administration is wrong and the fong administration was wrong. so i hope you look at the guidelines. i hope you follow the guidelines harm the promulgated because the class c misconduct, you can't add more discipline and more penalty when this is a first offense. i have nothing further. >> thank you. >> can i question -- >> certainly. >> respond briefly, please. your best recollection of the offer made by the department since mr. mccoy brought it up and secondly, how about the class d violation or guidelines? >> it is remarkable that he is arguing about what the guidelines are. he didn't give you a written argument about what he thought.

>> please respond to his question. >> i am. part of the problem is it is 11th hour argument. we have laid out in our paper why it is not a class d violation. it merits termination. >> he brought it up. what were the department's offers? >> we had a variety of offers. i would assume offers like that wouldn't beed a admissible. >> what are they? >> since you ask, one of the reasons the offers fell apart, he was asking for a written guarantee he would be assigned to a -- everyone thought that it was outrageous that he demand he get a plum assignment. that i think is problematic. that is part of the reason for a viret of different conversations we had about -- variety of

different conversations we had with him about settlement fell through. that's why he is no longer suitable to work here. i think it is also important to note that officer lewis had the ability to explain to you his behavior by testifying in hearing. he chose not to. he had the opportunity to maybe give you a written letter or something explaining his behavior and why he engaged in it and n part of the penalty proceedings. he chose not to. he is basically telling you he doesn't have to explain what he did. he doesn't feel that he needs to give you any explanation and that i think is very disturbing. at least officer hurley got up there and tried to explain what was going on. this officer doesn't think he owes you that and that's why i think he shouldn't work here anymore. >> one minute. >> first of all, it is kind of confusing to me there mr. aleden does not remember what the offers were. the offers were 10 days time

off. the first prior offer was 15 days suspension. now he did accept a deal. he couldn't deal with him. we were doing with someone who works for the city attorney. there is a signed copy of the settlement agreement which gives him 10 days off, that was not -- it was a written reprimand. no time off. and the video. with the apology. it was not accepted by the chief. so the honda unit issue was something that was being negotiated but at the end of the day, officer lewis did sign for a letter of reprimand, which everyone else got. >> thank you.

>> based on the penalty that was administrated to officer hurley, i only ask that the commission administrate a penalty that was consistent with the allegations that are in front of us. not asking for termination. >> all right. >> not asking for termination. >> thank you. >> i move we go to closed session to consider penalty. on itemnumber 11. >> thank you, everybody. it has been a long evening. while we were in closed session, the commission deliberated about penalty for each of the sustained specifications with

respect to officer lewis and voted unanimously to impose 90 day suspension per specification for a total of 360 days to be imposed effective immediately without pay. i'll take a motion with respect to whether we disclose the content of our deliberations. >> second. >> any objection? >> no objections. call next item? >> item number 12 is adjournment. >> we have -- we had public comment and we called public comment on item 11 a earlier. >> next item. >> item 12 is adjournment. >> motion? >> second. >> no objection. >> that concludes the meeting.

[horns honking] [siren wails] announcer: big dreams and goodrades aren't enough to get into college. there are actual steps you need to take. finding someone who can help is the first and most important.

for the next steps, go to knowhow2go.org. then the san francisco planning

commission for thursday, february 17, 2011. before i take well, a couple of things again. the room is crowded, and the moment, there is no overflow room available, so we need everyone to cooperate with one another. there is no seating on the floors, no blocking the doors. it cre a fire hazard, and we will have to stop the meeting if that occurs. we ask that you turn off cell phones, pagers, and electronic devices that may sound off during these proceedings. we also ask that you not engage in secondary discussion. if you feel the need to do so, please take the discussions outside, as they become this -- extremely disruptive to the process. also, the commission will not tolerate disruption, speaking

out of order, clapping, were cheering. that could also stop the hearing. having said all of that, welcome to the democratic process. [laughter] [roll call] thank you, commissioners. we have a full commission. commissioners, the first category on your calendar is items proposed for continuance. item one is 2740 mystery, proposed for continuance to march 3, 2011. further on your calendar, items 11, 1500 grand avenue -- this item is being proposed for continuance to may 12, 2011. commissioner olague: that is the

entire -- >> just that one item is being proposed for continuance to may 12, 2011. however, item 13, 1763 stockton street. please note, the project sponsor has withdrawn the item, said the item is no longer on the calendar for your consideration. with that, commissioners, i'm not aware of any other item on calendar being proposed for continuance. commissioner olague: is there any public comment on items proposed for continuance? just on items proposed for continuance.

>> [inaudible] commissioner olague: ok. >> [inaudible] >> i cannot hear you. >> i turned down the microphone. >> irish you not to continue item 11. good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to speak in favor of this tunnel project -- commissioner olague: i'm sorry, sir, this is just to speak on the continuance, not on the item itself. if you wish to speak in favor of or opposition to the continuance. >> i am in opposition to it. >> if i could just make another announcement -- all of you sitting or standing over here and over here -- we are going to ask that you go outside so we can control the flow into this room, but you will be right outside the room, and they will set up a cuing line -- set up a cue -- set up a queuing line.

but we ask that you moved outside.

>> [inaudible] >> sue hester on item one. it is proposed for continuance for two weeks is -- what is the amount of time necessary to prepare when you do not have a set of dimension plans? this is a proposed addition in the rear that goes right back to naples houses on the street. there is houses behind. if the restaurant plans on having dining in the rear, and last night, my clients met with the architect. they still do not have any plans. they have plans that my clients did not even understand was an addition. there is no dimensions or anything. the architect said he had to

file them first with the planning department and the planners here, but the practice of the department is not to do 312 plants as a conditional use, which is funky. building additions right next to people's houses should have plans. instead, when they go through the files, it is really hard for the people to understand it. i support a continuance. i think the question is what is the appropriate date, as well as the appropriate procedure, for writing when you have new construction or additions. an ncc2 or whatever it is, right next to people's houses. there should be plans, and they should not wait until one week before the hearing and the staff report to find them. thank you. commissioner olague: any

additional public comment on items proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: we just need a clarification. the continuance is being asked on 1500 grant -- does that also includes 1653 grant, or is that being heard today? >> that is being hurt it. commissioner antonini: we have 1500 grand being continued and 1763 stockton be withdrawn? that's correct. commissioner antonini: ok, that clears it up for me. commissioner moore: i ask that we continue our discussions regarding this particular item or hear all of them, and then, i would like to hear an explanation why the stockton street was withdrawn, but i do not see any reason of fragmenting the discussion because we have spent so much time individually and together

on getting numerous letters and considerations from letters, which going through them, when you read them all, add up to some discussion, i believe it is in our interest from a timing point of view not to have the same group of people come twice, but to hear it all at once. so either motion to continue all discussions on the subject matter or hear all of them today. commissioner antonini: i know this has been a subject that has been continued a number of times, and there have been some negotiations and things going on, as we are aware of. i would rather hear at least part of this today, and maybe that might be all we end up hearing, perhaps because it may make it a lot easier. since they are discretionary reviews, is always possible that the discretionary review would be withdrawn for the other item. so i would be in favor of going with the calendar that we have

proposed, which is to hear one of the three. >> the request for continued and the hearing came from the supervisors' offices and in discussion with the project sponsor on this. the request came from the supervisor's office. commissioner moore: to do what? >> to continue the one and here the second. that was based on discussions with the project sponsor and the neighborhood. commissioner borden: i was just going to say that i have been in touch with the supervisor's office on this item about that. we have another item on the calendar on 12th street that is also related to antennas, and no one is talking about continuing that item, so considering we are

hearing another antenna item, it would make sense. the supervisor was part of this discussion, and he was the reason we continue the one before. commissioner sugaya: it makes no sense to me why we are hearing one and not the other. what is the explanation for that? do we know? i'm just going to say that it does not make any sense. i support commissioner moore. there is a whole issue of cumulative effects and what not. the neighborhood has already voiced that a number of times, so i respect the supervisor, but in this case, it will either be for me, as commissioner moore stated. commissioner antonini: commissioner antonini: what was the requested date for continuance for 5000 grand? >> may 12. commissioner antonini: i would like to make a motion to continue the following items.

item one to the date requested. item 11 to may 12, and i believe that is it. >> second. commissioner sugaya: i would like to amend the motion to add item 12. commissioner antonini: know. no. i want -- no, i want to hear item 12 today for reasons i already stated, and that is that since they are discretionary reviews, it is quite possible, but depending on what is decided today, the other one could be withdrawn, and we may never hear the other discretionary review. commissioner borden: the hard thing here is that i feel like we should -- the preference should be to go forward. in other what -- we continue it. i personally express my frustration that one reason we continue it is we were hoping the supervisors and community

and private sponsor would come to a resolution, and unfortunately, that was not able to be done. for whatever reason. so this is kind of the -- for a compromise strategy that has been devised at this point. i know it is not perfect. nor is it great. i think the supervisor is hoping that there is some sort of dialogue or things that can be done in the interim. i do not know if that is true. we still might be hearing this on may 12, but i'm hoping something might be different going forward, but the situation pushed us to the point that actions needed to start happening. commissioner moore: i appreciate commissioner borden explaining her conversation with the supervisor, but the amount of pressure being put on us in this particular case, cumulatively from neighbors in north beach, more effective than ever one else, given the distribution of powers in their neighborhood, i believe we owe it to ourselves

to have a larger dialogue, and i understand the supervisor did not have the time to discuss this. these are federal laws, which we are continuing to interpret as best as we can. i read them, and i have a really hard time understanding when the laws apply or when they are amended. i feel i owe it to myself not to go just on one because the issue is a much larger discussion, and i would really prefer that the discussion is had prior to that answer into a larger neighborhood, such as a north beach dense neighborhood. commissioner antonini: i just wanted to mention that on the issue, of the continuance, there is, as most of our issues, a division of opinion among the neighbors in the area, so i think that it is an issue that would be good to hear today. >> commissioners, before you take your action, let me point out, there has also been an

amendment to the motion. i have not heard whether there is a second to that amendment or whether or not the maker of the motion is amenable to that. commissioner antonini: no, i did not accept it. >> the commissioners should vote on whether or not they want to accept the amendment to the motion. however, if for some reason that motion passed and the commission wants to continue item 12, we have to take public comment on the proposed continuance. that was not included in the public comment request earlier. so if the commission could, madam president, take a vote on whether or not to accept the amendment. commissioner olague: ok, let's take a vote on the amendment. >> for the amended to include item 12 and the proposed continuance, commissioner moore.

commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye commissioner fong:fong no. commissioner olague: no. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner borden: the question was to not accept the amendment? no. the motion -- >> the motion for the amendment fails. the main motion on the floor is still to continue items one and 11, as we have discussed. on the motion to continue item 1 as proposed to march 3 and item 11 to may 12, -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: no. commissioner sugaya: no.

commissioner miguel: no. commissioner olague: no. i mean, yes. aye. >> we're continuing item 1 to march 3 and item 11 to march -- to may 12. commissioner olague: i was sort of reconsidering whether or not that was the way to go. i was actually reconsidering my previous vote. that is why i decided to move that forward or attempted to anyway. >> ok, so those two items are continued, as we have discussed. thank you, commissioners. you are now on your consent calendar. that is within this calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of the item unless a member of the commission or

public or staff so request. in that even, the matter would be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this for a future hearing. item two, 3157-3161 fillmore street. it is a request for a conditional use authorization to expand the existing small self- service restaurant into an adjacent vacant retail space to convert the operation to a full- service restaurant within the union street neighborhood commercial district. following public comment, which would automatically remove this item from consent, this item is in your hands for consideration. commissioner olague: is there any public comment on this item? if there is any kind of public comment for or against the item -- okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner bordon. commissioner borden: move to

approve. >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion for approval, these conditions as a coat -- proposed by staff, -- commissioner moore, a sari. commissioner moore: [inaudible] >> thank you, commissioners. that item was approved unanimously. commissioners, you are now on commissioners' questions and matters. commissioner moore: i read an article which i would like to share with you in case you did not see it. it is titled san francisco's precarious spot among the best cities for transit. as we are pushing every -- hard every day or every thursday in supporting transit and public transportation, among the first top 10 cities, unfortunately, san francisco only ranks sixth, one spot before los angeles.