testimony is correct. overall the years they were operating, what changed -- why has there been a complaint to the planning department? >> i cannot speculate why we receive complaints. we just receive complaints. it was brought to our attention that the entertainment commission did not approve the permit with those conditions. >> thank you. >> it was operating from 2005 until the sale would to a clock with amplified sound. were there complaints -- until 2:00 with amplified sound. were there complains? >> i did not know about complaints. >> do you know if there were complaints? >> there were probably about

four or five over the course of all of those years. on sound. and then you have heard testimony from the police department as to any other kinds of activities. >> go ahead, i'm sorry. >> i have another question. for either the owner or his representative. >> yes? >> is there a reason why you did not submit for conditional use it for hours of operation? >> why we would not cement -- segment -- submit. >> we are scheduled for an intake appointment on that specific issue. >> ok. >> thank you, sir.

let me give you what my assumption is. it might inform the question i'm going to ask. is it correct that you are an owner of this establishment earlier and you were the person involved in 1997? >> no. >> your the consultant? >> i was the founder and executive director of the north beach chamber of commerce. i have a long history of knowing what goes on or has gone on at that location. i have testified on behalf of mosquitos over the years. >> even though you are part of the team, i assume it is a right to ask you a question. what was it that you intended to tell this commission? >> i have been in the neighborhood since the early 1960's.

i did go to the 2005 conditional use hearing. at the time, my recollection is, we all knew what was coming in. we all knew that the people who were opening mosquitos reorganizes of the north beach jazz festival. we all were very familiar with what we doing. the conditional use permit hearing, and i think i was the one, it was about alcohol. i think that came up, what is the point of calling? how can you have a mojito without a run in it? -- rim in it. we all expected that there would

be live music. their essence was about live music. for the record, i am a former nightclub singer. am all for a live music three it we always knew that going through that tedious process that this is what it would be about. i could go into our kinds of innuendo about north beach but i will not because it is not the right place. it was always established that venue would be live entertainment until 2:00 a.m. with a liquor license. i remember that. in terms of permits? >> you said it was established a and understood. you said something about the hours, there would be live music

until 2:00 a.m. >> that was more of a general assumption because that is what was expected. this whole concept of staggered hours of closing has only come about in the last couple of years because of broadway. i created the north beach chamber of commerce. we called it the are rico's merchants association. -- burberry coast purchase associations. >> please move away from the door. it is a fire code requirement. please take a seat. >> refresh my memory on a zoning, there is different, can

we modify that? >> the board reviews the letter for discretion or error. you could modify the elector. -- letter. >> i heard a lot of testimony that was compelling, reading a brief period i came in with the thought that this was clear in a letter of determination and the rulings. that they were operating without the required permit. hearing what happened in 2005 and the fact the case was not, the imitations were not brought

up, it is strange and probably should have been brought up. i do not think it is necessarily anybody's fault. i would support a modification of the permit that would allow amplified sound, maybe not until 2:00 a.m., but i saw it in the brief, the entertainment commission went back and forth, midnight or 2:00 a.m., i would be inclined to support a modification to allow them to have amplified sound between midnight and 2:00 a.m. >> there currently restricted to 1. >> the entertainment permit is not in front of you. you would not be able to make any modifications to that permit. all that is in front of you is instructions to the entertainment commissions.

commissioner hillis: what does that limit us to? if we wanted to allow them to have amplified sound until midnight, do we have the authority to do that? >> there is not permit in front of you at the moment. there is just the interpretation of the existing requirements. you would need to make a finding as to what the 2005 cu does or does not authorize. >> i need to remind the board, striking down an lod does not mean the department cannot -- proceed with enforcement.

the planning department. i am in agreement with what was said earlier. this case needed to be in front of the planning commission to do with it. -- deal with it. did you want to say your position first? or shall i continue. commissioner hillis: i think i did. >> i do not hold to that position. there are two issues with respect to the lod. the accumulation of cu's apply unless modified or removed.

that is one issue. 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