i lived a few blocks from -- live a few blocks from king of thai. i am here to speak in support of the ballot, because i have seen the change in that area for the past 10 years, and specifically since the restaurant has changed into a half-bar half-restaurant hybrid, it has become increasingly unsafe to hang out, especially at night and on the weekends. we would actually go and hang

out on broadway every now and then, and even though it was kind of a neighborhood like that, we felt safe enough to go to the restaurant there and hang out. now it has changed completely. there are more and more establishments that tried to change their permits one way or the other and have additional entertainment. if you don't support the ballot, your green lighting the trend and changing the neighborhood into something completely different. president chiu: if anyone wishes to speak, light up on the center aisle.

>> i urge you to reject the appeal. for as long as i can remember, i have been going across the street for decades and i am familiar with this corner. the illegal change and the ridiculously tacky signs have had a significant impact on the quality of life for nearby residents and passers-by. i was quite happy to come down.

others are saying that it is kind of a magnet for people from the broadway corridor. please grant the appeal and reject this review. >> i am also a resident of north beach. i love thai food, and i love that corner. i just wanted to add to the discussion that everybody makes mistakes. the planning department made a mistake by not making a site visit to the restaurant, and so they didn't discover that the restaurant had turned their second floor into a bar. they also didn't tell the planning commission that there were all of these prior agreements that required that the second floor be a restaurant

and not a bar. so there were mistakes upon mistakes, and now the planning department acknowledged that they made a mistake, and they have changed their position. i would urge you to approve this conditional use permit for all the other reasons that the folks have brought up. >> you guys know me, i am a longtime community activist. i lived on grant avenue for 33 years, so it holds a very special spot in my heart. my husband and i, and good memories.

you can imagine the concerns about the situation. moving around the corner, a full-blown nightclub was evolving. from the avenue to central station, a couple of the commissioners verbally attacked the san francisco police

department representatives, suggesting a sergeant shouldn't be wasting his time at a planning commission meeting and should be out on the street protecting san francisco. they also said they never explained their criteria. it is my understanding that that criteria had been explained several times. [chime] i think you know where i am going with this. president chiu: any other members wish to speak? why not remove to the presentation by the city department? i'm not sure which of you would like to go first.

>> this is a conditional use permit granted. it specifically allows them to install a karaoke machine. they have done an extensive report on the history and i can go into that if you would like. the appeal was filed a few months ago but there is a 2005 notice on the property. it did not include a proper bar

that we would know of. we asked our department staff to investigate the property, and there was a violation. there was a full bar on the second floor with taps and bottles, and we respectfully request that this body uphold the appeal, overturn a conditional use so we can bring this new information to light. >> i have a couple of quick questions for you. under the plan encoder, neither boar nor restaurant are permitted above the ground floor?

>> part of that is correct. basically, the second floor use is illegal. it is a use that was in existence prior to a zoning changing. there was -- that bar and restaurant use on the second floor cannot expand or intensify due to the fact that those uses are not permitted. >> and just to clarify, would you have observed -- what you have observed is intensification? >> absolutely. president chiu: under the

planning code, could they get a cu? >> no. president chiu: it sounds as if the staff had not found the history, he talked about what happened and why it took so long? >> i think that they did adequately see what happens. the special restriction was not highlighted and did not pop up when the planner was checking for the site. the project sponsor and commission with this information, including the dwellers brought this to our attention. the plan at the time -- planner

at the time in turn made it's approval based on de information or lack thereof -- based on the information or lack thereof. president chiu: it is fair to say that you would have made a very different recommendation? >> we would not have brought this to the planning commission. we wanted to make sure that they were conforming into being a good neighbor to the community. president chiu: thank you. it looks like we have the commander here today. you have all received a copy

from the chief. are there things you like to inform us on? >> you should have all received a copy of this letter. we are here to support the community, and refusing this conditional use based on all of the arguments you hear today, i wanted to point out the middle paragraph that talks about the saturation aspect that 3200 licenses was estimated, and the area is over intensified with over 70 licenses. if you consider that, 74 where the recommendation was 14. the central police district

regularly puts out an unprecedented number of police and to mitigate the problems associated with over intensifying. the conditional use requirement is in place because of the saturation of similarly licensed bars and clubs. a bona fide eating place, not a bar or a club. the difference is the obligation to remain primarily a bonafide food service restaurant. there is a correlation of clubs and bars to violence, that is different than restaurants. adding carry a key -- karaoke and ppol -- pool tables.

they need the change -- they made the change on an ad hoc situation. the neighborhood plot defined by six blocks of residential businesses mixed together with housing, approximately 4200 people. the recommend 40 establishments where there are currently 71, -- 14 establishments where there are currently 71. again, the chief asks that you reject the permit. president chiu: could you talk to us for a moment about whether the density of licenses leads to a alcohol-related, public safety issues, and whether it also requires an additional increase in police presence to deal with

that? >> the presence is necessary not only to mitigate the violence that comes with alcohol-related inebriation, aggressive behavior, and those associated factors, but it puts it on the police department to make sure that all of these licenses are in compliance, we have to do the checking and send out fliers before festivals. we have to do site visits for after hours drinking, things of that nature. i might point out that in 2009, this opinion in his honor was cited for servers of alcohol beyond 2:00 a.m. president chiu: additional questions? thank you for being here today,

commander. if we could now move to the project sponsor for presentation of up to 10 minutes. >> i am attorney for the owners and operators of the building and business. they open to the dinner house there when they first moved in, and they were readily going broke. they made some changes, but they are substantially in compliance wit. there was a violation filed and is pending. we hope to work with the planning department to make sure that we are in full compliance. the general comments of the speakers today i think are about something other than what is on

the agenda here. what is on the agenda here is a karaoke machine. that is all. it is not even on the same floor as the alleged expansion of our activities upstairs. they are trying to work with -- they never hit it. that is probably why nobody paid any attention to it. this karaoke machine has been seized upon by lot of people who also have -- is due restaurant bar of illegal on the second floor? it is not illegal. it is within the confines of what is allowed.

i understand people are upset, but it is simply a karaoke machine. for a different sort of used than what everyone is complaining about. one speaker mentioned the internet and the comments better included in the appeal brief. it basically puts in reviews that talk about a sports bar and watching games up there. if you look at each of the reviews, out of 75 pages, more than half of those talk about the food. it is served in the bar area on the second floor on a regular basis. it shows tables and chairs with machines on them. this is a restaurant that is

deemed to have expanded a little too far. we are willing to work with that, and we would like to talk about that. but tonight, we are talking about one karaoke machine. it said under heading 5-a, the permanent is limited to a karaoke machine, and this would have negligible impact. we are here about a karaoke machine. we are willing to address that. it gives a chance to make adjustments, and they gave us a chance to assert our position. tonight, we're talking about 1 karaoke machine. i understand people are upset, and there is a commitment to work with them. but this owner never hit a pool

table, there are documents going to the planning commission talking about the application for the pool table, and we pretty much made the decision not to put 1 in. there is not one there. if you want to restrict the entertainment permanent on the condition that they don't have a pool table, that is fine. this simply should not be the forum for deciding whether he is in compliance with the dsr. we believe it needs some minor modifications. they are prepared to work on ways to make this more neighborhood friendly and work on a plan to make a shrine to the la pantera part of the building. this was necessary because the

initially white tablecloth and white gloves restaurant was a disaster financially. now they're having problems with success, and they're willing to adjust to those problems. president chiu: is it your position that your client is not operating a sports bar. >> there is a sign in the window that says sports bar, there is no question about that. the sign that says food is bigger. showing sports and has people they're eating at all hours is not a violation. they don't prohibit any bar and restaurant from showing sports. president chiu: you mentioned the side. it seems to me that it says

sports bar all over it. >> those signs have been removed because people are upset about it. this operator is committed to working with these problems and finding a use where he can make a living in he can preserve the traditions of san francisco, and we hope to demonstrate that to the planning department as a part of the process with the notice of violation. i think that is where this should go. having it here now before the board of supervisors when the only thing on the agenda is one karaoke machine is a completely different views than what is being complained about and is not a good idea. president chiu: this is an issue well beyond the karaoke machine. exhibit 9 obviously has

marketers for this restaurant that have talked about san francisco's best secret sports bar. >> these reviews, if you look at -- it says it is a thai place that offers cheap foods. -- food. there is no question that they show sports. >> the client received a notice of violation, right? >> i am not aware of the violation in 2008. he paid the penalty for it and it has not been committed again. >> in october of this year, you received another violation? >> i am not aware of that.

president chiu: you are not aware of the fact that they received another one? technically, they received two. given the issues of trust, why should we believe that your client has not engaged in issues that violate the local laws. >> there has been a response to that issue, and that is not what this hearing is about. it is a nonconforming use that they will pay a penalty for, but it has nothing to do with the carry a key machine. i understand people are upset, my clients understand people are upset. they're making an effort, and they have 15 days to do that. we have acted quickly. this is simply about one kerry of the machine, and in fact, if

the speakers spoke about it and thought about it, it would think the karaoke machine itself is conducive to a better atmosphere. this is not a rowdy crowd we're talking about. it tends to be older asians sitting around passing the microphone. president chiu: is your client here today? >> he is here today. president chiu: i ask your attorney and a couple of questions. the remember receiving the first notice of violation in 2008? >> about what? >> it specifically advise you of the conditions that were placed on your property by the board of appeals.

>> if that is the type of violation you're talking about, he is not fluent enough in english to study them, but we are studying them now that it has become more of a subject of discussion. he has tried to comply by having full-service food and threw it out -- throughout. the citation is simply -- there is alleged to be an expansive use of the bar. we think that that, essentially, is not true, but we're willing to make changes to try to accommodate the concerns. president chiu: any additional questions to the project sponsor? why don't we see if there is any public comment for members of the public in support of the project sponsor.

>> i am a consultant, and i want to say that he has been -- and this has been a big roller coaster ride. we wanted to be permissible to have karaoke and one or two pool tables. with the code 703, it was permissible to have that --- to have up to two as long as it didn't take up more than 1/3 of the floor space. it basically said that other entertainment was not permissible only on the first floor. we went through a hearing, we had 100 supporters. we have four police officers. two captains, to permit officers -- two permit officers.

we went through a conditional use process. " people were there in support of it. -- 12 people were there in support of it. the officers went up and basically made an allegation that he received a citation for serving beer and wine. that was an allegation, and the commander can come up here because he was fully versed. there was no evidence or citation. the planning commissioners were upset because they sent an officer that was misinformed and they were upset because there was no evidence. subsequently, it went through four-three.

you heard the members talk about the fact -- we were unaware of this. nothing came up. that is what made us go forward on this thing. second of all [chime] they had plenty of time -- president chiu: i have a couple of questions for you. did you review the design documents on the space? >> i just received them and i looked it over. nothing has anything to do with karaoke. president chiu: even though there had been this entire history related to the establishment? >> that is the first time that we saw the document in the appeal. we asked