secondly, the '05 cu adding the bar, the fault was not in the review of what that entailed. it was in the previous owners not requesting the time change. whether there were extenuating circumstances affecting their approval, i do not know. the fact is that the time of operations is relatively large. the application is by the applicant, not to the department. the fact it was not included means that the applicant did not put it in there. i am not prepared to overturn it. >> reluctantly i am in agreement with the commissioner and i

found all of the testimony compelling. the problem i am faced with looking at this appeal, not the appeal, the request, the interpretation of the zoning administrator, the fact that the 2005 cu was dated in june of 2005. basis for a recommendation to appoint one makes clear that the single unchanged to the existing business is the addition of hard liquor service. one of my questions was at what point in time did the operation , the establishment, and begin having music until late? the answer was november of 2005. it is clear, unless i have some

facts wrong. it seemed to me, based on those facts that we have a condition, the existing business did not include the music to the later hours. >> a disclosure, it came up when the police officers were here. my son is a member of the san francisco police department assigned to central. that will in no way affect any decision i will make up here. i do not think there is any mistake on the za to put anyone out overworked. as was stated by the zoning administrator, we have to deal with a narrow issue, whether or not this operation is allowed to

be open until 10:00 for live music and whether that can be amplified or open until 1:00 or 2:00 as was authorized by the entertainment mission. i think the language having to do -- exhibit b, the recommendation has to do with the fact it is going to be a s -- full service bar as opposed to beer and wine. you made some reference about your client, the previous owner. someone went before planning and

had a business plan. that is you that is being referred to. in that plan, it was stated that this operation could go until 2:00 a.m. or something like that. i do not know what happened. i do not disbelieve the representation. i do not know how much it would benefit to continue this. i agree with commissioner fung and sanchez. the best avenue to solve this problem is to go before the planning commission and hash this out. i love jazz. i am from new orleans. it has nothing to do with whether i like live music. i wonder about the idea that amplified music would be any

different than non-amplified music. i intend to uphold the zoning administrator and his letter of determination because, although i am troubled by the issue of what was said by planning having bearing on this, i do not think it would avail, be of benefit to the current owners to delay this process in order to try to hash it out. i do not know it could be hashed out. you are free to add anything. >> i am in agreement with commissioner fung, commissioner hwang and president garcia.

>> to make my losing case, there is more to it to then what happened at the 2005 hearing. there was a hearing in which the entertainment commission consulted with the planning department knowing what the hours were going to be. that is where something was lost and an error was made by the city. then the operator operand -- operated until 2:00 a.m. department could have said we did not do that in the 2005 hearing. on top of that, there was the operation were this was operated for seven years. that is what i based my recommendation on. >> before anyone makes a motion, i wanted to add that i think it

sounds that through an application for a cu, even with the testimony of the police officers, i think it would go your way. i think there is sufficient -- a problem is that it is a, there is insufficient evidence and on the part of an error on, the z. i think the chances are good for you. >> not that i think the planning commission will pay attention, but i agree to some of the statements made by commissioner hillis. the lack of enforcement would weigh on me a little bit in terms of what value was placed

on this business with the assumption that certain hours of operation were allowed. that is built into the prices paid by the new owners for the previous business. i am not suggesting misrepresentation were made by anyone but i think it is something reasonable for them to raise, and there is a cost or they to be forced to close. i move that leopold wee -- we uphold the sony and administration. -- zoning administration. >> on that motion, to deny the appeal and hold the the letter

of determination with that finding that there was no error by the zoning law administrator. commissioner fung: aye. >> the lod is upheld with taht hat finding. president garcia: we are going to take a short break. >> will come back. we are calling item number6, johnny marenco dur -- doing work. appealing the revocation of every 16 of a permit to operate.

violation of california health and safety code 113715. this is case number fd 12 07. the appellate is indicated a continuance. with your consent, we could give each party couple of minutes to discuss their position on the continuance issue. president garcia: let's do, please. >> i tried to put my paperwork together. i have another case before this one. i did not get this one done yet. i have almost everything down but it is not done yet. president garcia: thank you for that. we will hear from dhp.

>> commissioners, i disagree with the request because -- my name is karen. a health inspector, department of public health. the reason why i disagree with the request because this is why we're here today. this is a repeated pattern of not preparing papers. that is why his permit was revoked. he applied for this appeal on february 29. he has had over a month and half to prepare his papers. i feel that should be adequate. this is why i am requesting we do not continue this. president garcia: go ahead. >> is the establishment close? -- closed? >> it is complicated but

according to the health department it is still open. he is not open for other reasons. according to the health department, he is still open. if we will continue, i will explain. a department of public health revoked a permit and then he filed for an appeal which allows him to continue to stay open. in the interim between february 29 and today he has had other inspections by the council who has found violations, labor law violations. they issued a stop work citation so he is not able to operate with the help of employees. my -- the office of labor, and i drove by on monday, and saw they are not operating right now.

i think because of the citation issue. president garcia: is there a motion for a continuance? there is no motion so we will go ahead. madam director. >> you need to proceed with a hearing tonight and you have seven minutes to state your case. the continuance was not granted. >> i have been in the business for a couple years. the restaurant has been there for about 22 years ago. i do not got any complaint by this point. the last time, if i sent the paper work, when i find out the person never received it. that is what they said. that is why they cancelled my

permit for operating. however, i appealed and a got -- i got, i want to -- everything is done so i can reopen. i spoke with a couple persons already. for the california labor standard. i sent all of the paperwork that he requested. i put together all of the paper work and put everything so i can be keeping my business open. however, i do not see any damage. it is only a restaurant. i do not have a nightclub. i do not stay overnight. it is only a restaurant.

i tried to bring in some money to my family and to the people who helped me to work. commissioner fung: sir, your bill is in excess of $120,000. >> 120? are you talking about all of my bills? commissioner fung: this is what this city is saying you owe them. >> no, i do not. when i went to court, i provided them. if i paid they cannot prove a

case down and i can reopen again. however, i tell them, how is the situation? i do not see why i have to pay to keep it open. he gave me the reason. give me the opportunity to keep working. the last couple years i have been in the business, never going down a 80%. my place is a clean place. i always keep it in their right

place. commissioner fung: somewhere it references you filed for bankruptcy. >> that is correct. this situation is tough right now in the restaurant business. i have a situation in my business, i just try to keep working waiting for a better day for everyone. thank you. >> senior inspector with the health department. can i submit this declaration? >> please. they told us they would be submitting that way. -- late. >> this is the first of the kind of this case.

from the minimum wage ordinance, which it is12r7b, and the enforcement agency for this ordinance can ask dph to revoke or suspend any permits until the employer has complied with the minimum wage ordinance. they made a referral to the department asking for enforcement assistance for panchita's. since january 2010, we have been working with the owner, mr. marenco, to produce records for an audit with the minimum wage ordinance. due to his repeated failure to produce the required documents, he has incurred penalties. as of today, and he has neither produce the required documents nor has he paid the city the penalties do. -- dued.

the director of public health found that the establishment was out of compliance with the permit conditions and revoked the permit to operate. some of days that are not included in the brief that we produced, i found out from the -- updates that are not included in the producer -- brief we produce, and the field enforcement of california conducted an inspection at the establishment and concluded that johnny marenco owes back wages, overtime, and he does not have workers' compensation insurance. in addition to the fine from the department, the commissioner from the bureau of killed enforcement also issued -- field

enforcement also issued a citation. according to personnel and my visit, the establishment has not been in operation, perhaps since the 22nd of march. dph believes the board should not repeal the decision for the revocation because three reasons -- it is illegal not to pay wages. in addition to that, waste of sex york -- wage theft affects your health. income is the strongest indicator of health and disease. it causes stress and the inability to pay housing, food, and health care. the workers at panchita's are

being affected. you might argue his finances and help might be affected if we were to close his business. i think the differences that he had many opportunities to prevent his permit from being revoked but he did not take advantage of those. oles has been working with marenco for two years to submit his papers to show that he is in compliance with the minimum wage ordinance but he has not done so. i can name at least three instances where we try to help them comply -- him comply but he has not taken those opportunities. for example, the workers made a complete -- complaint and there was a settlement in 2011 and he did not attend that hearing. on the day of the health

department hearing, two days before a issued a notice for him to appear and instructed him to come because the fate of his permit would be decided. unfortunately, he did not come. the most egregious incident was the fact that after we revoke his permit and after i posted the notice of closure, that today he continued to operate and the office of labor standards enforcement had to call the police to close the business. he had a bankruptcy hearing on the 16th of april, i am sorry, in february, he also did not appear. when the department of industrial relations issued the stop work citation, he remained open again.

the inspector offered -- issued a second citation and he refused to sign it. i struggle with this job that i have with assisting with labor law compliance because closing a business does not help the workers recouped their wages nor does it help the employer pay wages. it is not good for the economy but in this case, due to the owner's flagrant irresponsibility, i think dph did not to collaborate with wage that any longer and had no choice but to revoke the permit. i am asking the commissioners to sustain the revocation. if you have any questions, a representative from the office is also here to answer them. >> a question about the

penalties. what are the total amount to do? -- amounts due? >> there is one from the san francisco of labor standards enforcement. >> how much is that one? ok. >> now there are penalties from the state department. i believe that is over $190,000. >> over time, back pay, the earlier to -- >> that is just a penalties along. -- alone. >> does that include wages due? speaking to the microphone. -- speak into the microphone. >> hero's for employees $24,000,

including overtime, minimum wage, -- >> had any of that in paid? >> nothing. >> the penalties are four thousand dollars and then the wages are $24,000 each? >> total. >> thank you. >> has your department in its primary mission found anything with of the facilities or operations of mr. marenco? >> how we first discovered this case -- >> your primary mission. >> i am about to explain it. he came up for one of our hearings for failure to pay his annual license fee as well.

in terms of sanitation, and he is doing ok. >> is their public comment on this item? step forward. >> the two minutes each. >> good evening, my name is maria. i was a worker at panchita's. [speaking spanish] i am here to say that this is unfair that businesses like this can continue to operate because it is not just me that has not been paid. other workers as well.

[speaking spanish] he, to me, is not a good employer because he does not respect all laws. as he has not respected his employees. [speaking spanish] it is not fair he can continue a business when he has not shown he can pay us what he was supposed to. i am here representing my co- workers as well to say that we would like to see some kind of a justice in this case.

that is all i would like to ask for. she was also saying that she would like to receive your assistance in this case. >> is she aware that it is likely she will not see a penny of where she is owed it? -- what she is owed? >> if i may speak as well. my name is tiffany crane and and a co-director of young workers united. we are a nonprofit in san francisco. we have worked for 10 years to work against situations like this of wage theft. we have seen a number of cases like this where workers are paid under the minimum wage, it is rampant in this city. we have laws to protect workers.

however, if this continues to happen, in many situations, our organization is able to talk to workers,, negotiate with employers, and receive the pay that is due and to change and improve working conditions. this situation, we do not want to close businesses. we have a restaurant guide dedicated to responsible employers. we do want people to have good jobs. but when we see someone is not willing to respect a process or the laws or his employees, we do not believe that kind of a business is a business that it should operate in san francisco. he has proven over and over to not respect the laws. yesterday we were also at a hearing where he swore under oath that he did not