if they miss this. >> do we have representation of the police department? >> we have an officer who prepared a statement. >> i am having a tough time understanding the basics. you have several roaming the premises. can you explain to me why it is so difficult? we have places with 12-person

capacities, and i am trying to figure it out. >> 137 people, that is an 18 and of even. -- and up event. they needed to heavily staff this event. the bar is right in the middle of the floor. it is really easier for them to go to the bar and mingle themselves with the crowd. i still have to have people in

strategic areas walking through the crowd, because there is no separation from the bar to the floor. we need to have at least three or four people walking through the floor. it was in the best interest to not have any violation inside the club. it is easy to exchange because the makeup of the club. >> in the original conditions given up, i think it says the fire department has since come.

i was figuring they applied for an amended application. i would just like to make note. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i want to introduce formally the officer in the audience tonight. she looks forward to working with you. >> you are really going to have

to -- >> i am going to have to speak close. >> i thank you for placing the matter on the agenda. it is a critical public safety issue. it needs to be dealt with to the full extent of the law, and i appreciate your consideration. as i understand common the purpose is to amend the conditions that currently exist, including developing a new security plan. however, i think we are a little

premature on taking the direction of this point. i am prepared to speak about several incidents is that have occurred, several violations that i believe constitutes revocation of the permit and the suspen incompetent in the management

and security. -- incompetence in the management and security. for the purpose of this hearing, i will summarize the incident that have occurred and for the permit holder themselves since their not apparently aware of these incidences. now several incidences that were presented to the commission are really only the most serious. i didn't do an analysis of all the noise complaints and all of the minor problems that have occurred at el rincon, rather i focused on those that are the most serious or more apparent to public safety issues. we'll begin with december 21st of 2009, the san francisco police department received a shots fire call.

a resident from 320 alabama had a bullet go through their window. the very same evening, we made an arrest of an individual that was previously inside the el rincon club. the arrest was made of that individual because he had a firearm. january of 2010, we responded to the el rincon club for the purpose of taking a report from the club's owner as i believe, due to the fact that theft was occurring by a manager. i assume it's not the individual that's here this evening. on march 15th of 2010, again, the managers were calling to advise us that they were being threatened. i'm sorry, the owner was calling to advise us that they were being threatened by prior

managers. again i don't know who at this point. i just know that those are the basic facts. in april -- april 18th of 2010, there was a large fight in front of el rincon involving 10 to 20 males involving weapons. they were removing their shirts and they were using their belts to fight one another. the very same evening, we received a report from an individual that was a patron of the club that was assaulted inside the club. on may 27th of 2010, we received a report from a patron that they were assaulted by the bartender and tazed by the bartender. and finally in june, on june 19 of 2010, the san francisco police officer was shot breaking up a fight outside the nightclub.

as it relates to the shooting incident involving the police officer, i incidentally spoke to officer codder today. he is recovering well. and expects approximately a six-month recovery as a result of his injury. i also spoke again today with officer paragrina and officer carr. those three officers were there that evening. and i reiterated with them the fagget that i'm attending the meeting and received again their statements about that evening. -- i would like to paraphrase or just go through quickly, a statement that was written by officer carr which would give you a good picture of what the scene was like. on june 19, at 1:30 a.m.

officer codder, per grrvings ina and officer carr were if full uniform. as they were approaching 16th street they saw a large crowd in front of 116th street the old rincon bar. as they turned towards harrison they observed a group of six male who is had walked across from the bar. and they were standing on the northeast corner of north 16th street. the males were yelling at another group of males and females that were standing in front of the old rincon. as the officers drove past the group, one of the subjects told the officers that they were fine and they were just leaving. we later know that these are the subjects that are the primary suspects in the shooting. as they turned on to 16th street, they made a u-turn to come back and check on the crowd. after they made the turn, they

observed a group of 50 subjects exiting the bar. there was loud commotion and noise and it was obvious and apparent to them that there was a fight. as the subjects walked out of the bar, the physical altercation took place between three and four females and males. officer peregrinea, carr separated the parties. the crowd started to disperse and they were surrounded by the subjects from the bar. the officers were facing the door of the bar when they broadcast over radio that there was a group of 50 subjects around them. >> an unknown female and male walked past them on the sidewalk and they were exchanging words with the other subjects who were on the other side of the street who we later know and believe are the shooters. a few minutes later, they heard six to eight gun shots.

they deprame the east side of 16th near alabama. officer carr said i've been hit. and he collapsed to the ground. >> officer carr looked at them and saw the crowd of people lying on the ground. he walked over and heard him say, please get me an ambulance. and officer peregrinea announced that we have an officer down and needed units to respond. i won't go any further because it goes into more details about the suspect about the vehicle that was driven, but it sort of gives you an idea of what the scene was like and how many people were involved vs. three police officers. now i read you that statement because i wanted you to understand that the major problem that we have that evening is that there was no crowd control. there was an active fight and both -- all three officers told

me today, carter, peregrinea and carr, all three stole me that none of them observed any security. outside when the fight was taking place and even outside and during the event itself. you would think that if a shooting kerr occur and an officer was shot they would have personnel coming in attempting to render aide. but at no time did anyone render aide to the police officers other than the other police officers. the most damaging part of all of this is that we know that the group of young men that were involved in the shooting were earlier inside the el rincon. and that's all i'm going to say about that. but we know they were inside the club with the firearm. again, the most troubling thing is that there was no security at this event, they themselveses have just now stated that they knew there

would be trouble there. were there seven personnel? probably, but they were serving drinks. they were serving food or whatever else they were doing. so i believe that it's my position that we need a ruling from the entertainment commission this evening. is revocation appropriate or is a suspension appropriate? the legal basis for revocation is, as i understand, a charging official may file a complaint for revocation for 1060-20 if the committee has knowingly made false or misleading or fraudulent statements of the material fact in the application for the permit. now, there is a significant difference between this permit holder's application for

entertainment and the reality of what they are doing today, a significant difference. the summary of the difference are -- no current approved security plan for the existing or current entertainment venue, a different manager, a different name, a different target age group, a different type of entertainment, different business hours, and a different occupancy. as it relates to a 30-day suspension, which i think is minimal they're eligible for, from just one of the incidents that i outlined, the shooting of the san francisco police officer, there's a legal basis for suspension in this case. and frankly, i think this commission know what is the legal basis is. and i'm not going to read the code to you.

now, in fairness to the permit holder, she did reach out to mission station, miss patell. we did meet with her. the objective of the meeting was to review the current entertainment condition -- permit conditions and to make sure she understood what the conditions were because it was in my opinion and it still is that they were out of compliance with many of the conditions that they have currently even today. i still remain very concerned about her refusal to accept responsibility for the nightclub's past failures as it relates to the entertainment permit and her failure to comply with the conditions of the permit. in fact, her response to our meeting was to engage andrew kelly to prepare a letter to me quoting all the various case law that you probably have in front of you. frankly, i think it was

repulsive. further more, miss patell has made statements to the press which are inaccurate. and i think it's important to note to you because it goes along the line of me helping you understand her position. alluding to the fact that she's a victim in this situation. a statement to -- s.f. appeal, the headline is -- mission district club owns angry after the officer's shooting. it indicates that the club owner of 12 years is angered by what she believes is unfair punishment by an incident not in the the club's making. though, she admits that she was hesitant to rent the space to the d.j., name withheld, friday evening because of the the quote bad attitude that often accompanies d.j. set parties,

this admission unfortunately for her was also evidence that she was aware of possible trouble. quote he gave us a guarantee nothing was going to hand, end quote, said patell. she gave an interview to andrea koski. the very first paragraph indicates that in the 12 years that vill ma pa tell has owned the el rincon nightclub has never had an incident. i'm not sure where that's coming from. quote why me? we were all inside cleaning, end quote. pa tell said she and her crew were inside. she said the doors were closed and that she was not aware of the scuffle going on inside until her security personnel contacted her.

pa tell said that he's a well-known d.j. whom she was hesitant to rent because of the bad attitude that accompanied these parties. she did say she has no plans to rent the space to the d.j. again, fortunately. now, i'm being asked to consider a new permit. i've received and i'm recipient of their new package. again, it's obnoxious. it's obnoxious because we haven't dealt with the exiting problem that exists and that is they're out of compliance with their current situation and they have shown an inability of running the existing club in a safe manner. and now they want to amend their permit so that it's clear, i know exactly what they're doing. they want to amend their

permits so that they know it's clear that they can have 18 and over events. >> how can the officer police department asked to put an approval on a new permit for this owner and their unknown management and their unknown security team? tonight is the first night i've even heard of this manager that now is employed by miss pa tell. they have fruvene be incapable of managing this venue with the ongoing police properties, the complaints from the neighbors. how can we be asked to approve anything at this -- a new security plan? this security plan is a cookie cutter plan that they've purchased. in fact, they forgot to edit out some of the area where is it references southern police station, central police station. it's obnoxious. there's no thought that's gone through this. they've simply purchased this

plan from a supplier and filled in the blanks where it says el rincon should billion in the plan. but i do find it interesting that they made a statement and i'll just read it because it is kind of humorous. rincon is a barlow kated in 16th and harris. the particular block is a challenging situation due to the concentration of new law residents in the neighborhood along alabama street. other problems are numerous homeless residents some of whom sell parking spots. combine these factors causing problematic situation for our nightclub security staff and for the sspd. this is their words, i guess or maybe it's the security plan company that sold them that. patrons are generally more

aggressive and potentially unruley that in the past. young, kids go from shootings to stabbings. it's an execution by a security staff will overcome these challenges. need i go farther? according to what i've been told this evening as it relates to their new management, it -- now it's all coming together for me because mr. wolf, he indicated was employed in october which would make sense because in november they made statements to s.f. weekly suggesting that they were taking over the bar, him and an individual by the name of brian

matterson. with marching orders to clean up the place, talking to the s.f. weekly, they said that this means clamping down on i.d. checks, bringing in more security. contract with more responsible promote tors. painting over the graffiti and making events 2 is and up. has any of that taken place? the answer to that is no. in closing, i would like a ruling to the commission as it relates to revocation. i would like a ruling from the commission as it relates to suspension of the permit. and i formerly oppose the issuance to the place of entertainment permit for this reason, due to the violence and in the interest of public safety. thank you. >> commissioner? >> thank you. thank you.

thank you, officer. thank you very much. compelling information, evidence. and we cannot fail but to be deeply moved and concerned about all of the information that you brought before us. we have under consideration the possibility of revocation, suspension or new conditions on this permit. and i thought long and hard about the issue of revocation. and unfortunately, there's a crying need for clarification of our revocation authority because what you're latching on to is extremely sin. there are only three grounds under which we can revoke a permit. and the one that you choose is false, misleading or fraudulent

statements of material fact in the application for the permit. so this is going back to the act of filing a permit back in 2003. and you're identifying such issues as the fact that the manager that was cited in 2003 is no longer the manager, in fact, in 2010 or that the hours of business in 2003 are not the same as in 2010. i'm afraid that's a really think connection other than false and misleading statements on the application, the only thing else in the revocation section of police code 1060, that we can address is failure to pay any fee that's required or failure to surrender the permit when sur rending the

permit is required. so that doesn't give us a whole lot to address, you know, revocation proceedings. clearly, the supervisor has introduced legislate which is going to give us grounds -- much more along the lines of what you are looking for. >> secondly we had at oufer disposal the proceedings. the grounds under which they may be suspended are far broader. and can be tied to the good neighbor policy as well as the conditions that are imposed on this permit. and you have already presented the case saying many example that we would have to consider. finally there,'s the option of reconsidering this permit and putting a whole new set of conditions on it.

to be honest, i likewise have deep reservations about taking that approach because it does seem to almost be rewarding them, giving them an entirely fresh start when you've presented a mountain of event that we should take into account of past violations of law and failure toed a hear to conditions. receive cation, i'm sorry i just don't see it. that's really, a the, the connection. new conditions, i'm not sure. that's just my opinion on it. >> commissioner micko, i appreciate your feedback. of course, i still wanted to be the revocation idea throughout because i think it's very important to understand that this is a perfect example of a per mits holder that needs to be revoked.

and that the authority of this commission sbhowled such that it is allowed to revoke a permit when it takes public safety issue. i hope that going forward, i'm not sure if the new regulations allows for that. it's completely common sense. >> it's completely common sense. at the mountain of evident, 99 of 100 people they are watching this. police code 1060 does not give us a authority to -- >> first let me say that your presentation was very well done. thank you for that. on the case of suspension, i'm under the impression that we can move to order suspension hearing tonight based only

public safety. i do believe that we ke do that -- we can do that. that is my opinion. and -- and i may move to do that. -- further on after we take public comments. so i just wanted to tell you that. i'm done. >> do we have any public comment regarding item 5? [reading] >> yes, i do. >> all right. please step up to the microphone and speak into the microphone and just state your name. >> my name is lydia sew. have a good evening, all the