king, believes it was a continuation of the sme cu. that was our error. we did not know they were different from each other. that is why the entertainment commission went forward and it should something they should not have -- issued something they should not have. >> were you involved in the 2005 decision at the entertainment? >> i was the permit administrator, not the director. yes, i was involved. >> in that instance, was there any reference to previous cus? >> i expect they give me all the information that they have. i only got a cu that had no restriction on hours. it was silent on the hours. it was the 2005. i did not know there was a 1997. >> when you sat in on the hearing for the 2005 entertainment commission permanent, -- permits, the presentation must have reference to something. >> it did reference -- it did not reference anything else at all. >> thank you. >> thank you. just a brief recap on the timing. in december 1996, we received a referral from the police department. in 1997, we approved conditional use. la bodega did operate for several y