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 him, do you know about this document? i said, you might have a civil matter with the guy that told you this building. president chiu: would you say that this is not a sports or? -- a sports bar? >> i would say that it is a restaurant with sports on the screen like other places in san francisco. it has comfortable chairs to sit

while you eat. can you imagine legislating this. you agreed with a post that said, [unintelligible] you are not escorted to any bar. the second floor has three seats near the bar area. president chiu: if i told you that i have many constituents that have not been given the opportunity to get food, would you dispute that? >> i used to sit inside the restaurant and greet them on- occasions and ask him, would you like to get something to eat? i have the footage because there is a camera on the building. this is something that is really

concerning. president chiu: are there any other members of the public? excuse me, sir. you already spoke. >> my name is anthony. i wonder why everybody -- they don't want me to have a permit. i start to have karaoke, and we supply everybody. my customers have ca concert every wednesday, and they didn't know how to co[unintelligible] i have permits to buy tv's. i am an american citizen and

i can have tv's to any channel they want. if they want to watch sports, they are allowed to turn to sports. there is freedom. they are allowed to change any sport game. most of my customers are young people. they are starting uc-berkeley. if you think i am not right, i have to follow lost business. president chiu: any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor? ok. let us hear from the appellant

with a rebuttal of up to 3 minutes. >> i will keep this very brief, supervisors. you have the planning department, the police department, the lawyer for the former owners, north beach residents. we are asking you to hear our voices. king of thai is currently in violation. president chiu: this hearing has been held and closed. i will put this in the hands of the board. supervisor camospos, i am going to ask if you could share this portion. thank you for sharing this particular hearing. obviously, we have heard from members of the public about how this establishment has changed

the character of this part of north beach and negatively impacted the quality of life of residence in my district. we have also heard from the san francisco police department about significant safety issues that have been plaguing this part of my district for a long time. in fact, i think it is a good reason why we ought to consider alcohol mitigation fees so that we can get more resources to properly police an area that has been over saturated with liquor licenses. i think what is most compelling about why we should reject the cu is what the planning department has told us. they have told us that during the process they failed to provide the commission with the regulatory history about this property, information about the current operation of the property, and other information that was necessary to understand why the cu was in violation of

the planning code and the board of appeals conditions applied many years ago. it is unprecedented from my perspective that the planning department staff is asking us to reject this cu. i think the fact that the department just issued another notice of violation on october 1 -- i think it is another reason why we need to find the cu was issued in error and must be revoked. i would like to reject it, table item 27, and move items 28 and 29. supervisor campos: the motion is seconded by supervisor d ufty. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor daly: aye.

supervisor chu: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aywe. supervisor mirkarimi: -- supervisor maxwell: aye. >> item 30 is a public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the department of public works and dated september 7, 2010, approval of four lots at a project located at forrester st.. item 31 approves the tentative parcel map for the address. item 32 is a motion disapproving the decision of the department of public works and disapproving the tentative parcel map for the address. item 33 is a motion directing

the clerk to prepare findings relating to the decision. supervisor elsbernd: based on advice i have received from the city attorney, i have to ask to be recused from this item. i do not own property within the radius, but the situation is directly behind my house. there is a potential project that will be impacted by the issue of the lot size being wrapped around the corner in the same neighborhood. i think it is an issue of neighborhood character and would impact the project. because of the potential material impact on my property, i would ask that you accuse me. president chiu: there is a motion by supervisor dufty, seconded by supervisor chu.

we have before us an appeal for the tentative parcel map at 0 los palmos drive. we will find with this is consistent with the general plan or any other specific plan that may apply. we will first hear from the appellant, who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds of the appeal. we will then take public comment from individuals that support the appellant, up two two minutes per speaker. we will hear from representatives of the department of public works and the planning department who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their decision follow. we will then hear from person speaking on behalf of the real party of interest. finally, the appellant will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal. why don't we proceed to hear from the appellant? you have up to 10 minutes.

>> good evening, supervisors. i live at 246 los palmos drive, across the street from this project. i have with me petition signed by 37 neighbors, if i may enter them into the record. we believe the main issue here is the predominant lot size in this neighborhood, which is what should determine whether this subdivision will be permitted. merrill loma -- miraloma park is comprised of small or medium homes with large yards and a lot of green space.

less than 5% of the lots in the area are under 1800 square feet. the subdivision plan also requires that any at sub- standard lots it with the current predominant lot size of the neighborhood. the only way this subdivision is being permitted is because of the rule that says if you are within 125 feet of a corner, you can subdivide it into substandard sized lots. that same rule states it must be consistent with the predominant lot size. that is not the case in this area. nowhere in this neighborhood would you find three substandard lots adjacent to each other, which is what would be the result of this subdivision.

if this project is allowed to proceed in its current state, it would have an extremely detrimental effect on the properties in the neighborhood. it would totally change the characteristics. one of the main characteristics of miraloma park is the large number of lots with a green spaces, large yards. this would set a bad precedent. it would allow other developments to proceed. they would be destroying existing green space in order to build houses on substandard sized lots. the current law used to house a world-class a garden consisting of unique and exotic plants. these plants were removed from this area in order to enable