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 bathroom taking a shower. as far as actual calls -- a huge percentage are the homeless- related issues. second would be 418's, a fight. it does not distinguish whether it is verbal or physical. i was reading through it. there are not a lot of police reports. >> it seems as though there is a lot of heat behind this operation. there are other operations that do not have similar heat. it never became clear to me exactly what the problem is with this establishment that is different. >> i think it is location.

the number of bars around this location. >> who enforces these conditions? >> there are part of the permit. we enforce the conditions with the help of the sfpd. >> i am having a hard time understanding the low number of calls and then the actual requirement you have two security guards. help me understand why, at a small place, would you require two security guards? >> the police recommendation was long. supervisor mar approached it as two. that is what the commission went with.

>> any other questions at this time? thank you. we will take public comment. can i see a show of hands. ? >> will you be ok with two minutes? you get three but be aware that if you can be briefer we would appreciate it. >> if you are able to come up please line up along the wall to move the process along faster. the first person can come up to the microphone. you can handle the cards to the clerk. if you could fill it out afterward, it would help us. >> i appreciate your time tonight. my name is tracy west. i live around the corner from jack in the box.

i have raised three children. my family has lived in the community for close to 16 years. my stoop and the driveway are the overflow parking and seating area for jack in the box. ketchup, a trash are often left on my stairs. this side of my stairs becomes the outdoor restaurant facilities for these customers. i have considered installing a date but find that my senior neighbors like to rest on my stairs on their way home from shopping so i never felt the need to do that to make them suffer for the jack in the box's customers. if the noise does not wake me up, i am usually woken up at the back of my house. my master bedroom is corner to the parking lot. i have double pane windows. i have in still a -- in s

sulation. it is not stopped the screaming and the fights. pretty much on a regular basis. since jack in the box has been closed, at first i was finding out was still waking up on a regular basis. that shows how often i had been awakened by the noise. my sleeping pattern was totally off. after a few weeks, i have been getting a full night's sleep. i do not understand how they can prioritize that drunk people need a place to go over residents trying to live in the neighborhood. i do not regard to jack in the box for trying to make money but we have other restaurants in the neighborhood and a close before 11:00 p.m.

they do not have any issues about staying in the business. that seems to be their big thing. we are asking jack in the box to be a considerate neighbor. i will say that i live around the corner and i have gotten no outreach from jack in the box. >> next speaker. >> i live on tent at the corner there, one block away from the jack in the box. because the facilities are so small, they will often park on my place or cross the street and walk over. that is why you get so many petitioners because it affects the outlying areas. not just there with the tragic incident but they will come

down and park content or 11th or geary and walk over there. you get awakened at 2:15 on a constant basis. it gradually dissipated to almost nothing. there is also an after hours place a few doors down. a korean barbecue. never any calls there. never any problems reported. so, i have been a victim of violence from one of these patrons headed over there a few years back where they decided to walk on the top of my car and i went out to ask them what they are doing and they threw a construction barricade through my window. the police came right away and had them in handcuffs. there are constant fights. i get calls to several nights about some the urinating on my

porch or leaving trash. the police do not have time to address these issues. they have other problems. it is more of the quality of life issue. the size the safety issue, in that area. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i have lived in the district for more than 30 years. i want to say that this is a public safety issue. that is what we have been concerned about. i want to point out that it was the commander who first brought this issue up to us as members of his advisory board. about a year-and-a-half ago.

he came in and he spoke with us and spoke with san francisco and captain kurri and asked us, and he said he had a problem with this location. he wondered if we might be able to reach out and find a solution. we find out the franchisee and invited him to speak with us and he implemented changes like lights in the parking lot and a security guard on the weekend. i am concerned about a couple of other issues which is that 1000 people, more than 1000 people verify to live in the district, it is very hard to get even 50 people together. 1000 people feel that this place is a problem after hours. the captain thought this was a

problem. supervisor mar ask for a continuance of a decision so that he could reach out to the neighborhood. he did that. we had a community meeting at the police station. residents came as well as some bar owners, motel owners that supervisor mar invited. they said that since and the close of the jack in the box, they said they were glad that it was closed. supervisor mar thought they would support the small businessman that they said they had problems with the jack in the box patrons causing problems for their patrons, problems with them urinating on the building. it is not just residents. it is business owners as well. supervisor mar had not recommended it be closed.

i came into the second meeting. he said he was recommending that it be closed. it is in the record. nobody i have spoken to, we were all stunned no one asked for or recommended that the closed. we have never recommended a permit be denied after hours. there is a safety issue. we want to close when the bar is let out because we are concerned about a serious incident happening. i do not think security guards need to sell tacos. that tells you we have a problem. >> next speaker. >> i am a richmond district resident and a member of the community advisory board. i want to reiterate what tracy

west, my neighbor, has said. i could repeat her words but she basically spoke for me. sue and i sit on the advisory board together. this came to our attention by the commander when he was captain of the richmond district station. we worked in conjunction with our police officers. we work with our officers and with our captains to try and address community issues and problems. we are mr. kahn's neighbors, not his enemy. we have never asked him to close his business. we only ask, after gathering the evidence, and that he close from 2 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.

i think that got lost. also, i wanted to say that we did not initially addressed the 24 hour opening or permit issue when he first came into our meeting because we were not aware he was out of compliance. we operated on good faith with him, thinking everything was in order. i want to thank you all for your time and attention. i would encourage you to support our neighborhood and what we're trying to do. >> if you have not handed in your speaker cards, we would appreciate it. >> could evening. i was representing other clients while these cases were taken.

i have been following this one and reading it in the press. i wanted to reiterate that i believe that supervisor mar did not support the after hours. however he understood it would go before the commission and their consideration and he put their terms in in the event it passed. that is how i understood it. i am an advocate for having food available late, provided the environment is safe. what happened here is the isolated case got into the papers and magnified it and it became everyone's attention. everyone took a look at it. every major city has food that is open late. people work in the hospitality industry need to have sustenance.

the question is, is there a public nuisance at this location? i do not believe there is a pattern that supports that data. in reference to commissioner garcia, and he said haori managing people? let's -- how are you managing people? if you have 18 seats in your occupancy is 49, if i am coming there, if there is a seat available, if not i usually go and eat in a car or i go home. i do not know if the intensification issue is really an issue. i think it is being managed properly. however, i also think that this company has gone into the community and put additional safeguards that make the place much better and much safer. security guards, personnel, and

increased awareness in the community. i think at this point, i would uphold the permit. i would keep a good look on it. i think they followed all the requirements and did everything they were asked to do. i know some of the will of the people that live here but at the same time, i think the applicant was in harmony with the codes. that is what we have to look at, did they play by the rules? i think they did. i would uphold the permit. if we have to revisit it, or come back to it, that is one thing. i think with the increased safety valves, i would like to give them a chance to continue their business. >> next speaker. >> mr. president, commissioners,

i would like to agree with this previous speaker. i think that it is a safety issue but the safety issue, to me, is the importance of late night food in terms of sobering people who have left the bars. there is research that shows that food helps sobered up people. we can send them home and probably people will get a better night's sleep. but how many? will there be from drunk drivers? we should look at that issue. there is another issue, when i grew up, this was called the geary freeway. if we shut down the tonight food and shut down richmond, it is one more thing we're turning san francisco into walnut creek. we need a late-night food and

late night establishments. we should applaud this permit because it is in the interest in safety of the other people on the street to have them less intoxicated when they go home. thank you. >> is there any other public comment? we will move into rebuttal. start with the appellant. >> president garcia, the transcript does not lie. we have the transcript. a federal district judge -- supervisor mar entered the room and he says i want to say that i am supportive of your neighborhood to consider their

voices and to not allow the jack in the box to continue between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. he says that on his website. the second thing the transcript said is the conditions on which the permit was issued, they are contained in the transcript that we have provided to you and the the police conditions, including the 18 and the fact there is no loitering, were adopted. they are contained on page 31. commissioner joseph, with the conditions of supervisor mar, there was an amendment that we had no comment. he said yes and it passed. the police commission, recommendations, excuse me, only 18 in the restaurant and no boy during, were adopted. given that, these are the final

points. it is inconsistent. you will have more than 18 people loitering outside. they will create noise. i can tell you that i live one block from this restaurant and i have seen the lines of 30 to 40 people waiting to get in. there's nothing in the record showing 49 is the occupancy. that is irrelevant. the police conditions of 18 were adopted. we're talking about two guards to sell faster. doesn't that show you you need two guards, maybe you should not do this after hours. we do not have them in the bank or anywhere else. this is such a high risk activity we need two guards.

there is no evidence. the evidence is to the contrary. we have attached scientific studies saying that food does not sober people up. if you are drunk, you have to wait for the alcohol to leave your system. i ask that you dismiss the last comment by this attorney who said the applicants, should be endorsed. in sum, there are other late- night places to get food. we ask that the entertainment commission be reversed. >> you have three minutes of the bottle. -- rebuttal. >> we do not profess to be

experts on what sobers people up but it seems odd that bars and restaurants offer coffee when somebody is intoxicated. that is not a point. the point is the appellant says that over 200 people are in this restaurant between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. that is not true. the owner of the restaurant has had a countdown and it averages far less than that. far less than that. the second thing is, we went through the commission. we did everything. we have complied with every requirement that supervisor mar, the police department, or whoever it is, imposed. it seems to me unfair for them to be penalized before they get

started. yes, there were problems in the past but they have been fixed. again, i do not believe the restaurant is a magnet for the problem. the magnet starts at the bars. as the policeman said, one of the reasons they have a higher incidence ratio is because they are closer to the bars. it is not their fault the bars are closer. as far as the argument of going someplace else, that is like, and not in my backyard. is it better to have been in talks in kidded person walk across the street -- intoxicated person walk across the street or driving creighton accident? in closing, we have done everything we have been asked to do and then some. he did not open