Suite 181 permit suspension presskit

Transcription

CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2010
CONTACT: MATT DORSEY
CELL PHONE: (415) 640-6288
Herrera upholds permit suspensions for violent
Tenderloin nightclub over New Year’s Eve
Entertainment Commission suspended permits for ‘Suite 181’ for
48-hours because of escalating violence, public safety problems
SAN FRANCISCO (Dec. 31, 2010)—City Attorney Dennis Herrera today successfully defended the 48hour suspension of entertainment and extended hours permits for a controversial Tenderloin nightclub
over New Year’s Eve due to serious concerns about the escalating pattern of violence and public safety
problems there. Lawyers for “Suite 181” at 181 Eddy Street appeared at an emergency hearing in San
Francisco Superior Court this afternoon to seek a Temporary Restraining Order against the City’s public
safety suspension, which the Entertainment Commission issued yesterday. After a hearing that lasted
almost two hours, Judge Richard A. Kramer issued a written ruling rejecting the club’s argument that the
First Amendment prevented the City from protecting safety on New Year’s Eve. Judge Kramer held that
the “rights claimed by plaintiffs are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restraints regulation in
order to serve a public interest.”
“This case is about defending city officials’ duty to protect public safety when there is clear evidence for
doing so,” said Herrera. “Suite 181 has required 190 police service calls in the preceding year alone, and
the lawlessness and violence there have been escalating recently. The Entertainment Commission’s
emergency permit suspension isn’t simply about protecting safety. It’s also about assuring fairness to the
large majority of responsible entertainment venues that invest the resources necessary to keep their
customers and neighborhoods safe. I applaud Judge Kramer for recognizing the serious responsibility
San Francisco officials have to protect our residents and visitors.”
Herrera’s defense of the Entertainment Commission’s action, which was recommended by the San
Francisco Police Department, relied on the significantly heightened risk of violent crime on New Year’s
Eve, citing police estimates that San Francisco can expect at least 500,000 out-of-town visitors for the
holiday. Additional evidence presented to the court established that the errant establishment had been
responsible for 190 calls for service to police in the preceding year alone, including for incidents
involving shootings, assaults, sexual battery and unlawful weapons possession. Lawyers for Herrera’s
office argued that the Entertainment Commission was fulfilling its duty to protect public safety by
suspending the club’s permits, citing Acting Executive Director Jocelyn Kane’s conclusion that “there is a
substantial risk of a violent incident or other serious public safety problem occurring at Suite 181 on New
Year’s Eve.” The operative period for the suspension upheld today is Dec. 31, 2010 at 3 p.m. through
Jan. 2, 2011 at 3 p.m. Lawyers for the club have advised the City that the venue will be open until 2 a.m.
as a bar only. Related documents are available at http://www.sfcityattorney.org/.
###
2
3
4
5
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
10
11
181, L.L.C. a California Limited
Liability Corporation d.b.a. Suite
One-B-One, et aI,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No. :
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RRESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: TEMPORATRY
RETRAINING ORDER
City and County of San Franc'iseo,
Defendants.
16
17
This matter cam on for hearing on December 31, 2010 upon plaintiffs' Ex
Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order Re: Preliminary
18
Injunction. Matthew Kumin l
Esq, Kumin Sommers L.L.P. appeared for plaintiffs I
19
and Vince Chhabria, Esq., Deputy City Attorney appeared for the defendants.
20
Also present .was plaintiff Mark Renne. December 31, 2010 being a legal court
21
22
23
24
25
holiday, the proceedings were not reported and no courtroom clerk was
present. No papers were filed t
nor was a case number assigned to this matter.
The Court having read all papers submitted by the parties, having heard
argument of counsel, and being fully informed, hereby Orders:
1. Plaintiffs' counsel shall file all papers given to the court and
1
Order Denying Application For" Temporary Restraining Order -
1
this Order upon the resumption of business by the court on January 3, 2010.
2
Plaintiffs shall pay all required fees for such filing.
2. All further court proceedings in this matter shall occur in the Law
3
4
and Motion Department of this Court unless otherwise ordered.
3. The Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Retraining Order is DENIED.
5
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating irreparable
6
injury. C.C.P.
7
8
§
526(a) (4) because the any losses suffered by plaintiffs
until a hearing on a preliminary or permanent injunction can be compensated
for with money.
9
4. Plaintiffs' assert that also at stake here is their (and others')
10
constitutional rights including the rights of speech, assembly and
11
association l
12
and that defendant's action constitutes an impermissible prior
restraint on constitutional rights. The rights claimed by plaintiffs,
however, are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restraints regulation
13
in order to serve a significant public interest. Ward v. Rock Against Racism
14
]989) 491 U.S. 781.
15
It is not the task of this court upon an application for
Temporary Restraining Order to determine whether the plaintiffs are correct.
16
Instead, the standard of review at this stage is to determine whether there
17
is a reasonable probability that plaintiffs' will succeed on the merits.
18
There is not. The challenged Police Code sections are not content specific,
19
do provide for notice and, if requested, a hearing, and also provide that
20
immediate court redress is available without exhausting administrative
remedies. ,Plaintiffs argue that the required notice is only 8 hours, but in
21
this case it appears that over 24 hours notice was given. Further, when
22
II
23
24
II
II
25
2
Order Denying Application For Temporary Restraining Order -
•
1
balanced against the public safety governmental interest involved here,
2
provisjons of the suspension in this case do not appear unreasonable here so
3
as to conclude that plaintiffs will prevail on the merits.
4
5
6
Dated, December 31, 2010
Judge of the Superior Court
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
1. 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
Order Denying Application For Temporary Restraining Order -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137
VINCE CHHABRIA, State Bar #208557
Deputy City Attorneys
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4682
Telephone:
(415) 554-4674
Facsimile:
(415) 554-4699
E-Mail:
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12
181 LLC and JAY CHEN,
13
Petitioners,
14
vs.
15
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
16
Case No. ___________
RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Hearing Date:
Hearing Judge:
December 31, 2010
Hon. R. Kramer
Respondent.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I.
THE ENTERTAINMENT COMMISSION'S DECISION IS NOT A PRIOR
RESTRAINT.
Prior restraints on speech are presumptively unconstitutional, because they are "tantamount to
censorship." Rosenbaum v. City and County of San Francisco, 484 F.3d 1142, 1164 (9th Cir. 2007).
In light of this presumption, plaintiffs in First Amendment cases often try to stretch the meaning of the
term "prior restraint," in the hope that courts will view the case through the wrong lenses. For
example, in Thomas v. Chicago Park District, 227 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2002), aff'd 534 U.S. 316, the
plaintiff argued that the denial of a permit to use a park for a political event was a "prior restraint," but
the court rejected that assertion, explaining that a prior restraint involves a censor's prospective
decision to prevent someone from speaking based on the content of that speech. Id. at 924 ("It is a
28
1
RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR TRO
CASE NO.
n:\govlit\as2010\9890477\00671511.doc
1
censor's business to make a judgment about the propriety of the content or message of the proposed
2
expressive activity . . . . The regulation challenged here does not authorize any judgment about the
3
content of any speeches or other expressive activity"). See also City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts, 541 U.S.
4
774, 784-85 (2004) (Stevens, J., concurring) ("There is an important difference between an ordinance
5
conditioning the operation of a business on compliance with certain neutral criteria, on the one hand,
6
and an ordinance conditioning the exhibition of a motion picture on the consent of a censor. The
7
former is an aspect of the routine operation of municipal government. The latter is a species of
8
content-based prior restraint"); Rosenbaum, 484 F.3d at 1164 (denial of sound amplification permit not
9
a prior restraint).
The Entertainment Commission's decision to suspend the after-hours permit and the "Place of
10
11
Entertainment" permit of Suite One-8-One is clearly not a prior restraint. The decision is not based on
12
the content of the speech the club wishes to engage in. It is based on public safety, and would apply
13
regardless of the actual content of the music the club wishes to play. Accordingly, the Entertainment
14
Commission's suspension decision does not suffer from the presumption of unconstitutionality that the
15
plaintiffs seem to want this Court to apply.
To be sure, like many acts of government, the Entertainment Commission's decision does
16
17
impose a restriction on the club's ability to speak, albeit a limited one. Specifically, for this one
18
weekend, the club may not operate after-hours (that is, between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.). And for this one
19
weekend, it may not provide live entertainment (although it may still play amplified recorded music).
20
But governments regularly impose limited speech restrictions like this without running afoul of the
21
First Amendment. People must get parade permits, sound amplification permits, permits to hold
22
political rallies. Sometimes those permits are denied. If the basis for the denial is reasonable, and
23
unrelated to the content of the speech, there is no First Amendment violation. Those are the lenses
24
through which this Court must view this case.
25
II.
THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IS A REASONABLE TIME, PLACE AND
MANNER RESTRICTION THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
26
Viewed properly, the Entertainment Commission's decision is a reasonable time, place and
27
manner regulation. As already discussed, the suspension is "justified without reference to the content
28
2
CASE NO.
n:\govlit\as2010\9890477\00671511.doc
1
of the regulated speech." Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984).
2
And as discussed below, the decision serves a "significant governmental interest," is "narrowly
3
tailored" to serve that interest, and "leaves open ample alternative channels of communication." Id.
4
The Commission's decision serves a significant governmental interest because it protects the
5
public against serious danger on the weekend of New Year's Eve. As discussed in the Declaration of
6
Inspector David Falzon, the risk to public safety increases by exponential proportions on New Year's
7
Eve. More than half a million people will descend upon the City, and they will be drinking to excess
8
and using illegal drugs. As set forth in the Entertainment Commission's suspension order, the Falzon
9
Declaration and the Declaration of Inspector Joseph Fong, Suite One-8-One has a disturbing history of
10
violence over the past two years, including firearms offenses, assaults on police officers, and other
11
assaults with deadly weapons. These incidents show that the club is unable or unwilling to maintain
12
proper security or protect safety, even on routine evenings. There is every reason to fear that, on a
13
night like New Year's Eve, when many people will be severely intoxicated, and when law enforcement
14
resources are stretched especially thin, people could be hurt or killed at Suite One-8-One.
15
The Commission's decision is also narrowly tailored to protect the safety of the public. It is
16
based on the exigencies of New Year's Eve, and it is limited to the 48-hour period of that weekend. It
17
bears emphasis that although a time, place and manner restriction must be "narrowly tailored" to serve
18
a significant governmental interest, "it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of
19
doing so." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798 (1989) (emphasis added). "So long as
20
the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest . . .
21
the regulation will not be invalid simply because a court concludes that the government's interest could
22
be adequately served by some less-speech-restrictive alternative." Id. at 800. The validity of a time,
23
place and manner restriction "'does not turn on a judge's agreement with the responsible decisionmaker
24
concerning the most appropriate method for promoting signficant government interests' or the degree
25
to which those interests should be promoted." Id. (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675,
26
689 (1985)). Accordingly, especially on New Year's Eve, when the Police Department's resources are
27
stretched to the limit, see Falzon Dec. at ¶ 6, the City should not be forced to come up with an
28
3
CASE NO.
n:\govlit\as2010\9890477\00671511.doc
1
alternative that would allow the club to continue to play live amplified music for this 48-hour period,
2
while still requiring the City to direct a grossly disproportionate amount of law enforcement resources
3
at one particularly dangerous club, at the expense of the Police Department's ability to effectively
4
patrol other parts of the City.
5
Finally, the Entertainment Commission's decision leaves open alternative channels of
6
communication. First, the Commission's decision does not prevent them from conveying any form of
7
message on the other 363 days of the year. Furthermore, although the plaintiffs have not identified
8
any particular message they wish to convey on New Year's Eve, even on that night the club may still
9
express itself. It may still operate as a place of assembly and celebration. It may still play music –
10
even loud music – that contains any particular message. It simply must close at 2 a.m. instead of 6
11
a.m., and it may not play live music during this 48-hour period, because the City has temporarily
12
suspended its permit to do so.
13
In sum, although the club will presumably lose money because of the Entertainment
14
Commission's decision (which is, of course, the real reason why this lawsuit has been filed), there is
15
no First Amendment violation. The Commission's decision to narrowly restrict the club's ability to
16
play live amplified music is a measured effort to protect the public safety – an effort that is entirely
17
unsurprising given the history of violent acts at the club, the club's inability to prevent them, and the
18
exigencies of New Year's Eve.
19
III.
20
THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A FACIAL CHALLENGE TO THE ORDINANCE.
The plaintiffs' primary argument appears to be that the City has violated their First Amendment
21
rights because of the paticular way the City went about deciding to suspend the club's permits. As
22
discussed above, that is wrong. Plaintiffs also assert, however, that the Police Code provision
23
authorizing the Entertainment Commission to suspend permits on an emergency basis for public safety
24
reasons violates due process on its face. That is preposterous. Overall, the ordinance takes great care
25
to protect the due process rights of permittees. In non-emergency situations, there are multiple
26
opportunities for administrative challenges to a decision by the Commission or its staff. And even
27
under the provision designed for emergency situations, the permittee is given eight hours notice, an
28
4
CASE NO.
n:\govlit\as2010\9890477\00671511.doc
1
opportunity to respond, and an immediate opportunity to seek relief from the courts, as is occurring in
2
this case. This is not a due process violation.
Plaintiffs also seem to suggest that the Police Code provisions are facially invalid under the
3
4
First Amendment because it gives officials unbridled discretion to suppress speech. However, where,
5
as here, officials are limited to content-neutral reasons for denying permits, there is no facial First
6
Amendment violation. See Thomas v. Chicago Park District, 534 U.S. 316, 324 (2002). The Supreme
7
Court has made clear that if officials circumvent content-neutral rules in particular cases, that can be
8
dealt with in an as-applied challenge, rather than in a facial challenge. See id. ("this abuse must be
9
dealt with if and when a pattern of unlawful favoritism appears, rather than by insisting upon a degree
10
of rigidity that is found in few legal arrangements").
In any event, to succeed in a facial challenge, the plaintiffs "demonstrate that no set of
11
12
circumstances exists under which the Ordinance would be valid." Personal Watercraft Coalition v.
13
Board of Supervisors, 100 Cal.App.4th 129, 138 (2002). One can imagine any number of exigent
14
circumstances in which an ordinance providing for emergency suspension of after-hours licenses and
15
"Place of Entertainment" licenses would be constitutionally appropriate.
16
IV.
THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS WEIGHS AGAINST THE TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER.
17
Because there is no First Amendment violation, that is the end of the matter – plaintiffs cannot
18
establish a likelihood of success on the merits and are not entitled to a temporary restraining order.
19
However, even if the Court were to find a First Amendment violation, the Court should deny the
20
application. Although a First Amendment violation constitutes irreparable harm, the harm, as
21
discussed above, is limited. The suspension only applies for two days, and the club retains the
22
opportunity to express itself even during that time. In contrast, the harm to the public from a
23
temporary restraining order is significant. SFPD would be required to focus an undue amount of law
24
enforcement energy on this particularly dangerous club, on a night when its resources will be spread
25
thin. Less danger at this club will mean more danger elsewhere. And even if the Department diverts
26
significant resources to this club, it will still pose significant public safety risks. The Court should
27
therefore deny the application for a temporary restraining order.
28
5
CASE NO.
n:\govlit\as2010\9890477\00671511.doc
1
2
Dated: December 31, 2010
3
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS
VINCE CHHABRIA
4
5
6
7
By:
VINCE CHHABRIA
Attorney for Respondent
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
CASE NO.
n:\govlit\as2010\9890477\00671511.doc
I~U.
U ... ..J
1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, Sta", Bar #139669
City Attorney
2 WAYNE SNODGRASS, StalellarUl48137
VINCE CHHABRIA, Statc Bnr #208557
3 Deputy City Attorneys
City Hall, Room 234
4 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
5 Telephone: (415) 554-4674
Facsimile:
(415) 554-4699
6 E-Mail:
[email protected]
7
g
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF TIlE 8T ATE OF CALIFORNIA
lQ
11
12
13
Petitioners,
14
vs.
15
16
Case No. _ _ _ _ __
DECLARATION OF INSPECTOR DA VID
FALZON IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
FRANCISCO,
Respondent.
17
18
19
20
I, Inspector David Falzon, declare as follows:
21
1.
I am an inspector with the San Francisco Police Department of the City and County of
22
San Francisco. Except for those matters set forth on information and belief, I have personal
23
knowledge of the contents of this declaration, and if called upon to testify, I could and would testify
24
competently to the contents of the declaration.
25
26
2.
I am presently in charge of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Liaison Unit ("ABC
Liaison Unit") of the San Francisco Police Department ("SFPD" or "Department"). This unit, which
27
28
DECl. OF FALZON ISO RESPONSE TO APPLICA nON FOR TRO
CASE NO.
http://sfmaIIOd,sfgo\! orWmaillctfal:ZOT'l.n!
f/016,008 ed ,m 544, IBi2 5730aOOO7Udf
i$fi ',e-I00671 S8S .dae'!'npenalcmal'lt&filen
ome=0067IS35.dnc
was fonned in May 2010, is responsible for enforcement of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control
2
Act, for acting as a liaison with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and for
3
acting as a liaison with the San Francisco EntertainmentCommission.
4
5
3.
Prior to becoming head of the ABC Liaison Unit, I spent 12 years as the Inspector in
charge of enforcing the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. For approximately five years prior to that, I
6 served as a patrol officer.
7
8
4.
Approximately two weeks ago, at the direction of Assistant Chief of Police Jeff
Godown, I ordered a cOmprehensive review of prior incidents at two nightclubs: The Heights, located
9 at 2080 VanNess Avenue in San Francisco, and Club One-8-0ne, located at 181 Eddy Street in San
10
Francisco. I ordered this review for two reasons: concern had grown within the Department about the
II
threats these night clubs may have presented to the public safety: and the Department was in the
12
process of detennining how to deploy resources and miligate safety concerns on the weekend of New
13
Year's Eve.
14
5.
The risk of violent crime is heightened exponentially on New Year's Eve. On that
15
night, the Department anticipates that more than 500,000 people ~~.ll come to San Francisco (a town
16
with a population of less than 800,000). Alcohol and illegal drugs will be consumed at levels far
17
higherthan nonnal.
Ig
6.
Furthennore, the Department is in a far more difficult ?osition to protect the public
19
against violent conduct than in past years. Due to budget Ctlts, the Department will have 200 fewer
20
officers patrolling the streets this New Year's Eve as compared to last year.
21
7.
My subordinate, Inspector Joseph Fong, conducted the review of past incidents at Suite
22
One-8-0ne. His review revealed that the nightclub presents a serious threat to public safety in San
23
Francisco. In the past year, numerous acts ofvioJence have occurred at or near the club, involving
24
patrons of the club.
25
26
27
28
8.
On December 4,2010, a patrons of the club were involved in a physical altercation in
the club, and one of those patTons fired five gunshots in the air immediately tlpon exiting the club.
2
DECL. OF fALZON ISO RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR TRO
CASE NO.
hltpJ/sfml'liI04 S(gov org!m~il/dfal2or1.ns
[lO/MOOS .do ID l44eS8825780,OOO788d f
!$f,lel006 715SS ,c)()c1opmelemenritfilen
amc=00!71585.doc
18:29
9.
2
3
SFPD Rae LIRISDN UNIT
~
NU.t:l4':!
~~~44b~~
On November 28,2010, several acts ofvioJence occurred. One patron brandished a
gun at a security guard. Another patron damaged a patro I car after being arrested for theft.
10.
Other acts of violence during the past year included assault with a deadly weapon
4 (September 19,2010), a stabbing (March 21,2010), battery on a police officer (March 7, 2010), and
5
6
7
battery with great bodily injury (February 21, 2010).
II.
A more comprehensive list of violent or unsafe acts at the club is set forth in the Order
of Suspension served on the nightclub by the San Francisco EntertailUnent Commission. A true and
8 correct copy of that order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
9
12.
In addition to the foregoing, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
J0
recently revoked the nightclub's alcohol permit. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
II
initiated revocation proceedings against Suite One-8-0ne based on a series of violent incidents that
12
took place at the club in late 2009, including aggravated assault with a gun (November 14,2009),
13
aggravated assault with force (October 11,2009), at1empted homicide (September 27, 2009), and
14
aggravated assault (September 26, 2009).
15
16
17
13.
A true and correct copy of tile Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control's charging
document agains1 Suite One-8-0ne is amched hereto as Exhibit B.
14.
A true and correct copy of the certificate of decision revoking the club's license is
J 8 attached hereto as Exhibit C.
19
15.
In my experience, night clubs that are going out of business, either because their
20
alcoholic beverage pennits have been revoked or for some other rensoll, have less incentive to operate
21
in accordance with the law and to take measures to protect public safety. Accordingly, the operation
22
of clubs that are going out of business presents and even greater risk 10 public safety.
23
16,
In light of the information compiled by the
srPD regarding Ihe history of dangerous
24
activities at Suite One-8-0ne, in light of the dangerous activity set forth ill the charging document of
25
the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and in light of the special safeTY concerns presented by
26
New Year's Eve, the SFPD recommended to the San Francisco Entertainment Commission that the
27
28
3
DECL. OF FALZON ISO RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR TRO
CASE NO.
h!lP:!Is fm!li! 04. ~ (gov. orp'mDi I/dta.!zon. ns
flOI, aDO 8.d.f!J 54 4.88825780400 0788d f
JSfil~r00671585 ,doc'70po:nclement&:filcn
runAl067l585 doc
club's sound pennit and after-hours penni! be suspended on an emergency basis for New Year's Eve
2 weekend. A true and correct copy of the memorandum I wrote set1ing fonh this recommendation is
3 attached hereto as Exhibit D.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1&
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DECL. OF FALlON [SO RESPONSE TO APPLICA nON FOR TRO
CASE NO.
http://sfml)(104.sfgo\',orglmraiVdfalzoT1.ns
"8m
1,0/6.008
5.408 88251 iOaD007i8df
l$fileJl)0671 sa~ ,d('1c?oreneloment&fi1eo
lIme~067158S.doc
EXHIBIT A
TO
DECLARATION OF INSPECTOR DAVID FALZON IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
Pursuant to Sections 1060.20.3 and 1070.17.3 of the San Francisco Police Code, the Executive Director
of the San Francisco Entertainment Commission hereby suspends the following pennits from December
31.2010 at 3 p.m. through January 2. 2011 at 3 p.m.
Place of Entertainment Pennit #90979
Extended-Hours Premises Pennit #90980
PennitteelOwner: Andrew Adelman
Name of Business: Suite One-8-0ne ("Suite 181")
Address of Business: 181 Eddy Street, San Francisco CA 94102
Grounds for Suspension
The Pennittee or employee/agent(s) of the Permittee failed to take reasonable steps to halt conduct that would
violate one or more of the laws specified below. (S.F. Police Code secs. 1060.20.3(a)(I)(ii), 1070.17.3(a)(I)(ii).)
Conduct that would violate one or more of the laws specified below occurred on the premises, on a sidewalk
abutting the premises, or within 100 feet of the premises, and has resulted or could have resulted in serious bodily
injury or death. Continued operation of the business poses a serious threat to public safety, particularly given the
heightened public safety risks on the New Year's Eve weekend.
Specified Laws:
_x_Assault & Battery (Cal. Penal Code sees. 240, 242, 245)
_x_ Sexual Battery (Cal. Penal Code sec. 243.4)
_x_Discharging Fireann (Cal. Peoal Code sec. 246, 246.3)
_x_ Unlawful Weapons (Cal. Penal Code sec. 12020; S.F. Police Code sec. 1291)
_x_ Disturbing the Peace (Cal. Penal Code secs. 415, 416, 417)
_x_Unlawful Threats (Cal. Penal Code sec. 422)
_ _ Rape (Cal. Penal Code sec. 261)
_ _ Statutory Rape (Cal. Peoal Code sec. 261.5)
_ _ Pimping (Cal. Penal Code sec. 266)
_ _ Felony Sexual Assault
_x_Violent Felony Warranting Enhancement of Prison Tenn (Cal. Penal Code sec. 667.5)
_ _ Criminal Gang Activity (Cal. Penal Code sec. 186.22)
Additional details:
There has been a pattern of violence and other serious public safety problems at Suite 181 that has escalated in
recent months. The following statistics offer some measure of the magnitude of the problem. During 20 I 0, there
have been 190 calls-for-service to the San Francisco Police Department pertaining to Suite 181; 12 police incident
reports filed; 3 firearms (handguns) recovered; 5 felony arrests; and 3 misdemeanor arrests.
All calls for service, police reports and incidents involved events occurring inside Suite 181 or within 100 feet of the
location. All of these events involved patrons inside Suite 181 or who had been on the premises within 30 minutes
of when the incident occurred.
Among the specific incidents demonstrating the threat to public safety posed by operation of the subject pennits at
Suite 181 are the following:
121412010 SFFD incident #101118166: Unlawful WeaponlFireann; Discharging Fireann; Terrorist Threats; Failure to Comply
with Security Plan (12025, 246, 422 PC, 1060.20.2(a) (3) MPC). Patrons were involved in a physical altercation inside Suite
181. A group of patrons left Suite 181. A pistol was produced and five shots were fired into the air. TIle shooter was arrested
and a .38 caliber revolver recovered.
c:\documents and settings\vgranelli\deslaop\72 hour 181 suspension (public
safety).doc
BY:
Vajra GraneUi, Inspector
San Francisco Entertainment Commission
Date: December 30, 2010
The Director may vacate this suspension upon determining that operation of the business before
expiration of the suspension will not pose a danger to the public, because additional information shows
the conduct was not related to operation of the business, the Permittee has taken adequate steps to correct
the problem giving rise to the suspension, or other circumstances warrant vacating the suspension.
If you wish to communicate with or provide further information to the Director, please contact Vajra
Granelli of this office, by email ([email protected]), fax (415-554-7934), or personal delivery
(Room 453, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco). The fax and personal delivery
options are available only on Thursday, December 30, 2010, before 5:00 p.m. Any oral communication,
either in person or by phone, should be arranged with and directed to Mr. Granelli. He may be reached by
phone at 415-554-6007. We suggest that any intial contact with Mr. Granelli before 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 30, 20 I 0, be by both email and phone. Thereafter, Mr. Granelli should be contacted
by email.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUSPENSION
Name and Title
Date and Time
c:\documents and settings\vgranelli\desktop\72 hour 181 suspension (public
safety).doc
Entertainment Cotnmission
December 30,2010
Mr. Andrew Adelman, Owner
Mr. Jay Chen, Operating Manager
Mr, Duc Luu, Operating Manager
Suite One-8-One
181 Eddy Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE:
Notice of Intent to Issue Public Safety Suspension
Suite 181 (181 Eddy Street)
Place of Entertainment Permit #90979 & Extended Hours Premises Permit #90980
Period of Suspension: December 31, 2010, 3:00 p.m. tbrougb January 2, 2011, 3:00 p.m.
Dear Messrs. Adelman, Chen, and Luu:
Attached is an Order of Suspension of the subject pennits. The suspension would be issued as a public
safety suspension under the authority of San Francisco Police Code Sections 1060.20.3 and 1070.17.3.
These sections are reprinted at the end of this letter for your reference.
Our investigation of public safety concerns associated with Suite One-8-One ("Suite 181") and the
operation ofPennits #90979 and #90980 was concluded on December 29, 2010. The Commission has been
aware of public safety concerns associated with Suite 181. Only upon receipt and review of a
comprehensive compilation of data cataloging and fully documenting all of these concerns has it become
clear that a public safety suspension of the subject pennits is warranted, for the 48-hour period beginning
December 31, 2010 at 3:00 p.rn. and ending January 2, 2011 at 3:00 p.m.
In our experience regulating entertainment venues, we have found that New Year's Eve poses special public
safety dangers, greater than any other day of the year with the possible exception of Halloween. The
history of violent incidents and other serious public safety problems at Suite 181 over the course of this
year, and particularly in recent months, indicates that there is a substantial risk of a violent incident or other
serious public safety problem occurring at Suite 181 on New Year's Eve. In our considered judgment, and
the considered judgment of the San Francisco Police Department, which recommends issuance of a public
safety suspension of the subject pennits, the risk is too great to ignore. Because New Year's Eve falls on a
Friday night rather than mid-week, a suspension covering both Friday and Saturday nights is appropriate.
The operative period of this suspension is December 31,2010 at 3 p.m. tbrougb January 2, 2011 at 3
p.m.
But before tbe suspension becomes operative, you bave an opportunity to respond to tbis Notice of
Intent to Issue Public Safety Suspension, as follows.
I Dr. carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 453- San Frandsco, CA. 94102. (415) 554-6678- Phone (415) 554-7934- fax
We are setting a deadline of Friday. December 31. 2010 at II :00 a.m. for any response, which may be
written or oral. A written response, or any other written communication, should be directed to Vajra
(Room 453, City Hall, I Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco). The fax and personal delivery
options are available only on Thursday, December 30, 2010, before 5:00 p.m. Any oral response, either in
person or by phone, should be arranged with and directed to Mr. Granelli. He may be reached by phone at
415-554-6007. We suggest that any intial contact with Mr. Granelli before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 30, 2010, be by both email and phone. Thereafter. Mr. Granelli should be initially contacted by
email.
In the event you wish to contact counsel for the City, you may contact Deputy City Attorney Vince
Chhabria (phone: 554-4674; email: [email protected].)
If no response is forthcoming, we will issue the Order of Suspension, on Friday, December 31, 20 I 0 at
II :00 a.m. or soon thereafter. If a response to this Notice of Intent to Issue Public Safety Suspension is
forthcoming, upon due consideration we will decide whether to issue the Order of Suspension, no later than
Friday, December 31, 20 I 0 at II :00 a.m. or soon thereafter. You will be given electronic notice of our final
decision regarding the Order of Suspension.
Please let Mr. Granelli know if you have any questions concerning this Notice of Intent to Issue Public
Safety Suspension. As stated above, any response to this Notice should be directed to Mr. Granelli.
Sincerely,
Jocelyn Kane, Acting Executive Director
BY:
Vajra Granelli, Inspector
City Hall, Room 453
415-554-6007 (voice)
415-554-7934 (fax)
[email protected]
cc: Mark Rennie, counsel for Club 181
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE CODE SEC. 1060.20.3. - SUSPENSION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BY
THE DIRECTOR.
(a) GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION. The Director may suspend any permit issued under this Article for up
to 72 hours if the Director determines, after providing the Permittee at least 8 hours written notice and an
opportunity to respond, that any of the circumstances set forth in Subsection (a)(l)(i) or (ii) of this Section
has occurred either on the Premises of the Business, on Any Sidewalk Abutting the Premises of the
Business, or within 100 feet of the Premises of the Business, provided in this last instance that the person
engaging in the conduct that would constitute a violation of a law specified in Subsection (a)( I )(i) had been
on the Premises of the Business no more than 30 minutes before engaging in that conduct; that the conduct
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 453· San Francisco, CA. 94'02 • (415) 554-6678 - Phone (415) 554-7934 - fax
has resulted or could have resulted in serious bodily injury or death; and that continued operation of the
Business poses a serious threat to public safety.
(1) (i) The Permittee or any employee or agent of the Permittee has engaged in conduct that would
constitute a violation of any of the following laws: assault and battery (Cal. Penal Code §§ 240, 242, 245);
felony sexual assault; sexual battery (Cal. Penal Code § 243.4); rape (Cal. Penal Code § 261); statutory rape
(Cal. Penal Code § 261.5); pimping (Cal. Penal Code § 266); discharging firearm (Cal. Penal Code §§ 246,
246.3); unlawful weapon (Cal. Penal Code § 12020; S.F. Police Code § 1291); disturbing the peace (Cal.
Penal Code §§ 415, 416, 417); unlawful threats (Cal. Penal Code § 422); a violent felony warranting
enhancement of a prison term (Cal. Penal Code § 667.5); criminal gang activity (Cal. Penal Code § 186.22);
or
(ii) The Permittee has failed to take reasonable steps within the Permittee's control and within the limits of
the law to halt the conduct of another Person that would constitute a violation of any law described in
Subsection (a)(l)(i) of this Section.
(b) NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDER. The Director shall provide the written notice required under
Subsection (a) of this Section to the Permittee and the Manager by personal delivery and electronically.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE AND TIME OF ORDER. The order of suspension for public safety issued under
this Section shall take effect at the date and time stated in the order.
(d) DIRECTOR MAY VACATE ORDER. The Director may vacate an order of suspension for public
safety if the Director determines that operation of the Business before expiration of the suspension order
will not pose a danger to the public because additional information demonstrates that the conduct was not
related to the operation of the Business, the Permittee has taken adequate steps to correct the problem
giving rise to the suspension, or other circumstances warrant such action.
(e) POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION OF SUSPENSION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. The
Chief of Police, or the Chiefs designee, may recommend to the Director, orally or in writing, that the
Director suspend a permit for public safety in accordance with the grounds for suspension stated in
Subsection (a) above. If the recommendation is oral, it shall later be reduced to writing and filed with the
Director when time permits. If the Director fails to follow the oral or written recommendation, the Director
shall report to the Entertainment Commission both the recommendation and the reason or reasons for not
following the recommendation. This report shall occur at the next regular Commission meeting subsequent
to the recommendation, consistent with the provisions of the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance. For
purposes of this Subsection (e), the Captain for the district where the Place of Entertainment is located, or
the Captain's designee, is deemed the Chiefs designee unless the Chief of Police directs otherwise.
This Subsection (e) shall not preclude any Police Officer from recommending to the Director that the
Subsection (a) above.
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE CODE SEC. 1070.17.3. - SUSPENSION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BY
THE DIRECTOR.
(a) GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION. The Director may suspend any permit issued under this Article for
up to 72 hours if the Director determines, after providing the Permittee at least 8 hours written notice and an
has occurred either on the premises of the Business, on Any Sidewalk Abutting the Premises of the
engaging in the conduct that would constitute a violation of a law specified in Subsection (a)(l)(i) had been
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 453. San Francisco, CA. 94102 • (415) 554-6678 - Phone (415) 554-7934 - fax
has resulted or could have resulted in serious bodily injury or death, and that continued operation of the
246.3); unlawful weapons (Cal. Penal Code § 12020; S.F. Police Code § 1291); disturbing the peace (Cal.
or
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE AND TIME OF ORDER. The order of suspension for public safety issued under
1
Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 453· San Francisco, CA. 94102 • (415) 554-6678 - Phone (415) 554-7934 - fax
EXHIBITB
TO
DEC-30-2010
BAY AREA FIELD ENF.
12:26
~
P.002
S25 602 7720
,
~
./
~
BEFORE THE
~
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter oCthe Accusation Agai.nst:
File: 48-344872
ReI}:
POLLY ESTHERS OF SAN FRANCISCO LLC
10073453
FI LE
DBA: Suite 181
PREMISES: 1&1 Eddy Street
AUG 24 2010
AlCOHOLIC BEVEAAGE
NTROL
ACCUSATION UNDER
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL ACT AND
STATE CONSTITUTION
LICENSE(S): On-Sale G=al Public Premises
I hereby complain and accuse the above respondent(s), holding the above Jicense(s), based lin the following
statement of facts:
COUNT]
By reason of the following facts, therc is cause for suspension or revocation of the licensc(s), in
accordance with Section 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Business and Professions Code. It
is further alleged that the continuance of the license would be contrary to public welfare and/or morals as
set forth in Article xx, Section 22 of the California State Constitution and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which constitute: the basis for the suspension or revocation
by the Department are as follows:
That between September 2009 and January 2010, last past and immediately prior to the date of this accusation,
respondent-licensee ,directly or by and through its agent, employees, or servants, pcrmined or suffered the above
designated premises to be used in a manner which did create a problem for the law enforcement officials of the
San Francisco Police Department in thar such officials were required to respond to and/or make numerous calls,
investigations, arrests, or patrols concerning the conduct and acts Oc=1nS in or around $aid premises, and
which thereby created conditions then and there contrary to public welfare and moralS in violation of Article
Section 22 of the Constitution of the State ofCalifomia and Section 24200 (a) oithe Business and
Professions Code. Without limitation to the foregoing. it is more specifically alleged as follows:
xx.
Listed below are the dates and types of calls that the San Frallci~co P"lice Department responded to at the
subject pr=ises.
RECEIVED
AUG 252010
Dept. of Aicoh()l1C Bevc,'"I!C CODlI'OI
Bay I\rc.s Field enforcemom Office
~OO'd
6699 992 91t
OJSIJNVH~
NVS J8V
l~:~l
010Z-02-J30
DEC-30-2010
12:26
BkY kREk FIELD ENF.
925 602 7720
r ./
POt.LY I;STI-lERS OF SAN f'RANClSCO Lt.,....I
48-344872
?003
\....-'.
Page 2
Date
CascJCAD# . Type of CaWViolation
1
9126/09
090-993·
2
9127/09
619
090-997655
3
10/4/09
Attach
Rcport
Taken
Primary Officer
#
4
10/11109
5
10/11109
6
10111/09
7
10/11109
8
11114109
9
1110/10
10
1/10/10
091-023473
091-049106
091-048998
091-048960
091-049203
091-172650
11
100-030278
100-030290
0940-390
12
1216/09
12120/09 09-40.395
13
1116/10
10-4~llO
Assault, aggravated, w/ weapon, battery,
marijuana offen.~e
Assault, An. Homicide w/ gun, possession
ofloaded firearm, resisting, delaying, or
obstructing peace officer duties
Vong #1210
. Ye~
Yeo,
Smilb #2385
Sarcos #23 77
(Supplemental)
Salazar #1142
(Supplemental)
Buelow #107
Marquez #232
(Supplemental)
Bushnel1 #2290
Dudy#l64
(Supplementalt
Herbert #1401
Under the influence of alcohol in public
place, resisting, delaying, or obstructing
Peace Officers duties. Battery
Suspicious occurrence
Yes
Lyons #4048
Yes
Aggravated assault w/ force
Deg31ld #1272
Yes
ASg>avaled assault w/ force
Marin #361
Yes
Investigation detention
Liu#2199
Yes
Aggravated assault w/ Gun
Herbert #1401
Yes
Permit violation
Bertrand #414
Yes
Under the influence of alcohol in public
place
Minor in public premises, use of false
identification
Minor in a pub lic premi~e.~, use of fabe
idcntification
Violation of conditions., license not posted
Herben #1401
Yes
Ott #793
Yes
Ott 11793
Yes
Meyer #831,
Falzon #507
Yes
-
RECEIVED
AUG 25 l010
Depl. of A1conollc B""cr.~e Comrol
:Bay Arc& Field t::;lllbr~cmenl Office
900'd
6699 998 9n
,
,
I
OJSIJNVHd NVS J8V
lv:vl
0102-08-J3a
DEC-30-2010
12:26
BAY AREA FIELD ENF.
.'
925 602 772Q
P.004
J
POLLY ESlliERS OF SAN FRA.~CISCO L!>.../
48·344872
Page 3
COUNT 2
By reason of the following facts, there is cause for suspension or revocation of the license(s), in
accordanee with Section 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Business and Professions Code. It
is further allcged that the continuance of the license would be contraIy to public welfare andlormorals as
set fonh in Article xx, Section 22. of the California State Constitution and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which constitute the basis for the sll.~"pension or revocation
By reason of the above, from and about between the dates ofScptcmbcr 2009 and January 2010 respondentlicensee kept or pennitted, in conjunction with a licensed premiscs, a disorderly house, or to which pcople
resort, to the disturbance of the neighborhood or in which people abide or resort which is injurious to thc public
morals, health, convenience or safety, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 25601. without
limitation to the foregoing, it is more specifically alleged as follows:
(a) The Department hereby repeats, re-alleges and makes part hereof as fully, completely and with the same
force and effect as though s~ forth herein in full, the allegations contained in Count I of this accusation.
COUNT 3
By reason of the following facts, therc is cause for suspension or revocation of the license(s), in
accordance with Section 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Business and Professions Code. 11
is further alleged thaI the contirruance of the license would be contraIy to public welfare andlor morals as
set fonh in Article XX, Section 22 of the California State Constitution and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which constitute the basis for the suspension or revocation
On or about December 6, 2009, rcspondent-licensee(s), Huso Alberto Gamboa, permitted Veronica Y. Chan, a
person under the l1-ge of 21 years, to enter and remain in the licensed premises without lawful business therein,
in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 25665.
COUNT 4
By ree.son ofthr; following faw, thcre is cause fOT $U$pcnsion or rcvocation or thc licensees), in
accordance with Section 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) ofthr; Business and Professions Code. It
is further alleged that the continuance of the license would be contrary to public welf= andlor morals as
set forth in Article
Section 22 of the California State Con~l1.itution :IUd Section~ 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Code .. The facts which constitute the basis for thc suspcnsion or revocation
xx.
On or about December 6,2009, respondent-licensee(s), Hugo Alberto Gamboa, permitted Vane..o;sa Ann Yurong,
a person Wlder the agc of 21 years, to enter and remain in the licensed p.remises without lawful business therein,
in violation ofBusioess and Professions Code Section 25665.
RECEIVED
AUG 251010
~pt.
of Ale0110 lie li¢vor~~e C"rrU"ol
Bay AI"" Ficici Entorcoo;crr, OtO""
900'd
6699 99S 9lt
O~SI~NVHd
NVS
~8V
2t:tl
Ol02-0S-~3a
DEC-30-2010
12:26
B~Y ARE~
926 602 7720
FIELD ENF.
f.OOS
./
POL!.Y ESTl'IERS OF SAN f'RJ\NCISCO
1.t.J
4~)44872
Page 4.
COU~TS
By reason of the following facts, there is canse for suspension or revocation of the lieense(s), in
is furtb.er alleged that the continuance of the licen.~e would be contrary to publie welfare and/or morals ~
set fonh in Article XX, Section 22 of the California State Constitution and Seclions 24200(a) ~d (b) of
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which constitute the basis for the suspension or revoeation
On or about December 6, 2009, respondent-licensee(s) failed to maintain a clearly legiblc permanent
sisn reading) "No Person Under 21 Allowed" at or near and visible from the exterior of cac.b public
entrance or in a prominent place ill the iIltenor of the premises. in violation of California Code of
Regulations Tule 4, Division 1, Section 107.
COUNT 6
By reason of the following facts, there is cause for suspension or revoeation of the Iicense(s), in
accordanee with Section 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Business and Professions Code. It
is further alleged ~t the continuance of the liee.nsewould be contrlll'Y to public welfare and/or morals as
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which eonstitute the basis for the suspension or revocation
.
On or about December 20,2009, respondent-licensee(s), Hugo Alberto Gamboa, permitted Lovi Mikala
Waraich, a person under the age of21 yean;, to enter and remain in the lieensed premises withoutlllwful
business therein, in violation ofBusincss and Professions Code Section 25665.
COUNT?
By reason of the following factS, there is eause for suspension or revocation of the lieense(s) in
accordance with Section 24200 and Seetions 24200(a) and (b) of the Business and Professions Code. It
is further alleged that the continuance of the l i = would be contrary to publie welfare and/or morals as
set forth in Article
Section 22 of the California State Constitution and Sections 242QO(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Code;. The facts which constitute the basis for the suspension or revocation
by the Departme:nt are as follows;
xx.
On or about December 20, 2009, respondcnt-Lice:n~ee(s) railed to maintain a clearly legible permanent sign
reading, "No Person Under 21 Allowed~ at or ncar and visible from the cx.terior of each public entranec or in a
prominent placc in the interior of the premises, in violation of California Code of Regulations Title 4, Division
1, Seetion 107.
RECEIVED
AUG 252010
Dept. of A'lc()n.l,\l~~
'Bay Arc.'t
WO'd
6699 998 9IV
OJSIJNVHd NVS J8V
l"kJ~
,'31,- \ .. ) ".:J'"
:..Jd'vl(A.£.j";,',
2.:.1
\,~ 0;.'::)'''~:
\i';"',;,
0102-0€-J3G
\
DEC-30-2010
12:26
BAY AREA FIELD ENF.
925 602 7720
P.006
~
POLLY ESnIERS OF s,o.N FRANCISCO L:"'-...../
48·344872
Page: 5
COUNTS
accordanee with Section 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Business and Profes.~ions Code. It
is further alleged thal the continuance of the license would bc contrary to public welfare andlor morals as
set forth iri Article XX, Section 22 of the California State Constitution and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which col)..~rute the basis for the suspension or revocation
by the Depanment arc as follows:
On or about January 16,2010, respondent-licensee's agent or employee, Dan Olson, violated condition # 2 on
the license which states, "Applicants shall have: a security guard, certified by the Department of Consumer
Affairs, or an off-duty police officer, on duty at all times the premises is open for business, at each public
ingress and egress" in that licensee and/or licensee'S employee or agent did retain the services of Miguel
Braiding, a security guard not certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, such being a violation of the
license condition and gro\llld for license suspension or rev(X;ation WIder Business and Professions Code Section
23804.
COUNT 9
is further alleged that the continuance of the license would be contraIy to public welfare andlor morals as
sel forth in Article xx, Section 22 of the California State Constitution and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of
'the Business IIDCi Professions Code. The facts which constitute the ba.<lis for the suspension or revocation
by the Dcpartmeot are as follows:
On or about January 16,2010, respondent-licensee'S agent or employee, Dan Olson, violated condition # 2 on
the license'which states, "Applicants shall have a security guard, certified by the Department of Consumer
Affairs, or an off-dut)' police officer, on duty at all times the premises is open for business, at each. public
ingress and egress" in that licensee andlor licensee's employee or agent did retain the services of Alan Bryant, a
security guard not certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, such being a violation of the license
condition and ground for license suspension or revocation under Business and Professions, Code Section 23804.
RECEIVED
AUG 2 S 2010
Dept. Ot'Alcohollc Beverage COlllrol
Bay Area field EnforcCIllc'llt Office
~nn'"
O~SI~NVHd
NVS
~8V
z.:.!
0!OZ-OS-J3G
DEC-3D-ZOIO
BAY AREA FIELD ENF.
12:27
925 602 7720
P.007
'"
POLl.Y llS"TKP.RS OF SAN FRANCISCO u-./
48-)44872
Page 6
COUNT 10
By reason of tile following fllaS, there is cause for suspe:nsion or revocation of the license(s), in
accordance with Scction 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Business and Professions Code. It
is further alleged thaI the continuance of the liceMe would bc contrary to public welfare andlor morals as
set forth in Article XX Section 22 of the California Slate Constitution and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Code. Thc facts which constitute the basis for the suspension or revocation
On or about January 16,2010, respondem.. li=cc·s agent or employee, Dan Ol.o>on, violated condition # 2 on
the licel1Se which sWes, "Applicants shall have a security guard, certified by the Department of Consumer
. Affairs, or an off-duty police officer, on duty at all times the premises is open for business. at each public
ingr= and egress" in that licensee and/or licensee's employee or agent did retain thc services of ChriStOpher
Cavity, a security guard not certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, such being a violation of the
license condition and ground for license suspension or revocation under Business and Professions Code Section
23804.
COUNT lJ
is further alleged that the continuance 'of the license would be contrary to public welfare and/or morals as
set forth in Article xx, Section 22 of the California State Constitution and S'ections 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and ProfessiotlS Code. The facts which constitutc the basis for the suspension or revocation
by the Department are as'follows:
On or about January 16, 2010, respondent-licensee's agent or employee, Dan Olson. violated condition # 2 on
the license which states, Applicants shall havc a security guard, certified by the Department of Consumer
'Affairs, or an off-<luty police officer, on duty at all times the prc.mises is open for business, at each public
ingress and egress" in that licensee andlor licensee's employee or agent did retain the services of Armand
Frazier, a security guard not certified by the Department ofCon$umer Affairs, such being a violation ofthc
license condition aod ground for license suspension or revocation under Business and Professions Co~ Section
23 804.
,
';<
U
.!'
a-o
~ :;.
COUNT 12
~g
!!.
.~
l:=
C"')
By Teason of the following facts, there is cause for suspension or revocation of the licensees), in ~: ~ N
accordance with Section 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Busines~ and Professions Cod5' ~ <.J"
is further alleged that the continuancc of the license would bc contrary to public welfare andlor mo~f as :=5
set forth in Article XX. Section 22 of the California State CollStltution and Sections 24200(a) and @~f C5
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which constitute the basis f'Or the ~lb'Pcnsion or revo¢ation
by the Department are as f o l l o w s : '
~'
g
", 2.
On or aboUt January 16. 2010, respondent-licensee's agent or employee, Dan Olson, violaled condition # 2 on
the licomse which states. "Applicants shall have a security guard, certified by the Department of Consumer
Affairs, or an ofi"-<luty police officer, on duty at all timcs the premises is open for business, at each public
ingress and egress" in that licensee andlor licensee's employee or agent did retain the services ofF..:ll"1 Abandon,
a security guard not certified by thc Departmcnt of Consumer Affairs. such beins Il violation of the liccnse
condition and ground for license suspension or revocation under BIlI>~ness and Professions Code Section 23804.
600'd
6699 99S 9 TV
OJSIJNVHd NVS J8V
Sv:vl
010Z-OS-J3Q
DEC-3D-20l0
l2:27
BAY AREA FIELD ENF.
925 602 7720
P.ODS
-'
POllY ESTIIERS OF SAN FRANCISCO L!>..../
4&-344812
Page 7
COUNT 13
By reason of the following facts, there is cause for suspension or revocation of the licensees), in
accordance with Se<:.tion 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) ofthc Business and Professions Codc. It
is further alleged that the oontinuancc of the license would be contrary to public wc.lfare and/or morals as
set forth in Article xx, Section 22 of the Califomia State Constitution and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which constitute the basis for the susp=ion or revocation
On or about January 16, 2010, respondent-licensee's agent or employee, Dan Olson, violated condition # 2 on
the license which states, "Applicants shall have a security guard, eertified by the Department of Consumer
Affair,;, or an off-duty police officer, on duty at all times the premises is open for business, at each public
ingress and egress" in that licensee and/or licen.qee's employec or agent did retain the services oflvan
Matcetine, a security guard not eertified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, sueh being a violation of thc
23804.
COUNT 14
By reason of the following facts) there is cause for suspension or rcvocation of the licensees), in
is further alleged that the wntinuance of the license would be contrary to public welfare andlor morals as
set foIth in Artiele XX, Se.ction.22 of the California State Constitution and Sections 24200(n) and (b) of
by the Department axe as follows:
On or about January 16, 20 I 0, respondent-licensee's agent or employee, Dan Olson. violated condition # 2
the license which states, "Applkants shalll:iave a security guard, certified by the Departtnent of Consumer
.Affairs, or an off-duty police officer) on duty at all times thc premises is open for business, at each public
Oil
ingress and egress" in that licensee and/or licensee's employee or agent did retain the serviees ·of Gustavo Ortiz,
a security guard not certificd by the Department of Consumer Affairs, such beinS a violation of the license
condition and ground for license suspension or revocation under Business and Profcssions Codcj!i,i:tion 23804.
'<-
2:;'
~-?i
- co
:.I -.
COUNT 15
~~
n. ~;
>c:::
~
By reason of the following facts, there is cause for suspension or revocation of the liccnse(s), in~·'. ';:;.
aeco~dance with Seetion 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) ofthe BIl.~iness and Professions
I~
is further alleged that the oontinuance of the license would be eontrary to public welfare andlor morals :a;
set forth in Article XX, Section 22 of the California State Constitution and Sections 24200(a) anft (1:» of
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which constitute the basis for the suspension or re;vd,gation
. :::
GoJe.
On or about January 16, 20 I 0, respondent-licensee's agent or employee, Dan Olson. violated oondition # 2 on
the license which states, "Applicants shall have a security guard, cenified by \he Deparlment of Consumer
Affairs, or an off-duty police officer, on duty at aU timcs the premises is ()pcn for husiness, at each public
ingress and egress" in thaI licensee andlor licensee's employee or agent did retain the services ofTcri Ravel, a
security guard not certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs. such being a violation of the license
condition and ground for license suspension or revocation under Business and Professions Code Sectio1l23 804.
010',1
6699 992 9 IV
O~SI~NVHd
NVS
~8V
I
DEC-30-2010
12:27
B~Y
AREA FIELD ENF.
925 602 7720
".
P.009
\...-"
; Pou.Y ESTHERS OF SAN FRANCISCO u>,.../,
41·344S72
PageS
COUNT 16
By reason ofthc following faas, there is cause for suspension or revocation of the liccnse{s), in
accordanee with Secrion'24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Business and Professions Code. It
is further alleged that the continuance of the license would be contrary to pllblic welfare and/or morals as
set forth in Article XX, Section 22 of the California State ConstitutioIl and Sections 24200(11) and (b) of
On or about Jan\lal')' 16, 2010, respondent-licensee's agent or employee, Dan Olson, violated condition # 2 on
the license which states, "Applicants shall have a security guard, certified by the Department of Consumer
Affairs, or ao off-duty police officer, on duty at all times the premises is opc:n for business, ar each public
ingress and egress~ in that licensee and/or licensee's employee or agent did retain the services of Joe Espinosa, a
security guard not certified by thc Department of Consumer Affairs, such being a violation of the license
condition and ground for license suspension or revocation under Busincss and Professions Code Section 23804,
COUNTl7
is further alleged that the continuance of the license would be contrary to public welfare andlor morals as
set forth in Article xx, Section 22 of the Califomia State Constitution and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Codc. The factS which constitute the basis for the suspension or revocation
by the Deparonent are as follows:
On or about JanuaI)' 16, 2010, respondent-licensee's agenl Or employee, Dan Olson, violated condition # 2 on
thc license which states, "Applicants shall have a security guard, certified by the Department of Consumer,
Affairs, or an off-duty police officer, on duty ar all times the premises is open for business, at each public
ingress and egress" in that licensee and/or licensce's =ployec or agent did retain the s=tVices of Freddie
Sandino, a security gwtrd not certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, such being a violation of the
license con&tion and ground for licmie suspension or revocation under Business and Professions Coc!9 !!eetion
23804.
~
?-
:oX
:tt
>e
~ ~
COUNT 18
'.,
~.
By reason of the following facts, thc:re is cause for suspensioll or revocation of the liccnsc(s), in
l;'
accordance with Section 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Business and Professions Code. It '
is further alleged !bar the continuance of the license would be contrary to public welfare and/or morals as
the Business and Professions Codc. The facts which constitute: the: basis for the suspension or revocation
by the Depanmcnt !ll'e as follows:
On or about JanUlll)' 16, 2010" respondent-licensee'S agent or cmployec, Dan Olson, violated condition # 2 on
the license which staIeS, "Applicants shall have a secllrity guard, certified by the Department of Consumer
Affairs, or an off-duty policc officer, on duty at all times the premises is open for business, at each public
ingress and egress" in that licensee and/or licensee's employee or agent did retain the sCTVices of Blue Torino, a
security guard not certified by the Deparonent of Consumer Affairs, such being a violation of thc license
condition and ground for license suspension or revocation under Business and Professions Code Section 23804.
110' d
6699 %8 "I v
OJSIJNVMd NVS J8V
1'1':1'1
OIOZ-08-J30
DEC-30-2010
12:27
B~Y ARE~
FrELD ENF.
925 602 7720
P.010
.. fOU.Y ~ OF SAN FJV.NCISCO U.V"
48-3&4872
Pa~9
COUNT 19
By reason of the following facts, thcre is = e for suspension or rcvocation ofmc licensc(s), in
accordance with Sectio.n24200 and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of the Business andProfcssions Code. It
is further alleged that the continuancc oflhc license would be contrary to public welfare l1l1d!or mOl'llls as
set forth in Article XX Section 22 of the California State Constitution and Scctions 24200(a) and (b) of
the Business and Professions Code. The facts which constitute the ba.~is Cor thc suspension or revocation
On or about January 16, 2010, respondent-licensee's agent or employee, Dan Olson, violated condition # 2 on
the license which states, "Applicants shall have a ~eeurity guard, certified by tho Department of Consumer
Affairs, or an off-duty poli~ officer, on duty at all times the premises is open for business, at eaeh public
ingress and eg,:ess" in that licensee and/or licensec's employee or agent did retain the services of Auriol
Yamani. II. security guard Dot certified by the Department ofConsumcr Affairs, such being II. violation oithe
23804.
COUNT:ZO
By reason of the following facts, there is causc for suspension or revocation of the licensees), in
accordanee with Section 24200 and Sections 24200(a) and'(b) of the Business and Professions Code. It
is further alleged that the continuance ofmc license would be contrary to public wclfare and/or morals as
set fonh in AIticle. XX, Section 22 ofthc California State Constitution and Sections 24200(a) and (b) of
On or about January 16,2010, respondent-licensee(s) failed to post and maintain, in a conspicuous place upon
the licensed premises, a valid alcoholic beverage licc:nse, iSSllcd by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control, in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 24046.
RECEIVED
AUG 25 2010
Dept GiAlconmtC I:I'V<I'0I::" c.(,~<l\)J
B~y ATCl
7Trl· ,..f
08SJ8N¥Hd N¥S 88V
Field S,::OI·C.:TlH.111 Of!;oo
~~:~l
OlOZ-OS-830
810' d 1VlOl
DEC-30-Z010
BAY AREA FIELD ENF.
12:27
925 602 7720
P.Oll
,.
; POLLY ESTHERS OF SAN FRANCISCO Lc.:.....;
q.344¥72
Page 10
For the purpose of imposition of penalty. if any, arising from the proceeding, it is furdlCT alleged that the
respondent·licensees have suffered 'the following disciplinary history:
PENALTY
VIOLATION,
24200(a&b) BP,
25601 BP, 23804
10/05108
REG. NO.
Revocali on; stayed for
1095 days; with a 45
09070264
day suspen~;o"
11112103
.24200(a&b) BP
23300 BE', 23355 BP, 23804 BP
$3,000.00 POle in lieu of
a 15 Day Suspension
with 5 Days Stayed
04056592
Liee:nsee(s) Previous Reeord: Licensed as ab~ve since December 15. 1999. with the above history of
disciplinary actiQtl.
'
WHEREFORE, Trecommend thal a hearing be held on this accusation.
Dazed this
O~
day of
~'1
2010.
1iaJ)istriet Adrnini~'trator
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Rcvi~d:
Pursuant to Govtnlmcnt Code Section 11507.6 discovery is ""Iucstcd to be proviclc<l to: Dc:PL of Alcobol;e Beverage CODtro~
3927 Lcnaane Drive, Slllte 100. S.cramento, eA 95834 PhoDe (916) 419·2500
ST ATEMTh"T TO RESPONDENT(S)
Unless I 'Nf'ittc:n n::quc:::::Jt for I. rU:::1nn,g. sign~ by you. or on )'our behalf, i..s deliv;r;c4 or m~iled. to the Dcpann'\ent ofAlcoholic Bcvcr~ Control
w;<hin Ii!\=> (15) dB)':! after !he fo«soine ."",,,i.lion WAS ~naJly saved on you or mailed to you. the Dcp=CD! of Aleoholie Be""",!!, Control
rm.y tn'ooccd upon the ~~ticm wi\ho~t 11 hQ&lrin~ lO ~ ac1.ion I.hc::rc;on as Pf"vided by 11\"'. The rcqUQf tor k nc;u,nng m~)! be made by de!ivalnf{
or mniling: cbc, gocJo)C;{j form cntitl«1; '"'Noti~ ofOefc:nse". or by dolivc:rinS or mailing fj NOlice ofDefcn$C 10 lbc DepKrtmcnl or Alceholie Beverage
Conll'Ql. 3927 l.enr\Ult; OrNe, Swte 100, Sac:r.unenlo. C3J.lfomia 95K)4, AS provid.ed hy Section 11.506 of the: (io"et'nmt;r\t Code. The "Nol;G.c: of
Defen.«· lbrworded llcrewi'h. if signed"'" returned to the Dep>rtmClt of Alcol>oJie Bevcrose Control. ,haJl b<: deemed, 'pccifle !lenial of .11 p.I1.,
of a~:sa.tioo.. but )'O\l will nOl be ponnh\.c:d LO mise: Oll)' obj cction to the .corm orthe necu:satioD, unlen )'O~ file 8. furtber Notice of Defense as
provided. in SoctiOtl 1I 506 ofllle Goy(;rtlmmn Code within $~d J5 day.:; o.!\cr ~c:t"fice of:otlid '1cc:~tiOD upon )'uu. Al UD)! or aJJ sblgc:s o(tboc
proceeding$., )'(11.1 l'Iilve the right to he represtM.ed by eoun~1 :l1 YOUt ~WD C)(pcn~ or to rep~l yoUr.:;clfwilholJllegGl co~n.~l. You t\rc: nol Q'llitled
me
'0 chc '9POintn\ent of~ anomcy to rcprescntyou .
. The heAring m:r:y be POStPOned. for good ea.we. If you ftll"C good c.a.use, you:Me obliged. Y) l\(ltify d'li~ OS"'~C)' withinRl!et!'I~)!ou
di:::eover the good Q\1.SC. Fa.i!ure to notify thl::,.llgency within 10 dllY' win dcprlve you of;,. postponement.
AUG 2S ZOlO
I\.8C·300 (9.109)
Dept. ot Aie4l:li.\j.C
Bay A1'eQ. Fic:lc.1
810'd
6699 998 9TV
08S18NVHd NVS 88V
;-,~\.t:'~ ...~~.
:' •• IIIC.J'...lj
tiaif.)rr:.:.~.·:I .... L '/~:::':'C
vv:vl
0103-08-830
EXHIBITC
TO
DEC-30-2010
15:12
P.02
ABC LEGAL
BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
.,
IN THE MAITER OF THE ACCUSAnON AGAINST:
POLLY ESTHERS OF SAN FRANCISCO LLC
FILE: 47,48·344872
REG.: 10073453
SUITE ONE 8 ONE
181 EDDY ST
SAN FRANcrsco, CA 94102-2706
ON-SALE GENERAL EATING PLACE, ON-SALE GENERAL
PUBLIC PREMISES
DECISION
Respondent(s)/Licensee(s)
under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
The above-entitIed matter having regularly come before the Department for decision; and it
appearing to the Department that the respondent(s) has filed a stipulation and waiver in connection with
the ac<:usation herein in which respondent(s) waives right to hearing, reconsideration and appeal; and
good cause appearing therefor, the Department now finds as follows:
That cause for disciplinary action has been established.
Determination of issues presented: That respondent(s) violated or permitted violation of Business
& Professions Code Section(s) 25601,24046, 24200(a), 25665, 23804 and California Code of Regulations
Rule 107.
Grollllds for suspension or revocation have been established under Article XX, Section 220fthc
State Constitution and Business and Professions Code Section 24200(a&b).
Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that the license(s) issued to respondent(s) at the abov~mentiooed
premises he revoked, with said revocation stayed for a period of 180 days from the effective date of the
Department's decision until May 16, 2011, upon the following conditions:
I. That the license be suspended for a period of 20 days and indefinitely thereafter until the
license is transferred or the stay is vacated and the license is revoked, beginning on or after January 2,
2011. Upon request oftru; Licensee, the suspension may start on a date prior to Ianuary 2, 2011.
2. That the license be transferred to a premises outside the boundaries of the Tenderloin and
person(s) acceptable to the Department.
lfthe license has not been transferred as ordered herein, on or before the expiration ofthc stayed
period, the Director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control may, without further notice, vacate
the stav and enter an order revokinll thc license.
CERTIFICATE OF DECISION
It is hereby certified that on November 16, 2010, th Dep.arttncnt of Alcoholic Beverage Control
adopted the foregoing as its decision in the proceed' g
. desc·
ectivc immediately.
Sacramento, California
Dated: November 16,2010
General Counsel
ABC-13J (9-04)
ZOO'd
6699 998 91v
OJSIJNVHd NVS J8V
Ov:vl
OIOZ-OS-J3a
EXHIBITD
TO
Memorandum
I
To:
Assistant Chief Jeffery Godown /
Operations Bureau
From:
Inspector Dave Falzon C ~(./"
OIC, ABC Liaison Unit (ALU)
n·,,·/St;,/_
JEFFREY GCloc~w)h
Assis!al1~r.Ii\i®, of po!~g'..
~
-
----0
0
~~14.s~0
elro Division
Date:
Wednesday, December 29,2010
Subject:
Request - Entertainment Commission, Suspension for Public Safety by
the Director
Discussion
I have assigned Inspector Joe Fong the task of conducting a complete and thorough
investigation into the activities associated with the operation of 181 Eddy Street dba
Suite 181 and 2080 Van Ness Avenue dba the Heights.
As a result of Inspector Fong's work product we have determined that pursuant to
1060.20.3 MPC that a recommendation of a 72 hour suspension of these premises'
Entertainment Permits is warranted.
Pursuantto 1060.20.3(e) MPC I am now requesting your approval to forward said work
in its entirety to the Director of the Entertainment Commission for a 72 hour suspension
of the premises' Entertainment Permits. For the purpose of allowing time for the
Commission to make their determination and notify the operators, it would be the
Department's demand that this suspension take effect on Thursday, December 30,
2010 at 1700 hours and end on Sunday, January 2,2011 at 1700 hours.
Based on our investigations, it is our determination that both premises' have numerous
violations of 1060.20.3 (a)(1)(i) MPC and this continued pattern of violation further
illustrates both premises inability to improve conditions in violation of 1060.20.3(a){1 )(ii)
MPC. In totality we have determined that both of these premises operate contrary to
the public safety and welfare, putting the public at risk.
The nexus between the management or lack-there-of on the part of both premises and
their respective continued disruptive and violent activity is well established and merits
mUlti-agency notifications.
Copies of Inspector Fong's investigation will be forwarded for vertical actions by the
ABC for "disorder house" accusations and the City Attorney for injunctive relief.
attch.
cc. wlattch.
Insp. Fong's Case File
Alcoholic Beverage Control- District Administrator Justin Gebb
District Attorney's Code Enforcement - DCA Supervisor Alex Tse
SFPD·68 (03189) *
RECOMMENDATION OF SUSPENSION FOR PUBLIC SAFTETY
Premise: Suite One-8-0ne, 181 Eddy Street, San Francisco CA 94102
Entertainment Permit: #90979.
Extended Hours Premises Permit: #90980.
ABC License Type and Number: 48-476323, Conditions: Yes
Police history for or at the above location for year 2010:
190 calls-for-service
12 police incident reports were filed
3 firearms (handguns) recovered
5 felony arrests
3 misdemeanor arrests
All calls for service, police reports and incidents were inside or within 100 feet of the location.
All parties involved were patrons inside the location or have been on the premise within 30
minutes when the incident occurred.
Reason for Suspe·nsion:
Failure to Comply with Security Plan
Conduct Constituting a Nuisance
Assault and Battery
Discharging Firearm
Unlawful Weapon
Disturbing the Peace
Unlawful Threats
Obstruction of PedestrianN ehicle Right of Way
Identity Theft
Violent Felony Warranting Enhancement of Prison Term
Sexual Battery
ABC ViolatiOIis
Basis for Suspension:
12/4/2010 SFPD incident #101118166: Unlawful WeaponlFirearm; Discharging Firearm;
Terrorist Threats; Failure to Comply with Security Plan (12025,246,422 PC, 1060.20.2(a) (3)
MPC)
11128/2010 SFPD incident #101099453: Fighting; Disturbing the Peace; Resisting Arrest,
Lynching, Terrorist Threats (415, 148(a) (1), 405, 422 PC)
11128/2010 SFPD incident # 10 1099447: Possession of Stolen Property; Identity Theft; Public
Nuisance; Felony Vandalism (496(a), 530.5, 594(b)(1), 148(a)(1), 647(f) PC)
10/1 0/20 I 0 SFPD CAD #S 1028303 72: Obstruction of PedestrianNehicle Right of Way: 50+
blocking sidewalk (370 PC).
10/9/2010 SFPD CAD #SI02823737: Obstruction ofPedestrianNehicle Right of Way: 80+
blocking sidewalk. Double parked cars blocking traffics (370 PC)
9/19/2010 SFPD incident #100868405: Unlawful WeaponlFirearm; Assault wlDeadly
Weaponlbottle: Resisting Arrest; Failure to Comply with Security Plan (12025(a)(1),
12031(a)(1), 12021(a)(1), 148(a)(1) PC, 1060.20.2(a)(3) MPC)
4/3/2010 SFPD CAD #SI00933954: Disturbing the Peace; Obstruction ofPedestrianNehicle
Right of Way: 150+ blocking sidewalk; (415, 370 PC)
3/2112010 SFPD incident #100266122: Assault W/Deadly Weapon/Knife; Failed to Comply with
Security Plan; Violent Felony Warranting Enhancement of Prison Term (245(a)(1) PC,
1060.20.2(a)(3) MPC; 667.5 PC)
3/2112010 SFPD CAD #S100800114 and S100800030: Obstruction ofPedestrianNehicle Right
of Way: Large crowd in front of the premise blocking sidewalk
3/20/2010 SFPD CAD #SI00793794: Obstruction ofPedestrianNehicle Right of Way: 75+
blocking the sidewalk. Security failed to control crowd.
3/7/2010 SFPD incident #100218010: Battery on a Police Officer: Resisting Arrest; Disturbing
the Peace. (243, 148(a)(1), 415 PC)
3/6/2010 SFPD CAD #SI00654089: Obstruction ofPedestrianNehicle Right of Way: Citizen
complaint regarding patrons blocking sidewalk and drinking in front of the club. (370 PC)
2/2112010 SFPD incident #100172773: Battery; Battery W/Great Bodily InjuriesIKicks to Head
(242, 243(d) PC)
1110/2010 SFPD incident #100030278: Permit Violation; Violation of Good Neighbor Policy:
Failed to Comply with Security Plan, Fighting; Disturbing the Peace (1060.1 MPC, 415 PC,
1060.20.2(a)(3)MPC)
1110/2010 SFPD incident # 100030290: Drunk in Public, Fighting, Disturbing the Peace; Failed
to comply with Officer; Obstructing of Vehicle Right of Way (647(f), 415 PC, 2801,370 CVC)
11112010 SFPD incident #100000378: Battery (242 PC)
Serious incidents for year 2009
12/6/2009 SFPD incident #091247300: Permit Violation; Violation ofthe Good Neighbor
Policy; Obstruction of PedestrianNehicle Right of Way; Disturbing the Peace (1060.1 MPC,
0415,370 PC)
1011112009 SFPD incident #091049479: Assault W/Deadly WeaponlKnife (245(a)(1) PC)
1011112009 SFPD incident #091048960: Aggravated Assault with GBI; Sexual Battery (243(d),
243.4 PC)
1011112009 SFPD incident #091048998: Aggravated Assault with GBI (245(a)(I) PC)
10/1112009 SFPD incident #091049106: ABC Violations: Club management instructed security
to carry an intoxicated patron out of the club and leaving the patron the care for himself (25602
B&P)
9/27/2009 SFPD incident #090997655: Attempted Murder; Firearm; Unlawful Weapon; Violent
Felony Warranting Enhancement of Prison Term (664/187, 12022(a)(1), 12031(a)(1), 182 PC)
9126/2009 SFPD incident #090993619: Aggravated Assault W/GBI (245(a)(1) PC)
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT
CHRONOLOGICAL OF INVESTIGATION
ADDRESS
Mail Date
Page 1 of 5
ABC License Number
181 Eddy
48-476323
DBA
DETAIL
INSPECTOR ASSIGNED
Suite 1-8-1
ALU
Insp. Fong #1492
DATE
12/29
TIME
0900
ACTIVITY
Location: Suite One-8-0ne, 181 Eddy Street. (Between Taylor and Mason)
ABC license #48-476323.
Type: 48, On-Sale General-Public Premises (Bar, Night Club)
Conditions: Yes.
1. The sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises is strictly
prohibited.
2. Applicants shall have a security guard, certified by the Department of
Consumer Affairs, or an off-duty Police Officer, on duty at all times
premises is open for business, at each public ingress and egress.
3. There shall be a minimum of 75 off street parking spaces provided for the
use of patrons of the premises.
4. Sales, service or consumption of alcoholic beverages shall he permitted
only between the hours of 11 am and 2 am each day of the week ..
5. There shall be no mechanical amusement devices maintain upon the
premises at any time.
.
6. Petitioners shall regularly police the area under their control in an effort to
prevent the loitering of the person about the premises.
7. The main entrance at 181 Eddy St. shall be the only entrance into the
premises. All other doors to the premises shall be used for exits only.
8. Entertainment provided shall notbe audible beyond the area under control
of the licensee.
Police plot: 176.
Census tract: 125.
Calls for service for this address for year 2010:
Total: 191 calls for service.
143 903 (passing calls)
2 905 (meeUassist city employee)
9 7A, 7F (foot patrol, admin)
2 221 (person with gun)
2
1025 (back up unit needed)
4 909 (interview a victim/reportee)
10 917 (suspicious person)
1
415 (noise complaint)
6 585 (traffic stop)
1 On-view arrest
7 418 (physical fight)
1 918. (person screaming for help)
1 219 (stabbing)
1 587 (parking complaint)
1 148 (resisting arrest)
1 240 (assault)
1 152 (Driving under the Influence)
.
r
.
DATE
CHRONOLOGICAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
TIME I
ACTIVITY
Page 2 of 5
Police reports: 12 in year 2010.
Felony arrest: 5.
Misdemeanor arrest: 3.
Firearms: 3 pistols recovered.
Other weapons used: Sharp object/knife, 2 stabbing victims.
Bottle.
Concrete sidewalk, suspect(s) slammed victims' head
on the concrete sidewalk.
Fist and kick.
12/18/10
2330
12/12
0146
12/4
0206
11/28
0200
11/28
0144
11/28
0110
9/19
0224
3/21
0030
Case #101-164-711. Misc investigation regarding the permit status of Suite
181.
Case #101-142-096. Traffic stop resulted in a DUI arrest.
Officers observed vehicle driving wrong way on Eddy st. from 181 Eddy St.
Officer effected traffic stop and arrested the driver for DUI.
Case #101-118-166. Firearm; Discharge in negligent manner, possession.
Club goers were involved in a physical altercation inside Suite 181. A group of
suspects left the club and produced a pistol and fired five shots into the air.
The shooter was arrested and 7 men were detained and released.
A .38 cal revolver was recovered.
Case #101-099-453. Firearm, Assault, Possession by convicted felon/gang
member.
A security guard asked the suspect to leave Suite 181 and the suspect
produced a semi auto pistol and pointed it at the guard's face. The suspect is a
convicted felon also a known member of a criminal street gang.
A .25 cal semi-auto pistol was recovered from the suspect.
Case #1 01-099-629. Fighting, resisting arrest. Disturbing the Peace.
Suspect exited the club and was angry, aggressive and challenged officers to
fight. While taking the suspect into custody, another male attempted to lynch
the suspect from the arresting officer. The second suspect was pepper
sprayed by another officer.
Case#101-099-447. Receiving/possession of stolen property. Vandalism to
police vehicle, Resisting arrest.
3 females stolen victim's purse and credit cards. Officers arrested the suspect
and she physically resisted officers. When placed inside a police vehicle, the
suspect kicked violently and repeatedly, causing damage to the vehicle.
Case # 100-868-405. Firearm; possession by convicted felon. Aggravated
assault, bottle.
The suspects asked to go inside Suite 181 to look for their girlfriends' lost keys.
Security told the suspects that they already search with negative results and
refused to let the suspects back in due to closing time. One suspect showed a
pistol in his pocket and the other suspect threw a bottle at security personnel
striking one in the arm. Both suspects were arrested in their vehicle.
One .45 cal semi-auto pistol and 2 extra magazines were recovered.
Case #100-266-122. Aggravated assault with Knife.
SFPD 298 (10176)'
DATE I TIME I
ACTIVITY
317
0025
2/21
0110
.
1/10
0200
1/10
0157
1/1
0030
Page 3 of 5
Victim was stabbed inside Suite 181. Victim suffered a stab wound to his right
leg and his friend drove him to Highland Hospital in Oakland where he reported
to the police.
Case #100-218-010. Resisting/Obstructing an officer. Damage to SFPD
vehicle.
5 officers were detailed to Suite 181 for crowd control and an agitated male
walked into traffic. Officers attempted to stop the suspect and he resisted and
struggled. During the struggle, the suspect pushed an officer against a patrol
vehicle causing damages to the vehicle. An officer was also struck in the face
while attempting to gain control of the suspect's arm.
Case #100-172-773. Battery, victim transported to SFGH.
Victim was possibly kicked in the head by unknown suspect(s) inside the club.
Ambulance responded and transported the victim to SFGH. Victim appeared to
be intoxicated and uncoo~erative.
Case #100-030-278. Permit violation.
ABC investigator with undercover SFPD officer observed large crowds,
numerous fights spreading to the immediately area from patrons of club 181.
No assistant from the security personnel from the club. The manager was cited
for violating 1060.1 MPC, good neighbor policy. Manager was cited for the
same violation on 12/6/2009 (one month ago), case#091-247-300.
Case #100-300-290. Under the influence of Alcohol.
Officers from Co. J responded to Suite 181 and found 200+ patrons from the
club in the middle of the intersection with numerous physical fights in front of
Suite 181 and surrounding area. Most combatants were intoxicated, would not
comply with verbal commands and needed to be physically restrained.
A total of 14 units responded to break up the fights, disperse the crowd and
restore order.
Case #100-000-378. Battery.
Officers responded to Suite 181 on a call of an assault. The victim suffered an
unprovoked attack (punch in the nose) by an unruly patron.
Below are CAD entries that depict some the issues and problems
were generated by Suite One-8-0ne.
12/12
0310
.
11/29
11/28
1023
0051
.
11/28
11/28
0232
0216
tha~
Reportee called for a~sistant. His friend was throwing up due to excessive
drinking. Police and ambulance responded .
Battery: victim called from the hospital, assaulted in Suite 181 last night.
Grand theft: occurred inside the club. Officers arrested suspect and the
suspect resisted and kick the window of a SFPD patrol vehicle causing
damages to department vehicle. Wagon was needed due to violent nature of
the suspect.
The suspect created a scene and multiple units were needed and a total of 6
units responded.
Fight: 3J200 responded and abated a fist fight.
Robbery: Victim was robbed by 10 suspects. Victim also saw a knife, but was
unable to identify_ any_ sus~ect.
SFPD 298 (10/76) •
TIME I
ACTIVITY
DATE
11/14
0908
10/10
0150
10/9
2234
10/2
2335
9/25
2324
9/19
0224
8/15
1430
8/7
2336
4/3
2254
3/21
0005
-
0025
3/20
2304
3/6
2315
2/21
0203
1/17
0201
.
1/10
12/9/09
0157
0122
Page 4 of 5
Battery: Victim left Suite 181 and was assaulted by 4 suspects. Victim called
from the hospital the next morninQ.
Passing Call: 3J11 E noted that 50+ patrons loitering in the area, blocking the
sidewalk. Security not facilitatina the crowd getting out of the club.
Passing call: 3J 11 E noted that apporx 80 people in front of the sidewalk. Also
excessive double parked cars.
Crowd control: 3J203 and 3J113 assisting security for crowd control. 3J113
also advised Co. J unit to be eauipped with riot aear (head and bat).
Passing call: 3J116 was advised by the security manager to expect Folsom
Street Fair after party at Suite 181.
Person with Gun: 911 caller: man with gun threatened security and hit security
with a bottle. See above case #100-868-405.
6 units responded.
Battery: Victim was assault in the club. Victim went to the hospital and
reported the incident the next dav.
Passing call: Management requested assistance, large group was denied
entry. 3J13D and 3J11 0 responded and assisted.
Passing call: 3J11 E noted approx 150 in front of the club, on each side of the
entrance. Sidewalk was blocked. Numerous people in line creating a noise
problem.
Passing call, also by reportee. Citizen complaint regarding hundreds of people
in front of this location. Unable to walk through the sidewalk.
Info for Co. J by Headquarters that a large crowd is blocking the sidewalk in
front of this location.
Passing call: 3J11 E noted that approx 75 patrons in front of this location
blockinq the sidewalk. The staff is not containing the overflow of the crowd.
Citizen called: Patrons blocking the sidewalk and drinking outside.
3J203 arrested a resister, a patron that is under the influence of alcohol,
narcotic or both. 2 additional units responded as well as SFFD/medic.
Passing call: 3J118 noted that the club is letting out and small group are
'formina. 3J13E also responded.
Meet/Assist a city employee. Unruly crowd. Stood by while Suite 181 closing.
3J200, 3J118, 3J3E, 9J101 and 9J1 stood by .
Tenderloin units needed assistance. See above police reports.
3J200 called for outside unit help. Asked for all available Co. B units.
Solo, Tac, Co. A and Co. B, a total of 14 units responded to this call.
Below are several serious incidents in late 2009 (Sept to December.)
Attempted murder: 1, victim was shot.
Stabbing:1 (victim was stabbed 9 times)
Aggravated Assault: 3.
Suspect slammed the victim's head on the concrete sidewalk repeatedly.
Victim was beaten unconscious.
Female victim was beaten and her blouse was ripped from her body.
Security was hit in the head with a bottle.
Case #091-247-300. Permit violation.
SFPD 298 (10/76) •
DATE I TIME I
ACTIVITY
10/11
0400
10/11
0044
10/11
0102
10/11
0206
9/27
0201
9/26
0006
Page5 of 5
Club 181 was cited for 1061.1 MPC, in violation of the good neighbor policy.
Case #091-049-479. Stabbing.
A male victim was stabbed 9 times. Victim was so intoxicated that he cannot
provide any further information.
Case #091-048-960. Aggravated Assault.
Female victim was beaten and had her blouse ripped off of her body. Medic
advised the victim that she needs stitches to her eye.
Case #091-048-998. Aggravated Assault.
Male victim was beaten by 3 suspects and one the suspect slammed the
victim's head on the concrete sidewalk when the victim went down. Male victim
was beaten unconscious. 2 suspected booked.
Case #091-049-106. Serving intoxicated person.
Co. J sergeant observed club security physically carry an intoxicated patron on
his shoulder and out of the club. Security then left the patron to his own care.
The patron was unable to walk or talk.
Case #090-997-655. Attempted Murder w/Gun.
Victim was leaving the club when he was shot by the suspect. Co. J unit saw
the suspect vehicle and attempted to stop the vehicle. The suspect vehicle
failed to yield and Co. J unit gave chase. 2 suspects were arrested after the
vehicle pursuit.
Case #090-993-619. Aggravated Assault w/bottle. Battery, Resisting Arrest,
Attempted Lynching.
Officer responded to call for help by security regarding a melee inside the club.
A bouncer was hit with a bottle as well as several bouncers were punched and
hit. When officers taking the suspects into custody, the suspects resisted and
their friends attempted to lynch the suspects. A total of 25 officers had to
respond to ensure officer and victim safety.
SFPD 295 (10/76) •
12/30/2010
2
3
4
5
6
7
17:47
5FPD
~HC Ll~l~UN
UNll
~
~~~44b~~
DENNIS 1. HERRERA, Sf.le 1),,#139669
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS, Sl'le Bar #148137
VINCE CHHABRIA, Stale Bar #208557
City Hall, Room 234
Telephone: (415) 554-4674
Facsimile:
(415) 554-4699
E-Mail:
[email protected]
8
9
to
I)
12
13
Petitioners,
14
vs.
15
16
Case No. _ _ _ __
DECLARA nON OF INSPECTOR JOSEPH
FONG IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO
APPLICATION FOR TEMPOR..... RY
RESTRAINING ORDER
FRANCISCO,
Respondent.
17
18
19
20
I, Inspector Joseph Fong, declare as follows:
21
J.
[ am an Inspector with the San Francisco Police Department ("SFPD" or "Department")
22
in the City and County of San Francisco. Except for those matters set forth on infonnalion and belief,
23
I have personal knowledge of the contents of this declaration, and if called upon to testify, I could and
24
would testify competently to the contents of the declaration.
25
26
2.
I serve in the newly-created Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC") Liaison Unit, which
assists in the enforcement of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, and also serves as a
27
28
DECL. Of FONG 150 RESPONSE TO APPUCA nON FOR TRO
CASE NO.
http.iisfmQilQ4. ~ rgov ,orglmn.i I/j r0l'1 ;.nsfJO
m di 14.e2 5IeOlJ2 8i:lS7iOaO003."O$
Iilei006 71 S87.doc?oper!elemcnfkfile!'\a
mo=00671Si 7.doe
17:47
SFPD ABC LIAISON UNIT
~
NO.B4B
95544699
liaison to the San Francisco Entertainment Commission. I have served in this unit since September
2
3
2010.
3.
Prior to serving in the ABC Liaison Unit, I served in the Vice Crime Division for
4 approximately 12 years. Among my responsibilities during that period was to assist in the
5
enforcement of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. Overall, I have served in the
6 Department for 27 years.
7
4.
Approximately two weeks ago, Inspector David Falzon, the head of the ABC Liaison
8 Unit, asked me to conduct a comprehensive review of past incidents at two night clubs: The Heights,
9 on 2080 Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco, and Suite One-8-0ne, on 181 Eddy Street in San
10
II
Francisco.
5.
Inspector Falzon told me that the purpose of this review was to determine whether
12
recent allegations that these night clubs presented a threat to public safety were supported by the
13
evidence. Inspector Falzon explained that this was a high priority because it was close to New Year's
14
Eve, a date that presents special safety concerns.
15
6.
For both these clubs, I reviewed all infonnalion available to the Department on past
16
incidents. I began by reviewing reports on all calls for police service (in Deparlment parlance, "CAD
17
Reports") that resulted from activity at the night clubs.
18
result of these calls for service. I obtained these reports from three places: the Department's
19
Tenderloin Station, the Department's computer system, and the Department's main Record Room.
20
7.
r then gathered all police reports generated as a
These reports described a series of incidents which showed that both night clubs present
21
a serious danger to public safety, to the point that the Department hai recommended to the San
22
Francisco Entertairunent Commission that their sound permits and after-hours pennits be revoked on
23
an emergency basis for the weekend of New Year's Eve. On information and belief, in response to the
24
information compiled by the Department, The Heights has agreed not to operate
25
However, on information and belie.f, Suite One-8-0ne has not altered its plans to operate on New
011
New Year's Eve.
26 Year's Eve.
27
28
2
DECL. OF FONG ISO RESPONSE TO APPLICATION fOR TRO
CASE NO.
l1ttp'J/~fm9il04
sfgo .... OIgf,na;lJJrO!'lg.n~f/O
md81' ,eli I e0212RR2S7 80,00036<cflS
l'ilei006 71 S87, doc?opcnelement&.fll eno
mea00671S87.doc
17:47
8.
SFPD RBe LlRlSON UNl I 7
NU.t!4t!
~~~44b~~
The incidents set forth in the Entertainment Commission's Order of Suspension for
2 Suire One-8-0ne are based on the reports 1 compiled. I hand-delivered these reports to the
3
4
Entertainment Commission at 10:55 a.m. Oll Wednesday, December 29, 20 I O.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuanr to the laws of the Stare of California that the
5 foregoing is true and correct.
6
Executed December 30, 2010, at San Francisco, California.
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ig
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DECL. OF FONG ISO RESPONSE TO Al'l'lICATION FOR TRO
CASE NO.
hup'll~fmniIO~ ,sfgo'J ,ol'g/mailljfang
nsfiO
172di14a,~5le02l28B2;780.00QJ6"Y'
tile/006 71 sa? doc7openelemcnl&fllcna
me:o:O0671587.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar#148137
VINCE CHHABRIA, State Bar #208557
City Hall, Room 234
Telephone:
(415) 554-4674
Facsimile:
(415) 554-4699
E-Mail:
[email protected]
8
9
10
11
12
181LLCandJAYCHEN,
13
Petitioners,
14
vs.
15
Case No. _ _ _ __
DECLARATION OF INSPECTOR V AJRA
GRANELLI IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
FRANCISCO,
16
Res pondent.
171}-__________________________~
18
19
I, Inspector Vajra Granelli, declare as follows:
20
1.
I am an inspector with the Entertainment Commission of the City and County of San
21
Francisco. Other than matters set forth on information and belief, I have personal knowledge of the
22
contents of this declaration, and if called upon to testify, I could and would testify competent! y to the
23
contents of the declaration.
24
2.
On December 29,2010, at approximately 11:00 a.m., the San Francsico Police
25
Department ("SFPD") delivered to the Entertainment Commission a comprehensive compilation of
26
information regarding the conduct of patrons of Suite One-8-0ne over the past several years.
27
28
1
DECL. OF GRANELLI ISO RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR TRO
CASE NO.
n:\govlit\as20 lO\9890477\OO671583.doc
3.
1
Included in this material were numerous police reports that the Entertainment
2
Commission had never received, as well as information about the number of service calls to the Police
3
Department that the Entertainment Commission had never received.
4.
4
Based on the totality of this infonnation, the Acting Executive Director of the
5
Commission decided to exercise her authority under San Francisco Police Code Section
6
1060.20.3(a)(1)(ii) and San Francisco Police Code Section 1070. 17.3(a)(1)(ii) to suspend, on an
7
emergency basis, the "Place of Entertainment" pennit (sometimes referred to as a "sound pennit") and
8
after hours pennit of Suite One-8-0ne.
9
5.
A true and correct copy of the Order of Suspension is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
10
6.
A true and correct copy of the Notice of Intent to Suspend is attached hereto as Exhibit
11
12
13
14
B.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed December 30,2010, at San Francisco, Califorp.ia.
15
16
17
/
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DECL. OF GRANELLI ISO RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR TRO
CASE NO.
n: \gov Iit\as20 I0\9890477\00671583 .doc
EXHIBIT A
TO
DECLARATION OF INSPECTOR VAJRA GRANELLI IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE
TO APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
Pursuant to Sections 1060.20.3 and 1070.17.3 of the San Francisco Police Code, the Executive Director
of the San Francisco Entertainment Commission hereby suspends the following permits from December
31.2010 at 3 p.m. through Januarv 2. 2011 at 3 p.m.
Place of Entertainment Pennit #90979
Extended-Hours Premises Permit #90980
Permittee/Owner: Andrew Adelman
Name of Business: Suite One-8-0ne ("Suite 181")
Address of Business: 181 Eddy Street, San Francisco CA 94102
Grounds for Suspension
The Permittee or employee/agent(s) of the Permittee failed to take reasonable steps to halt conduct that would
violate one or more of the laws specified below. (S.F. Police Code secs. I 060.20.3(a)(I )(ii), 1070.17.3(a)(I)(i0.)
Conduct that would violate one or more of the laws specified below occurred on the premises, on a sidewalk
abutting the premises, or within 100 feet of the premises, and has resulted or could have resulted in serious bodily
injury or death. Continued operation of the business poses a serious threat to public safety, particularly given the
heightened public safety risks on the New Year's Eve weekend.
Specified Laws:
_x_Assault & Battery (Cal. Penal Code sees. 240, 242, 245)
_x_ Sexual Battery (Cal. Penal Code sec. 243.4)
_x_ Discharging Fireann (Cal. Penal Code sec. 246, 246.3)
_x_ Unlawful Weapons (Cal. Penal Code sec. 12020; S.F. Police Code sec. 1291)
_x_ Disturbing the Peace (Cal. Penal Code secs. 415, 416, 417)
x Unlawful Threats (Cal. Penal Code sec. 422)
_ _ Rape (Cal. Penal Code sec. 261)
_ _ Statutory Rape (Cal. Penal Code sec. 261.5)
_ _ Pimping (Cal. Penal Code sec. 266)
_ _ Felony Sexual Assault
_x_ Violent Felony Warranting Enhancement of Prison Tenn (Cal. Penal Code sec. 667.5)
_ _ Criminal Gang Activity (Cal. Penal Code sec. lS6.22)
Additional details:
There has been a pattern ofviolence and other serious public safety problems at Suite lSI that has escalated in
recent months. The following statistics offer some measure of the magnitude of the problem. During 2010, there
have been 190 calls-for-service to the San Francisco Police Department pertaining to Suite 181; 12 police incident
reports filed; 3 firearms (handguns) recovered; 5 felony arrests; and 3 misdemeanor arrests.
All calls for service, police reports and incidents involved events occurring inside Suite 181 or within 100 feet of the
location. All of these events involved patrons inside Suite 181 or who had been on the premises within 30 minutes
of when the incident occurred.
Among the specific incidents demonstrating the threat to public safety posed by operation of the subject pennits at
Suite 181 are the following:
12/412010 SFPD incident #10111S166: Unlawful WeaponiFireann; Discharging Fireann; Terrorist Threats; Failure to Comply
with Security Plan (12025, 246, 422 PC, 1060.20.2(a) (3) MPC). Patrons were involved in a physical altercation inside Suite
lSl. A group of patrons left Suite lSl. A pistol was produced and five shots were fired into the air. The shooter was arrested
and a .3S caliber revolver recovered.
c:\documents and settings\vgranelIi\desklop\72 hour 181 suspension (public
safety).doc
BY:
Date: December 30, 2010
The Director may vacate this suspension upon determining that operation of the business before
expiration of the suspension will not pose a danger to the public, because additional infonnation shows
the conduct was not related to operation of the business, the Pennittee has taken adequate steps to correct
the problem giving rise to the suspension, or other circumstances warrant vacating the suspension.
If you wish to communicate with or provide further infonnation to the Director, please contact Vajra
(Room 453, City Hall, I Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco). The fax and personal delivery
options are available only on Thursday, December 30, 2010, before 5:00 p.m. Any oral communication,
either in person or by phone, should be arranged with and directed to Mr. Granelli. He may be reached by
phone at 415-554-6007. We suggest that any intial contact with Mr. Granelli before 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 30, 2010, be by both email and phone. Thereafter, Mr. Granelli should be contacted
by email.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUSPENSION
Name and Title
Date and Time
c:\documents and settings\vgranelli\desktop\72 hour 181 suspension (public
safety).doc
EXHIBITB
TO
DECLARATION OF INSPECTOR VAJRA GRANELLI IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE
TO APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Entertainment Commission
December 30,2010
Mr. Andrew Adelman, Owner
Mr. Jay Chen, Operating Manager
Mr, Duc Luu, Operating Manager
Suite One,8,One
181 Eddy Street
RE:
Notice of Intent to Issue Public Safety Suspension
Suite 181 (181 Eddy Street)
Place of Entertainment Permit #90979 & Extended Hours Premises Permit #90980
Period of Suspension: December 31, 2010, 3:00 p.m. through January 2, 2011, 3:00 p.m.
Dear Messrs. Adelman, Chen, and Luu:
Attached is an Order of Suspension of the subject permits. The suspension would be issued as a public
safety suspension under the authority of San Francisco Police Code Sections 1060.20.3 and 1070.17.3.
These sections are reprinted at the end of this leiter for your reference.
Our investigation of public safety concerns associated with Suite One,8-One ("Suite 181") and the
operation of Permits #90979 and #90980 was concluded on December 29, 2010. The Commission has been
aware of public safety concerns associated with Suite 181. Only upon receipt and review ofa
comprehensive compilation of data cataloging and fully documenting all of these concerns has it become
clear that a public safety suspension of the subject permits is warranted, for the 48,hour period beginning
December 31,2010 at 3:00 p.rn. and ending January 2,2011 at 3:00 p.m.
In our experience regulating entertainment venues, we have found that New Year's Eve poses special public
safety dangers, greater than any other day of the year with the possible exception of Halloween. The
history of violent incidents and other serious public safety problems at Suite 181 over the course of this
year, and particularly in recent months, indicates that there is a substantial risk ofa violent incident or other
serious public safety problem occurring at Suite 181 on New Year's Eve. In our considered judgment, and
the considered judgment ofthe San Francisco Police Department, which recommends issuance of a public
safety suspension of the subject permits, the risk is too great to ignore. Because New Year's Eve falls on a
Friday night rather than mid,week, a suspension covering both Friday and Saturday nights is appropriate.
The operative period of this suspension is December 31, 2010 at 3 p.m. through January 2, 2011 at 3
p.m.
But before the suspension becomes operative, you have an opportunity to respnnd to this Notice of
Intent to Issue Public Safety Suspension, as follows.
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 453· San Frandsco, CA 94102 • (415) 554-6678 - Phone (415) 554-7934 - fax
We are setting a deadline of Friday, December 31. 2010 at II :00 a,m, for any response, which may be
written or oral. A written response, or any other written communication, should be directed to Vajra
Granelli of this office, by email (vajra,granelli@sfgov,org), fax (415-554-7934), or personal delivery
(Room 453, City Hall, I Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco), The fax and personal delivery
options are available only on Thursday, December 30, 2010, before 5:00 p.m. Any oral response, either in
person or by phone, should be arranged with and directed to Mr. Granelli. He may be reached by phone at
415-554-6007. We suggest that any intial contact with Mr. Granelli before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 30, 2010, be by both email and phone. Thereafter.Mr. Granelli should be initially contacted by
email.
In the event you wish to contact counsel for the City, you may contact Deputy City Attorney Vince
Chhabria (phone: 554-4674; email: [email protected].)
If no response is forthcoming, we will issue the Order of Suspension, on Friday, December 31, 2010 at
11:00 a.m. or soon thereafter. Ifa response to this Notice of Intent to Issue Public Safety Suspension is
forthcoming, upon due consideration we will decide whether to issue the Order of Suspension, no later than
Friday, December 31,2010 at II :00 a.m. or soon thereafter. You will be given electronic notice of our final
decision regarding the Order of Suspension.
Please let Mr. Granelli know if you have any questions concerning this Notice ofIntent to Issue Public
Safety Suspension. As stated above, any response to this Notice should be directed to Mr. Granelli.
Sincerely,
Jocelyn Kane, Acting Executive Director
BY:
City Hall, Room 453
415-554-6007 (voice)
415-554-7934 (fax)
[email protected]
cc: Mark Rennie, counsel for Club 181
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE CODE SEC. 1060.20,3, - SUSPENSION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BY
THE DIRECTOR.
(a) GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION. The Director may suspend any permit issued under this Article for up
to 72 hours if the Director determines, after providing the Permittee at least 8 hours written notice and an
has occurred either on the Premises of the Business, on Any Sidewalk Abutting the Premises of the
engaging in the conduct that would constitute a violation of a law specified in Subsection (a)(1 )(i) had been
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 453· San Francisco, CA. 94102 • (415) 554-6678 - Phone (415) 554-7934- fax
has resulted or could have resulted in serious bodily injury or death; and that continued operation of the
(I) (i) The Permittee or any employee or agent of the Permittee has engaged in conduct that would
246.3); unlawful weapon (Cal. Penal Code § 12020; S.F. Police Code § 1291); disturbing the peace (Cal.
or
Subsection (a)(I)(i) of this Section.
(d) DIRECTOR MAY V ACATE ORDER. The Director may vacate an order of suspension for public
purposes of this Subsection ( e), the Captain for the district where the Place of Entertainment is located, or
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE CO[}E SEC. 1070.17.3. - SUSPENSION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BY
THE DIRECTOR.
(a) GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION. The Director may suspend any permit issued under this Article for
up to 72 hours if the Director determines, after providing the Permittee at least 8 hours written notice and an
opportunity to respond, that any of the circumstances set forth in Subsection (a)( I )(i) or (ii) of this Section
has occurred either on the premises of the Business, on Any Sidewalk Abutting the Premises of the
engaging in the conduct that would constitute a violation of a law specified in Subsection (a)( l)(i) had been
1 Dr. carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 453- San Francisco, CA. 94102. (415) 554-6678 - phone (415) 554-7934- fax
has resulted or could have resulted in serious bodily injury or death, and that continued operation of the
constitute a violation of any of the following laws: assault and battery (Cal. Penal Code §§ 240,242,245);
246.3); unlawful weapons (Cal. Penal Code § 12020; S.F. Police Code § 1291); disturbing the peace (Cal.
enhancement ofa prison term (Cal. Penal Code § 667.5); criminal gang activity (Cal. Penal Code § 186.22);
or
1 Dr. Carlton B.Goodlett Place, Room 453- San Francisco, CA. 94102. (415) 554-6678 - Phone (415) 554-7934 - fax

Suite 181 permit suspension presskit

Transcription

Similar documents

2016-3 Baseball Cardinals copy

eibach Wins CarDomain.com`s People`s Choice Award for the 5th

Alternative Careers for Lawyers Panel Followed by AABA Happy Hour

Printable PDF version, books only

Aryeh Shell Betsey Bryant Blackstar Ching-In Chen

LJD Artist Resume

Restaurant Series Classes at SF SBDC

Resources - Sightline