addressed. >> it seems as though, and number 3, let me see, was that -- it seems as though number 3 deals with whether or not the operation can safeguard against noise. it says it is almost a logical because they have to be -- there

has to be safeguards. it may seem the fact that safeguards are needed that number 3 should be given some weight. without the safeguards, the problem exists but the only way to mitigate that is with safeguards. once those people are a block away from that the establishment, we're going to assume that not everyone can park there. these problems would arise. >> that makes sense to a certain extent but if we used to that across the board, anybody coming to us with a plan that might and board -- invite more people than any building might handle, we would have to deny based on your reasoning. what we do is suggest they will mitigate those problems with this security plan and then they

will demonstrate how they can manage more people at any one time. >> it seems analogous to the problem that developed with the individual who was one -- runover is not to be laid at the feet of the restaurant because it happened away from the restaurant as though there is no nexus between us to review zero events. -- those two events. it seems as though that is swept away because it did not happen inside the restaurant. >> no one is trying to minimize what happened. i think that part of why we are here -- >> i do not mean that to be the whole thing. >> it is of grave concern. extensive conditions as well as the security plan worked to go to those concerns.

the entertainment commission took us seriously. >> i am sure other people have questions. let's ask if the experiences at this operation are similar to, other operations considered nearby, mel's or something like that or other establishments on geary. how would you call the incidence of reports for those other establishments, same, greater, or less? >> the other establishments -- they are less. >> what is the difference? >> i do not have those numbers. >> what is the difference in this operation that causes more problems than at a mel's?

>> i think the main issue is the number of bars in the area compared to mel's or lucky penny. they are further out from the bars. a lot of foot traffic can walk out and walked to the jack in the box. >> it would be a bad logic to assume it had anything to do with the small size of jack and the box? -- jack in the box? >> i do not see this size as being the root of the issues. i have a list of the calls. there is a good percentage of them that are homeless-related that jack in the box themselves called the police because a homeless person was refusing to leave or are they in the leave or are they in the bathroom taking a shower.