residential areas at a late night operations were permits were denied pacifically because of objections from the neighborhood. >> the police way in, and if the police say no, you denied a permit. in this case, as opposed to the other one, there was no directors hearing? >> correct. >> the matter is submitted. commissioner hwang: this case is actually in my opinion, different than the previus case -- previous case for two reasons. one is -- one of the emails from

staff indicated that there were no complaints. there might have been complaints coming in subsequently verses of the previous case. in this location, there were zero complaints, and if one looks at the language, it is not 100% in the affirmative. there is a slight bit of a difference to its that would have led the appellant to believe she was going to receive for a permit. -- receive her permit. i guess the other issue is the

question of liek foods -- like foods. it was not clearly made that it was the determination, although it was stated that way once. they were prepared to go forth, and so my concern here is a little on the due process side, and in addition, since the police information didn't really come to us, and not prepared to give a lot of weight to that other than the fact will -- the fact was that they did recommend disapproval.

i would be interested in supporting the appellant in this case, but i would wonder whether we can draft a different time period. versus s6:00a.m. to 3:00 a.m. >> i agree a set for the last fang. i think things are out of whack in my humble opinion. i appreciate the comments by the appellant in her opening regarding having new issues thrown at her, even today to have to respond to without an opportunity to consider and absorber, research, and present to us. at every turn here, in this case, where so than the last, there has been a changeup.

i think it is patently unfair, and this appeal should be granted and the permit should be allowed. there is nothing in the record here to indicate that dpw has done its own investigation. with respect to the like food which is the only basis that i could read in the denial, and does nothing showing, in fact, the finding was made that those entities have food similar to what i believe to be a very distinct type of product that this appellant is attempting to sell. >> i would agree that the process is confusing here, and in the letter, there corresponds with the police

officer. it was brought up with close proximity, there is not a lot of detail to support any of that. i am somewhat uncomfortable making a decision either way based on the information we have. i would support a continuance to try to get additional information. i don't know and i can support -- we have to make a decision, but it is confusing at best based on the things we have in front of us. >> based on an issue of due process, i would be inclined to grant the permit, and the think that based on what i have in front of me, my interpretation is that it was denied and based on it being a like food the have

expressed my opinion that i did not believe that it was the case here. and for those reasons, i would not consider the evidence about public safety because i don't find that it was the basis of the denial. i think that is what the appellant was prepared to respond to here. it would be a violation of due process to throw and the kitchen sink at this point. for those reasons, i would vote to grant a permit. >> if i can respond to commissioner hillis's suggestion we continue. i think the burden is on the department had they failed to meet the burden. president garcia: we have seen the the amount of money spent by the -- the appellant, and while

it might end up with ms. lewis having a business there, it is doubtful that she will. to continue its is to have them continue to lose money for the investment they have made so far, and get no return on that money. this was a truncated process, truncated because once the police weighed in, the process that should have taken place did not take place. it is really problematic. what i would want to do is some sort of hybrid whereby she gets to operate their, because there are real concerns. just like down the block, there is a waterfront bakery that can be heard by this. while we are all anxious to do something to help miss lewis because it is a bad situation, we don't want to help her by hurting someone else.

also, we have not been presented with in the proper information, the police might have real safety concerns that are directed to the operator. we don't want to put her in some situation where she would end up being robbed or hurt. what i am very comfortable doing, i am willing to overturn and allow the department to straighten this thing out. i think that's absolutely the issue has to be straightened out as to whether or not she needs a police permit because she is a vendor or because she dpw needs a permit because she is operating at whatever the category is, a mobile food facility. there is also the idea that while it gets straightened out, we have the right to demand and i will certainly -- the police

get together and finding a location for this operation. in the cost of notice of intent that has to take place, and what businesses and a certain radius have to be notified, i would ask -- i have no authority to demand, i would ask him them to resolve those costs. anybody paying attention to this, anybody that sees the materials and has paid attention to this hearing would have to agree that this is been an incredibly confusing issue that has cost to people that are struggling. i'm not trying to create sympathy for the appellant. there is a description of this family of four children, i am assuming the husband and wife, doing without christmas gifts, not buying this and not doing

this activity. because all their hopes and dreams and finances are wrapped up into this process. it falls upon us, this board, to do whatever we can to try to ameliorate this situation. i dunno if we can do it properly with the law or not, but short of being able to, i'm not sure how we can get the things that they asked for, i am going to overturn. but there are real issues having to do -- i will vote to overturn. there are real issues having to do with the waterfront bakery, having to do with whether or not this operation needs a vendor's permit from the police or an mff permit from public works. i guess iwhat can happen, she an can start operating, and because

of these problems, they can come and revoke. i would hope that rather than revoke, and they tried going to ward at some of the things that we are requesting -- that i am requesting, pardon me. having to do with absolving whatever costs are practical and that these two people can operate their business. i will make a motion, to overturn the department. the reason for the denial as we learned tonight, it is not clear and appears to have been a safety issue. nothing has been presented to us for us to understand why a kitten is a problem. -- why it is a problem. it has not been substantiated. the findings are not there to

support he denial. i move this board overturn the department and grant the permit. >> with in the hours on the permit application of 6:00 a.m. until 3:00 a.m.. president garcia: and we run the risk of something happening to miss lewis. commissioner hwang: the department has reviewd thed the hours on a six-monhth or twelve- month basis. >> she does not have the operate between all of them, she can make that the -- a decision. on that motion? commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: no. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> vote is 4-0, motion carries. 4-1, very sorry.

the permit is to be granted. the permit is to be granted. president garcia: 02 apologies, >> we will start with the appellant, you have seven minutes. >> president garcia, commissioners -- >> if you will pull the

microphone, we will use that one. >> sorry. i'ma member -- i'm a member of the chinese-american voters education committee that is seeking a reversal of the entertainment commissioned of the decision to grant the applicant in after hours permit. the entertainment commission's position must be reversed because it was impermissibly in effect and with procedural irregularities and is totally unsupported by the records. stipulated fax including the high volume of volume associated with this neighborhood restaurant [unintelligible] there is no basis to grant this application. there is no right to operate a fast food restaurant 24 hours a

day. furthermore, the commission's decision isn't in deference to this body. this body must give no regard to the decision except the fact that we point out, procedural irregularities and the finding that the restaurant at to be opened because we need a place to make people less drunk. we need a place where drug people can go to become less drunk. there is the articulation of public safety. the business owner must meet the criteria set forth in the san francisco police code, as the commission's own brief, they are at the utmost importance. when the police code as applied, there is no factual basis to grant an after-hours permit here.

we indicated the area around the restaurant, you will hear from the advisory board in the richmond district that the police calls have been a concern for some time. these calls are so problematic that the commander of the police station request of the board to investigate the matter. you will hear from the board in this year. he admitted that there were a new amount of criminal and police calls. the numerous antidotes -- anecdotes that are here, a word of warning. there is a fight here nearly every week. less than two months after we

sat down, a decorated marine veteran of iraq got into a fist fight with a purported gang member at this restaurant and was run down and in a vegetative, today. he sits in the kaiser facility, not responsive, totally in a vegetative,. the problem with this location, i went and inspected it. i will attest that the restaurant's 240 square feet is a lot. the bars on clement street closed down and we have attached photos. you can get a sense of procedural irregularities that are numerous. an amazing amount of people

given the 90,000 residents signed a petition opposing the permit. the staff dismissed a petition saying that it was unclear, it should be disregarded because most people live outside the city. that is false. over 1000 people showed richmond addresses on the petition. the staff also stated that the numerous e-mail's at letters that were received by the entertainment commission should be disregarded because they are to generalize. they complain about the operation of this restaurant. the statement of facts continues, you cannot restate the facts. in this regard, the entertainment commission drops a

footnote falsely asserting that supervisor mar support to that application. it is on record that we attach to that he opposes this. the first vote is to deny the permit. the vote was 4-1 with only the vice chairman voting in favor of the two denied a permit absolutely. without public comment or an opportunity for us to be heard, the amendment permits said that it will be from 4:00 to 6:00, which doesn't really address the public's safety issues because it occurs at 2:00 a.m.. the vice chairman stated that the reason the fast food restaurant should remain open will help people not be as strong. we will have this restaurant to help people not be as drunk. intoxicated people will and buy food and it will help them. eating a jack bugerrger,

drinking coffee doesn't sober someone up. the only thing that does that is time, letting the alcohol get out of your system. paragraph 2, 3, 7, 8 are not satisfied. it states that the application should be denied if it cannot accommodate the traffic that is expected. the police recommended that the establishment stay open, and after hours basis by attaching conditions. and that there would only be 18 people allowed in the rest regent restaurant any time. the next one was whether or not malaise in the community will be affected. the evidence is overwhelming that the noise associated with after hours has been disturbing the peace of the neighborhood.

and we respectfully request that the commission vote to deny the after hours permit. does anyone have any questions? >> possibly not, because the brief was pretty clear. >> i wanted to say one thing before you sit down. in the public, a section that we will get to a few minutes, i want to make sure you understand that board members and officers of the associations would not be eligible to speak during public comment. >> i will represent you that everyone that's here, board members and associations, they will make that clear. >> that's fine, i just wanted to make it clear. we can hear now from the permit holder. the representative?

>> could evening, mr. garcia, hit my name is arthur bryden. we service a consulting firm in five states. we are not legal counsel. i think in this case, this gentleman owns the franchise. he has done everything that -- and gone beyond that at the entertainment commission and the supervisor mar recommended they do. he is trying to be a good neighbor. they have not even opened yet. they spent the last month going around the neighborhood trying

to build bridges and cooperate with a fellow -- the fellow residents. i believe it would be unfair, they have done every single thing. everything conditioned on the permit. they have gone beyond that. yet they still have not opened because they continue to want to build bridges with the the neighborhood. i think it would be unfair for them to be closed before they get started. we went to two hearings with the entertainment commission. very exhaustive. the gentleman from the police department supported the permit. now you are being asked to revoke it before they get out the starting gate. that does not seem fair and it seems a denial of due process. they have not done and read --

anything wrong. we are sorry about the gentleman who was hurt. severely injured. it could have happened anywhere. it was an isolated incident. nobody likes of violence. my mother was a victim of violent crime. what can you do? this was an isolated incident. the police department supported the permit. there have been no other incidents. i cannot see a compelling reason for you folks to overturn the permit that has not been activated. i will turn to mr. kahn. >> let me add something over here that in 2011, july, i was invited to visit and listen to their hearing. on that hearing, not even once

did they mention 2:00 and four o'clock. a member of the sea pact -- cpap was there. in 2010, the police were called many times. i was misquoted that i told him the majority of the calls was because of the homeless issue we are facing in the area. this suggests that following the recommendations and go from there. i said that was fine. they came down over to visit the store. we followed all of the recommendations. in august the -- they are praised our effort and said things are fine. so, again, in both meetings, it

was not once mentioned. all of a sudden, i do not know why this issue came up. i do not understand. look at the permit and look at the conditions attached to it. i am willing to adopt all of these conditions. give us a chance. >> i think the issue is we are sorry about the isolated incident. the policeman, the police department have approved our permit. we did everything they asked us to do. i believe it now, to try to be a good neighbor, this gentleman and his manager and staff are

trying to build a bridge. they have not even opened between 2:00 and four o'clock. out of respect for the neighborhood they did not. now it seems unfair and of a borderline violation of their due process because the governing body told them what to do and they did it. as far as the permit having lapsed, this gentleman and someone else our franchisees'. they bought the store from jack in the box. they paid for the permit. somehow in the mumbo jumbo of moving paper it never got issued. it is not like he has been ignoring the law. they did everything they are supposed to do. as far as regulations, health the san francisco, all of their deposits are made on time and perfect. i know because i set them up.

all i am asking is that give them a chance to prove themselves considering the fact we went through the hearings and did what we were asked to do. there is nothing missing. questions? >> you say this is new, you have not been opened since 2:00. the restaurant was opened before you bought it in. during this time when there was confusion about the permit, where you open? >> it has been open since 1988 for 24 hours. until 2011. >> when you purchase to the franchise, you kept it open 24 hours. how long?

>> until december. i acquired the store in 2008 and until december 2011. we do not have a permit for the hours, we immediately shut down. >> the day we found that the permit has not been extended, they closed the store. no problem. i would ask the board to consider the fact that these gentlemen have done everything they are supposed to have done. the entertainment commission, the supervisor made suggestions. they followed every one of them. they have not even opened the store. it is only fair to give them an opportunity to implement the safety features they have installed. installed. other questions?