subject to know the limitations in the zoning district. >> i am talking in general. fast food facilities are a cu in general. >> the use itself would be. once they use is established, the hours of operation would not necessarily condition -- trigger a conditional use. >> is that the same in cu2? >> this would be permitted because there are no hours in operation. >> week have conditional use for the hours of operation. >> thank you. just seeing if you are awake. [laughter] >> the matter is submitted.

>> i will start. one of the things we wind up is there is a certain pattern that develops in light of certain types of cases. one of those is -- deals with nuisances. i have consistently felt facilities that have a potential nuisance or have created an nuisance need to deal with those on site. in its entirety. we have a situation where and i do not think anyone doubts there was some level of nuisance. whether one believes volumeless

study and i did not track those calls in assigning them. versus was presented tonight in terms of the specific run related to that address and that block. there is a wide discrepancy. nobody can dispute there have been instances of a nuisance. but it had not been addressed until this particular situation came up and there was a requirement the permit be reestablished based upon some type of either mr. medication or some error on the part of the permit holder. one could say and look at the mitigation is as proposed as a way of continuing the permit.

i am not sure i will buy that. the question is whether the permit holder is entitled for his business to have a permit that has had problems in the past. this will allow him to do it and hopefully it works if it is allowed. i am not sure i would buy that. i would say perhaps he needs to conduct his business and create a situation where there are no nuisances and come back and get for their entitlements. i would not support -- i would support the overturning of the permit. >> i should know this. there are different types of

people in a bar at the 2:00 than 11 or 12. some bars do not have doors. in new orleans. i do not want to let it go as it is. it is almost like there would be a syllogism that you could construct and it seems as though it has been conceded by the requirement there be security guards that it is problematic, and no. 4 talks about whether or not a security plan has been put in place that deals with that adequately. not to miss " her -- misquote her, or mitigate against being

loaded or drunk, and it is a little of both. it helps oxidize alcohol. you should drink -- should not drink so much they get drunk. ms. kane talked about the fact this level of review for the entertainment commission would be to go back and see if the conditions that are placed upon a permit, the operation of that permit are being properly adhered to. that is like to not watch the lights when you cross the street to watch the cars. we'll have to watch is whether or not, that they have the security guards, that is important. but whether or not the security guards are preventing the

problems and told people have signed petitions against. it does not seem there's anything in place that deals with that such that even if they have security guards, and the problem persists, they should lose that license, they should those that permit to operate between 2 and 4 and it seems some question should have been asked. this has to do with of right and we say this is all right to operate this business. could the model, the business model taken up enough of the slack from 4 to 6 as being lost, it cannot open from 2 to 4 to mitigate the problems for the neighbors? we hate to see any businessman is any money.

i am learning toward sunset ting. i might not have the votes for any of this. if we allow those conditions to be in place and the problem is attenuated, perhaps we would go another six months. we will see if that works. i look forward to hearing from my fellow commissioners. >> i would agree. the conditions that are put on here recognize there is no problem and their owners but i do not know if they solve the problem that exists that we're recognizing. i like the idea of.

if there is a mechanism that will let us reevaluate. the facility itself cannot and a security guard will not help the neighbors down the street with the problem. it is. i am skeptical that it is. i would like to see that, we can do after a certain amount of time. i support late-night food but i think they're not all equal. there is going to be problems with every one of them. there are people out in late hours which is good. there seems to be a recognition of a problem. >> i appreciate the testimony that was brought of the people

in the neighborhood. that was compelling to hear and i appreciate the work of the entertainment commission and the statistics to give us. i thought that was informative. every time i heard someone talk about the problems you are facing, i would have a problem with an establishment having patrons overflow and urinating in -- on my stoop and what not. at the same time with the entertainment commission did here is take into consideration all the concerns and i do agree whether or not these conditions are going to mitigate, the potential for problems is yet to be seen. you put in a good effort in putting something together that could worked. maybe it will not.

i like the idea of a sunset or established check-in. after six months. if this is -- this is a serious problem you need to have an opportunity built into addressing it and quickly. i would move in that direction as well. >> i would agree with what has been said about testing these conditions. both flagellum and applying for the permit as well as the entertainment commission as well as supervisor mar have put in a great deal of effort into addressing the neighbors' concerns and we live in this wonderful city but there are lot of us. -- a lot of us who live here. we are tightly squeezed together and we have to figure out ways to live peacefully as neighbors, side-by-side.

i think we need to reach some sort of compromise that addresses the concerns and i would support some sort of testing period for this permit. >> we cannot conditions permit. we can condition a lot that come before us but we're not able to conditions permit. is that correct? >> you can modify the hours. you can change with the hours are. that is in your discretion, but you cannot have it sunset after a certain number of months. >> is there some way we can retain jurisdiction? >> it is suspended with funders, the board's jurisdiction. >> we cannot say we continue it and it gets too -- he gets to operate with that. >> the affected individuals would have to vigilantly monitor

and work with the entertainment commission to get the enforcement and police out there. >> they do not have any mechanisms in place other than to find them if they have not complied with their requirements. the best this board could do is to uphold and plead with the entertainment commission to monitor this and suspended necessary? that is the best we could do which is not satisfying the neighbors but the neighbors will have the job of reasonably -- calling when there is a reasonable problem. >> could she say the commission will hold a public hearing on the six months from today to reevaluate these conditions? it is a public hearing at the

entertainment commission. can they voluntarily conditions permit at this point? >> the permit is under the board of jurisdiction so it is up to this body to act on it. they can volunteer to hold a hearing of that nature. i do not think you can be part of the board decision. >> we will give -- >> ms. kane, you asked a question. >> we would be willing to and if it comes in the form of an order or whatever it is that comes from this body to us, we agreed to hold a hearing six months from now, absolutely. i will say yes to that. i did not know what the allowances are for the board in terms of four conditions on the permit, is this an up or down kind of thing.

to the extent we can accommodate, it seems like the feeling of the board is we would be happy to do that. >> i tried to give suggestions to bodies when appropriate and it is appreciated. i do not know if ms. kane acan commit. i do not think she can. what this commission can do is table for two weeks and direct the entertainment commission, my parties, and the property owner to engage in settlement negotiations and see if we can settle this among ourselves and come up with appropriate conditions and report back to you and you can take a vote. >> we continue for two weeks and allow those discussions to take place. if ms. kane does not have the

power to back to the board, it might require a vote of the board. if they could do that. do have some comments? >> i do not know that -- i do not know what the settlement negotiations would mean. the entertainment commission cannot take action. it is suspended to us. she would have to do in the context of a public hearing. >> it would come back to this board and we would discuss with the staff of the entertainment commission with the applicant and our folks and we report back to president garcia and the board and you can take a boat. >> she can take it to her board and gets it codified or something that her board is willing to go along with with that kind of settlement agreements put in place. there would be more process behind this. everything is clear on what

would take place? >> some of the terms or to ask the entertainment commission to hold a hearing, that could be something that she could take back to her commission. anything affecting this person has to be decided by this body. >> it would be. you would act and we would discuss with the entertainment commission, with the property owner and we would take all steps necessary and it could do it that way. you would retain jurisdiction on the appeal and we would settle within two weeks. >> if we vote up or down to overturn this permit. it is in the interest of the permit holder for us to continue and have these discussions take place. it is with the cooperation of ms. kainane.

i unless another commissioner feels differently, it seems like a fairly elegant solution to the problem. you're shaking your head. >> i am sorry. what i am confused about is we have had to hearings already on this and this has been a third on the same. i do not believe there is any more information to come forward. i do not believe there's any more negotiation that could happen. i hope i am not speaking out of turn. we were talking about process earlier. and now we're talking about going back and doing another conversation with the same parties with the same information. the breaks that have been provided to you, there's everything there is to say on this. >> i do not think what is on

here as conditions would solve the problem. are there other ways? we advanced the idea of a sunset or some sort of action that happens to see of these work. we're skeptical and there may be people who vote no on the permit. we do not believe -- >> we do not know what we do not know. >> is there a mechanism -- quex the mechanism you have bront out which is a review in six months is perfectly understandable and more elegant to me that we now we now as opposed to not knowing what we do not know. if there is some way to embed this into your decision, put it in as a condition of the permit. whenever the methodology is, if you can find it to have a review. whether these conditions solve the problems.

we come back and have another conversation. it makes sense to me. >> i am not skeptical. i am optimistic. there are multiple conditions on this permit. hopefully the address the issue. there was a process they went into coming up with these conditions. maybe it is over the top to have to security guards. her nose? it may be perfect to address the concerns. this is an effort that a lot of people put a lot into. as the permit holders rep, give it a go. if we could embed the six months, is that not feasible? >> i am happy to research this question. these are not permits the you could not grant this as a six- month permit.

it can grant or deny it. you could not make expire after six months. >> that is not what we're doing. >> you're trying to remanded. -- remand it. the entertainment commission monitors the client -- complaints and would be responsible for suspending or revoking if there was a violation. >> what we're trying to achieve, what i am trying to achieve and i heard the same from other people. some mechanism takes place and we will hear from you again as we heard from everybody else. this is a chance. to continue it so we get some reassurance that your commission is willing to sunset. it is not willing, two weeks from now we will have a bunch of time you think you need. we take our up or down vote.

>> can ask another question? >> i do not think i have communicated that. >> i'm not sure of understand what you mean by sunset. >> after some stated amount of time, we have indicated six months, we have a different review of such that the permit would be revoked. you have revocation powers. >> we do. >> it would be revoked if the problems, if there is enough substantial evidence that the problems persist. >> i can tell you we would do that. we would do that sooner. we will know fairly quickly whether these conditions are working based on our ability to enforce with our enforcement officers. the neighbors letting us know that -- if these conditions are solving the problems are not. >> i misunderstood earlier.

i thought that what you said is you could go back and see if the conditions you had placed upon it were in place. >> they are there. >> it is not operating yet. >> we know the conditions are there. >> i understand that. when you have been asked about it, you did not say that -- if the conditions are not there we can find them and make sure the conditions are there but you did not go beyond that and say if the problem is not solved, we can revoke. those were the magic words for me. >> i apologize. we have suspension and revocation powers, absolutely. >> ok. before we pull the trigger. unless somebody had questions. >> the problem we have with this gentleman's proposal is what is

going to happen in three weeks, we come back again in three weeks and again in three weeks. meanwhile he is losing money every day even though he has done what he has been asked to do. on the other hand he is more than willing to submit to six- month examination. he can keep because so much of this money transfer is computerized. he can provide accurate records, how many customers he had between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. and how many people were there or whatever. i know it is getting late in the evening but my comment to this tillman is i do not think there is any way to settle it. he does not want it open. he wants to open. he was granted the permit. that is the bottom line. in three weeks will be back again. >> the board has heard what they had hoped to hear. i think we're ready to entertain a motion and to vote. i think this is probably not

necessary. does someone want to make a motion? knowing full well that the entertainment commission has powers of revocation, intends to monitor the situation closely, knowing the concerns of the neighborhood which seems to be legitimate, reasonable concerns and the concerns of very many people as attested to by the number of signatures we have received. given the fact that this gentleman has been out of operations for some portion of his operating hours for a while. i move that we uphold the entertainment commission approval of this permit. to operate under the conditions they have set forth we cannot demand or add to. >> can we recognize that ms.

kane has volunteered to ask her commission to hold a hearing in six months and the permit holder has agreed to show data of activity during those hours and keep track of the number of customers that are there? these were recognized -- these commitments were made publicly. we cannot commit the commission to hold a hearing but the staff has recommended they would do that. >> the board urges the commission to urge a whole -- hold a hearing on the status of this location and permit. >> and granting the permit the board needs to say why it has found the permit was not warranted under sections 1-4 and section 10 60.5. if you want, you can reference

the reasons for the subsections in the entertainment commission is brief. >> thank you for completing that for me. who is writing that down? >> tharoor after i watched the video. >> everybody heard and understood? >> deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the conditions -- on the basis stated and also to urge the entertainment commission to hold a hearing in six months on the status of this permit. the motion was made by the president. vice-president huang, aye. commissioner hurtado, aye. >> the motion is passed. we have no further business. we can adjourn.

president garcia: all right. [gavel]