did make an error. however, while it would be -- i think it's a fundamentally unfair to the appellant to enforce a condition, it's also fundamentally unfair to the neighbors not to enforce the condition and as zoning administrator, i don't have the authority not to enforce conditions. and it was appeal to the board and before you for consideration. those are the statement of facts and again, we found the additional conditions of the approval not included because we did go back and review the minutes. the minutes are publicly available, but i think, if you go to the website, and see a conditional use authorization, you stop there and you are not going to go and do additional research and any nsr would not have included those additional conditions either. it was simply the department erred in finalizing the motion without all of the required conditions. and i apologize for that error.

and it's unfair to all of the parties. so that is what we have for the board. there is the path of going back to the [tphro-gs/] amend the conditional use authorization. and should the planning commission agree, then that could be changed and it could be limited, i don't know, maybe the appellant would have some kind of -- maybe it's not everyday that they need past 12:00 a.m., just weekends and maybe they could have some kind of compromise and discussions with the neighbors. maybe have neighbor support at the hearing to mott modify the conditions of approval. that is all i have. i am available for questions. >> i have a question, mr. sanchez. how many complaints did you receive? if that packet i only see one letter complaining of the hours of operations? >> i believe there is only one complaint on file. that is not to say there are more affected parties, but i think there is only one complaint in our records.

>> so help me understand, i mean, i see the competing equities here because the error that occurred and the appellant is now suffering the consequences, but also the need to balance the neighbor's concerns here. so i'm wondering if there is a process whereby, i don't know we can amend the conditional use and then that the neighbors would have an opportunity to appeal that? >> no. the board of pales does not have the authority, in my legal opinion to amend the conditional use authorization. you could discuss that with the city attorney. only the planning commission has the authority to do that. >> what does the city attorney say? >> i agree. it's clear. that resides with the planning department. and those issues are appealed to the board of supervisors,

but not to the board of appeals. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, before you leave. first, you have verified that the website indicates only 1-7? >> yes. the website no longer does that. we did upload. >> essentially it did? >> initially. >> and then you have verify what is your address is at the county recorder? >> we have not verified the notice of special restrictions, no. that is around excellent point and we can investigate that. >> we can take public comment now s. there any member of the public who wishes to speak? please step forward.

>> hello. my name is courtey and i live at 691 post on the corner of jones and i can see the entrance of jones from my apartment window. i am here today to ask that you retain the notice of violation and penalty decision from july and that one, the jones be required to shut down by midnight each day that they are open. jones bar stays open until 2:00 a.m. on friday and saturday nights and causes a lot of mayhem between midnight and 3:00 am. drunk people throwing up, fights on the streets, breaking bottles, lots of yelling, car accidents and the police i have walked out to see what is going on down there and i find thatit police are watching what is happening, but not doing anything to stop. it in the past two years, the noise has gotten worse forcing me to take drugs and wear earplugs to fall asleep. it shows a total lack of

respect to neighbors and i can't imagine what it's like for tenants that live above the courtyard at the gaylord. i heard from tenants that there are a few who have been paid to leave because they complained that the noise was so unbearable. so they were paid to leave the residence because of this. no. 2 jones is required to serve food while they are open. as i understand it, they are operating on a specific permit requiring them to serve food the entire time that they serving alcohol. i have gone to their sidewalk entrance and asked person managing the entry if dinner is able vaughn only told that they do not serve dinner and only available for brunch on sunday. they do not serve food outside. further the jones patio level son the main level first floor of the gaylord and to get to their bar and restaurant area you enter through street level

entrance. the outdoor space is much larger than their indoor space at the gaylord and it's above a parking garage on geary. it's outdoor and street level at the street level entrance on jones, but above street level on geary. the worker at jones uses -- no. 3 [#3*-/] a worker uses the white zone as a personal parking space. there say white loading and unloading zone and there is an employee there who park his toyota land cruiser in the white loading zone for hours at eight time, but there is no loading and unloading bean done with that vehicle. no. 4, jones needs to provide safety for patrons leaving their establishment. like i previously mentioned they are so drunk they pass out on the sidewalk and their interest friends are so drunk to call for an ambulance.

nobody is helping. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> yes. hi. my name is [kao-erpblgs/] keith, a resident at 691 post. i just want to touch on the main points of this argument. he has made a point he was not aware of the amended motion of 17565, even though the planning commission has stated that the meeting minutes were available at the time he did review on the website:vice president fung, you asked limb directly if he did go to the district office to review the title? and no effort was made, even

though we cannot verify special restrictions were recorded, the extent of the due diligence that has been stated that was performed in 2009 was not extensive or correct, despite the amount of investment that has been made by the business operators, they did not go about this in the correct way to establish that they were operating within the rights of the certificate of authorization. there is another point here with the certificate of authorization. is that there is no entitlement for them to operate with the aforementioned before signed entitlement of the cu in question. so in his appeal, that we are reviewing today, he stated that he does not believe

a certificate of authorization is required and his quote was imec holds that the conditional use authorization was not for our use and the publicly available information regarding the conditional use authorization did not condition limiting our hours." that is not true because they were fully aware of the amendment and tried to associate themselves with it, stating that it belongs to them or didn't belonged to them, even though they were unaware it. another important issue is the statement of the address of operations. was the patio being two-thirds of the business, and only accessible by 620 jones, stating that the public use of 560 geary allows the whole

business to operate without the certificate of authorization, but with the address for the patio area, which is the main operation of the business. having a certificate of authorization, with amendments of 8-12 stating that their operation hours should shut down at midnight. they declined an opportunity to amend, make a further amendment and manipulated the appeals process to -- in an effort to avoid amending the cu. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> any other public comment? >> hello. my name is barbara and i live at 691 post at the corner of jones and post. my husband and i are an older

couple living there, 70 and 73 and we have lived in the building for several years and have some idea what has been happening with the city over the last ten years. there has been a lot of changes. what we're asking for in this permit is that we feel we need reasonable limits to what is happening with this bar. because this neighborhood has a lot of families living there, people with children, older people, people who have lived in the neighborhood for 20 and 30 years. and we just would like to have what i would say -- i call it reasonable limits. we know we're not living in the suburbs or we wouldn't be living where we are, but also we don't think we should be totally run over by the forces in the city, which is money and finance, and you know, people who want to make money without regard for any other

considerations. all we're asking them do is to obey the law as we understood it. there will not be excessive noises and close at midnight and there would be some kind of regulation or attempt to maintain a good establishment. a few years ago, especially in 2008 -2009 the neighborhood was totally quiet. the reion is just cut out all the street noise, all of the traffic and all of the bars and everything else. and so it was very quiet. but now the activity has come back into the neighborhood and that is good. we know it's good for the city, but every friday and saturday i say to my husband we're going to be up late tonight, between 12 and 2:00 it becomes excessive and sometimes it goes on until 3:00 in the morning.

it's a little ridiculous, actually. we're not asking too much. you know, we're asking them at 12:00, just follow your rules and we're asked to follow the law and all we're asking is that lethy also follow the law. >> ma'am, did you get your keys to the gate? >> yes, we go our keys to the door and the gate. thank you very much. >> we'll have rebrutal. >> i didn't catch the name of the last lady that spoke, but that was some of the more sensible componentry that i heard. while i really appreciate. sentiment and the recognition that we're all downtown on jones and post. there were some blatant

misstatements earlier. with regard to no food being served. we had one of the better known chefs in the city that helps us out, ula and he has had a restaurant well forever a decade, south of market. he has left and we now just hired a gentleman from a very, very reputable lace. we really wouldn't be spending $100,000 a year on a chef if we weren't serving dinner. no one was paid to leave. one of the neighbors directly above the restaurant was a vegan. and also sober. she is a great lady and we had an ongoing dialogue all the way through the construction process and we worked with her on times that we worked and didn't work. and in the end, the smell of the burgers was just too much for her. she moved to the other side of the building.

we helped her do it. i feel that is a very neighborly thing. another neighbor just had an operation. she had an issue with the crowd noise. recently we put in double pane windows for her so she could recover in peace. everybody that has ever approached us about anything, neighborhood-wise has always gotten a card from myself or our general manager and everyone has our personal cell phone numbers if there are issues. i feel what i proposed earlier is a very elegant solution. the language of the code being what it is, technically speaking, this could be viewed as a ground floor or basement-level use. because the ent [ra-pbts/], as somebody pointed out is off an alley off of jones street and the base of the restaurant itself is actually in the

basement of the hotel. so i actually am running out of time, but i actually went back and reviewed the original planning commission hearing since this whole process has started. the neighbors' concerns were not with the hours of operations. there is not a single person during that hearing that spoke to the issue of hours of the operation. the neighbors were concerned with the venue being a nightclub. we don't have cabanas and we don't have entertainment as our program. we are a restaurant and a bar. so in that way we have addressed all of the issues that were brought up at the original hearing. the solution that was proposed by one of the planning commissioners is [ha*-erbgs/] let's shut it down at midnight and we know it's not a club. we don't have the permit for entertainment. we don't do entertainment. that is where we're at.

>> the conditions 1-7, are they the planning commission's typical good-neighbor conditions? >> >> >> they are independent of the good-neighbor polices. the good-neighbor policies are something that the police department enforces along with the entertainment commission. i believe that the planning department added on a number of conditions as part of their process. i think those are parallel tracks. >> okay. >> is there any room for negotiation between you and the zoning administrator? >> well, we actually only open until 2:00 on weekends and it's absolutely essential that we're allowed to do this. during the week, we close down at midnight. >> is there any cover over the courtyard? >> no, sir. well, we have ut

brelas that open up and close >> would you consider partition and possibly make something modifications in the rear? >> it's in the front. i'm not sure what you are requesting. >> let's all right. let's continue the meeting. >> have i a question. >> yes, ma'am? >> if i missed this, i apologize, but i think you actually made an appointment to file for a new conditional use authorization and decided not to. >> that is correct. >> i would be interested to know why you did not pursue that avenue? >> our attorney says this is categorically not the right way to go and the city can't change the rules in the middle of the game. so we withdrew.

>> thank you. >> yes, ma'am, thanks? >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department, good news, the giants are up 8-1 now. in regard to vice president fung's comments or the question about the conditions of approval of it's prettyboilerplate 1-7. it doesn't really speak to the good neighbor gestures other than the community liaison, which it sounds like from the appellant he is the community liaison or his manager and anybody who approaches will be given contact information. so that would satisfy that requirement. there is recordation of the nsr. should implementation the project result in complaints from interested property owners, residents or commercial lessees not resolved and findly the zoning administrator to be in violation of the code or

conditions of approval, we refer the use to the commission and they may seek to revoke the conditional use authorization and that could be another step to take it to them to revoke the cu. i think it's probably in everybody's interest that the cu be feeled to modify these conditions of approval. the authorization itself does not specify a license type, abc alcohol beverage control license stipe or regulate or limit the ability to serve alcoholic beverages. limiting the hours of operations only applies to the outdoor activity area and doesn't apply to the bar as a whole. so they could still be operating until 2:00 a.m. and be consistent with the approval, but it's just the outdoor area. in regarding to some of the questions raised about basement versus second story. this is actually two lots. so it's one that fronts on jones

and one that fronts on geary and the property that fronts on jones has the gaylord hotel and it's in the basement [thra-efplt/] the cu contemplated that and said you do not need a conditional use authorizia for that. the part you need a cu is for the outdoor activity area, which is on the second story the roof of the lot of the structure that is on geary. and so that is why the conditional use authorization was required at that time. and those conditions of approval were adopted. so with that, i'm available for any questions that the board may have. >> i have another question. so can you just clarify for me, what was the basis of the nov? was someone's complaint there was operation beyond 12:00 a.m.? >> that is correct. we are complaint-driven as an enforcement division and the complaint was made at the beginning of this year. we followed up and did find they were in violation of the

hours of operations conditions that was in the amended motion. and proceeded from there. >> i guess i'm wondering how that complainant would have none about that condition, if the website didn't have that information? >> so i think the timing of events is that we have the conditional use authorization hearing back in 2008. and at that hearing this were members of public that expressed concerns. then in 2010, they go to the entertainment commission and expressed the same concerns and also questioned why the motion on file between 2008 and 2010 did not have the condition limiting the hours of operations? that is when we found out about it from the entertainment mission and issued the amended motion. so i would imagine some of the neighbors that are here may have been involved in that original hearing process possibly. >> okay. got if. thank you.

>> is the -- this is not a club? i thought he said there is no entertainment? why did they have to go to the entertainment commission? >> i don't know. the matter that was in front of the entertainment commission was continued to to the call of the chair. >> if it had to go there, they have a set of good neighbor conditions that they also apply, dealing with a control of the people on the sidewalk, some levels of security and all of those kinds of things. you folks have that, too, in terms of good neighbors. so i'm wondering, well we can ask the project sponsor. why is the entertainment commission involved here if there is no entertainment or club activities? >> i think the appellant can address that, but also to be clear. i don't think our department was aware of any concerns about drunken people on the sidewalk until the hearing this evening and the complaint we received

was about the operating beyond the conditions of approval in terms many of the hours of operations for the outdoor area. >> >> would you like to hear from the appellant on that question? otherwise we're finished. >> what entitlement did you get from the entertainment commission? >> none. >> none. they wanted a hearing though? >> we initially envisioned this project much more in line with what the folks previous -- the group previous to us envisioned. we initially were thinking about it more in terms of a nightclub. we got a bunch of feedback from the neighborhood. we worked with the pd and we decided that that wasn't really the way to go.

basically, the quote still stands out in my mind, inspector fellson at the time was the alcohol alu, abc he'son. >> i believe he still is the chief. >> but his comment was hey, look, why don't you take two bites at the apple. this is a big project and why don't you come into the neighbor, operate without ent time and see how you do and then come back and apply for the entertainment permit. and that was a while before we were open. that was part of the negotiation for the liquor license approval. now we opened up, and two years later, the only time we actually do entertainment is when we have private events. oracle world, we had two or three events that week. they will have entertainment and we go to the entertainment commission and get a one-day permit. it's not part of our regular program.

having opened up and operated, we don't need to. and we don't plan to do entertainment and dancing. i have read somewhere there is a new performance where it's an auxiliary use permit and we potentialgy go out and get one of those as a restaurant you are allowed to do that until 9:00 or 10:00. again, or initial sort of our initial foray into the project saw us doing similar type things that was what ohm the group before us envisioned. we realized we don't need to do that and we do really wells a bar and restaurant and that is where we're keeping it. a couple of thicks to clarify, the reason this got lost in the shovel, the person applying for the cu was not us. it was the group prior to us. so that part of it got lost.

the other thing is that on top -- to exacerbate that situation, the property also changes owners. i'm not quite as good as mr. sanchez, but. >> your time has been up. i have one last question. that means that at this point in time, your entitlements are no good neighbor conditions. >> there are. that is actually incorrect. >> there are? on which entitlement? >> part of your liquor license. that is absolutely standard. i have a question. would it be fair to say that the use of the outdoor space is weather-dependent? >> yes and no. we're obviously a lot busier when it's 80 degrees out at midnight. but the people come because they enjoy being outside. everyone is cooped up in their office and people seek us out because we have this beautiful patio that we have spent all of

this time. it's gorgeous, just like a little garden in the middle of downtown. >> that would be more daytime use? >> no. actually people hang out there at night that. is why people come. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i would like to speak in regards to the entertainment and the outdoor area. not only is the street noise unbearable on the weekend and middle of the night, but they held a live event on july 31st. i spoke to the permit officer and the san francisco entertainment commission about this issue and i found out that jones was given a permit to operate a live event for a limited amount of hours on that tuesday evening. from setup to breakdown they made loud noise for 13 hours. the event doesn't finish until after 10:00 putnam i was up until 1:00 a.m. listening to

people breaking down the entire setup and loading it into the van on jones tv they were yelling each other because they were so far apart from the interior to the parked truck. i called the police twice for help and have two case numbers for this. turns out they were only serving alcohol yet i thought they were only require -- i thought they were required to serve food along with that. >> thank you. >> since i gave everybody else 30 seconds, do you have anything else to say, mr. sanchez? commissioners? >> it feels to me much of this is predicated on not having needed a cu in the first place. but that was the process that took operation and there is an opportunity to file for another conditional use to remedy the situation and it wasn't made clear to me why they didn't