nightclub singer. am all for a live music three it we always knew that going through that tedious process that this is what it would be about. i could go into our kinds of innuendo about north beach but i will not because it is not the right place. it was always established that venue would be live entertainment until 2:00 a.m. with a liquor license. i remember that. in terms of permits? >> you said it was established a and understood. you said something about the hours, there would be live music until 2:00 a.m. >> that was more of a general assumption because that is what was expected. this whole concept of staggered hours of closing has only come

about in the last couple of years because of broadway. i created the north beach chamber of commerce. we called it the are rico's merchants association. -- burberry coast purchase associations. >> please move away from the door. it is a fire code requirement. please take a seat. >> refresh my memory on a zoning, there is different, can we modify that? >> the board reviews the letter

for discretion or error. you could modify the elector. -- letter. >> i heard a lot of testimony that was compelling, reading a brief period i came in with the thought that this was clear in a letter of determination and the rulings. that they were operating without the required permit. hearing what happened in 2005 and the fact the case was not, the imitations were not brought up, it is strange and probably should have been brought up. i do not think it is necessarily anybody's fault. i would support a modification

of the permit that would allow amplified sound, maybe not until 2:00 a.m., but i saw it in the brief, the entertainment commission went back and forth, midnight or 2:00 a.m., i would be inclined to support a modification to allow them to have amplified sound between midnight and 2:00 a.m. >> there currently restricted to 1. >> the entertainment permit is not in front of you. you would not be able to make any modifications to that permit. all that is in front of you is instructions to the entertainment commissions. commissioner hillis: what does that limit us to? if we wanted to allow them to

have amplified sound until midnight, do we have the authority to do that? >> there is not permit in front of you at the moment. there is just the interpretation of the existing requirements. you would need to make a finding as to what the 2005 cu does or does not authorize. >> i need to remind the board, striking down an lod does not mean the department cannot -- proceed with enforcement. the planning department.

i am in agreement with what was said earlier. this case needed to be in front of the planning commission to do with it. -- deal with it. did you want to say your position first? or shall i continue. commissioner hillis: i think i did. >> i do not hold to that position. there are two issues with respect to the lod. the accumulation of cu's apply unless modified or removed. that is one issue. secondly, the '05 cu adding the bar, the fault was not in the

review of what that entailed. it was in the previous owners not requesting the time change. whether there were extenuating circumstances affecting their approval, i do not know. the fact is that the time of operations is relatively large. the application is by the applicant, not to the department. the fact it was not included means that the applicant did not put it in there. i am not prepared to overturn it. >> reluctantly i am in agreement with the commissioner and i found all of the testimony compelling. the problem i am faced with looking at this appeal, not the

appeal, the request, the interpretation of the zoning administrator, the fact that the 2005 cu was dated in june of 2005. basis for a recommendation to appoint one makes clear that the single unchanged to the existing business is the addition of hard liquor service. one of my questions was at what point in time did the operation , the establishment, and begin having music until late? the answer was november of 2005. it is clear, unless i have some facts wrong. it seemed to me, based on those facts that we have a condition,

the existing business did not include the music to the later hours. >> a disclosure, it came up when the police officers were here. my son is a member of the san francisco police department assigned to central. that will in no way affect any decision i will make up here. i do not think there is any mistake on the za to put anyone out overworked. as was stated by the zoning administrator, we have to deal with a narrow issue, whether or not this operation is allowed to be open until 10:00 for live music and whether that can be amplified or open until 1:00 or

2:00 as was authorized by the entertainment mission. i think the language having to do -- exhibit b, the recommendation has to do with the fact it is going to be a s -- full service bar as opposed to beer and wine. you made some reference about your client, the previous owner. someone went before planning and had a business plan. that is you that is being referred to. in that plan, it was stated that

this operation could go until 2:00 a.m. or something like that. i do not know what happened. i do not disbelieve the representation. i do not know how much it would benefit to continue this. i agree with commissioner fung and sanchez. the best avenue to solve this problem is to go before the planning commission and hash this out. i love jazz. i am from new orleans. it has nothing to do with whether i like live music. i wonder about the idea that amplified music would be any different than non-amplified music. i intend to uphold the zoning

administrator and his letter of determination because, although i am troubled by the issue of what was said by planning having bearing on this, i do not think it would avail, be of benefit to the current owners to delay this process in order to try to hash it out. i do not know it could be hashed out. you are free to add anything. >> i am in agreement with commissioner fung, commissioner hwang and president garcia. >> to make my losing case, there is more to it to then what

happened at the 2005 hearing. there was a hearing in which the entertainment commission consulted with the planning department knowing what the hours were going to be. that is where something was lost and an error was made by the city. then the operator operand -- operated until 2:00 a.m. department could have said we did not do that in the 2005 hearing. on top of that, there was the operation were this was operated for seven years. that is what i based my recommendation on. >> before anyone makes a motion, i wanted to add that i think it sounds that through an application for a cu, even with

the testimony of the police officers, i think it would go your way. i think there is sufficient -- a problem is that it is a, there is insufficient evidence and on the part of an error on, the z. i think the chances are good for you. >> not that i think the planning commission will pay attention, but i agree to some of the statements made by commissioner hillis. the lack of enforcement would weigh on me a little bit in terms of what value was placed on this business with the assumption that certain hours of operation were allowed. that is built into the prices

paid by the new owners for the previous business. i am not suggesting misrepresentation were made by anyone but i think it is something reasonable for them to raise, and there is a cost or they to be forced to close. i move that leopold wee -- we uphold the sony and administration. -- zoning administration. >> on that motion, to deny the appeal and hold the the letter of determination with that finding that there was no error by the zoning law administrator. commissioner fung: aye.

>> the lod is upheld with taht hat finding. president garcia: we are going to take a short break.

room

link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 3.0c