to find them if they have not complied with their requirements. the best this board could do is to uphold and plead with the entertainment commission to monitor this and suspended necessary? that is the best we could do which is not satisfying the neighbors but the neighbors will have the job of reasonably -- calling when there is a reasonable problem. >> could she say the commission will hold a public hearing on the six months from today to reevaluate these conditions? it is a public hearing at the entertainment commission. can they voluntarily conditions permit at this point? >> the permit is under the board of jurisdiction so it is up to

this body to act on it. they can volunteer to hold a hearing of that nature. i do not think you can be part of the board decision. >> we will give -- >> ms. kane, you asked a question. >> we would be willing to and if it comes in the form of an order or whatever it is that comes from this body to us, we agreed to hold a hearing six months from now, absolutely. i will say yes to that. i did not know what the allowances are for the board in terms of four conditions on the permit, is this an up or down kind of thing. to the extent we can accommodate, it seems like the feeling of the board is we would be happy to do that.

>> i tried to give suggestions to bodies when appropriate and it is appreciated. i do not know if ms. kane acan commit. i do not think she can. what this commission can do is table for two weeks and direct the entertainment commission, my parties, and the property owner to engage in settlement negotiations and see if we can settle this among ourselves and come up with appropriate conditions and report back to you and you can take a vote. >> we continue for two weeks and allow those discussions to take place. if ms. kane does not have the power to back to the board, it might require a vote of the board. if they could do that.

do have some comments? >> i do not know that -- i do not know what the settlement negotiations would mean. the entertainment commission cannot take action. it is suspended to us. she would have to do in the context of a public hearing. >> it would come back to this board and we would discuss with the staff of the entertainment commission with the applicant and our folks and we report back to president garcia and the board and you can take a boat. >> she can take it to her board and gets it codified or something that her board is willing to go along with with that kind of settlement agreements put in place. there would be more process behind this. everything is clear on what would take place? >> some of the terms or to ask the entertainment commission to hold a hearing, that could be something that she could take back to her commission.

anything affecting this person has to be decided by this body. >> it would be. you would act and we would discuss with the entertainment commission, with the property owner and we would take all steps necessary and it could do it that way. you would retain jurisdiction on the appeal and we would settle within two weeks. >> if we vote up or down to overturn this permit. it is in the interest of the permit holder for us to continue and have these discussions take place. it is with the cooperation of ms. kainane. i unless another commissioner

feels differently, it seems like a fairly elegant solution to the problem. you're shaking your head. >> i am sorry. what i am confused about is we have had to hearings already on this and this has been a third on the same. i do not believe there is any more information to come forward. i do not believe there's any more negotiation that could happen. i hope i am not speaking out of turn. we were talking about process earlier. and now we're talking about going back and doing another conversation with the same parties with the same information. the breaks that have been provided to you, there's everything there is to say on this. >> i do not think what is on here as conditions would solve the problem. are there other ways? we advanced the idea of a sunset

or some sort of action that happens to see of these work. we're skeptical and there may be people who vote no on the permit. we do not believe -- >> we do not know what we do not know. >> is there a mechanism -- quex the mechanism you have bront out which is a review in six months is perfectly understandable and more elegant to me that we now we now as opposed to not knowing what we do not know. if there is some way to embed this into your decision, put it in as a condition of the permit. whenever the methodology is, if you can find it to have a review. whether these conditions solve the problems. we come back and have another conversation. it makes sense to me. >> i am not skeptical. i am optimistic.

there are multiple conditions on this permit. hopefully the address the issue. there was a process they went into coming up with these conditions. maybe it is over the top to have to security guards. her nose? it may be perfect to address the concerns. this is an effort that a lot of people put a lot into. as the permit holders rep, give it a go. if we could embed the six months, is that not feasible? >> i am happy to research this question. these are not permits the you could not grant this as a six- month permit. it can grant or deny it. you could not make expire after six months. >> that is not what we're doing.

>> you're trying to remanded. -- remand it. the entertainment commission monitors the client -- complaints and would be responsible for suspending or revoking if there was a violation. >> what we're trying to achieve, what i am trying to achieve and i heard the same from other people. some mechanism takes place and we will hear from you again as we heard from everybody else. this is a chance. to continue it so we get some reassurance that your commission is willing to sunset. it is not willing, two weeks from now we will have a bunch of time you think you need. we take our up or down vote. >> can ask another question? >> i do not think i have communicated that. >> i'm not sure of understand

what you mean by sunset. >> after some stated amount of time, we have indicated six months, we have a different review of such that the permit would be revoked. you have revocation powers. >> we do. >> it would be revoked if the problems, if there is enough substantial evidence that the problems persist. >> i can tell you we would do that. we would do that sooner. we will know fairly quickly whether these conditions are working based on our ability to enforce with our enforcement officers. the neighbors letting us know that -- if these conditions are solving the problems are not. >> i misunderstood earlier. i thought that what you said is you could go back and see if the conditions you had placed upon it were in place.

>> they are there. >> it is not operating yet. >> we know the conditions are there. >> i understand that. when you have been asked about it, you did not say that -- if the conditions are not there we can find them and make sure the conditions are there but you did not go beyond that and say if the problem is not solved, we can revoke. those were the magic words for me. >> i apologize. we have suspension and revocation powers, absolutely. >> ok. before we pull the trigger. unless somebody had questions. >> the problem we have with this gentleman's proposal is what is going to happen in three weeks, we come back again in three weeks and again in three weeks. meanwhile he is losing money

every day even though he has done what he has been asked to do. on the other hand he is more than willing to submit to six- month examination. he can keep because so much of this money transfer is computerized. he can provide accurate records, how many customers he had between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. and how many people were there or whatever. i know it is getting late in the evening but my comment to this tillman is i do not think there is any way to settle it. he does not want it open. he wants to open. he was granted the permit. that is the bottom line. in three weeks will be back again. >> the board has heard what they had hoped to hear. i think we're ready to entertain a motion and to vote. i think this is probably not necessary. does someone want to make a motion?

knowing full well that the entertainment commission has powers of revocation, intends to monitor the situation closely, knowing the concerns of the neighborhood which seems to be legitimate, reasonable concerns and the concerns of very many people as attested to by the number of signatures we have received. given the fact that this gentleman has been out of operations for some portion of his operating hours for a while. i move that we uphold the entertainment commission approval of this permit. to operate under the conditions they have set forth we cannot demand or add to. >> can we recognize that ms. kane has volunteered to ask her commission to hold a hearing in six months and the permit holder

has agreed to show data of activity during those hours and keep track of the number of customers that are there? these were recognized -- these commitments were made publicly. we cannot commit the commission to hold a hearing but the staff has recommended they would do that. >> the board urges the commission to urge a whole -- hold a hearing on the status of this location and permit. >> and granting the permit the board needs to say why it has found the permit was not warranted under sections 1-4 and section 10 60.5. if you want, you can reference the reasons for the subsections in the entertainment commission is brief. >> thank you for completing that

for me. who is writing that down? >> tharoor after i watched the video. >> everybody heard and understood? >> deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the conditions -- on the basis stated and also to urge the entertainment commission to hold a hearing in six months on the status of this permit. the motion was made by the president. vice-president huang, aye. commissioner hurtado, aye. >> the motion is passed. we have no further business. we can adjourn. president garcia: all right. [gavel]

thursday, march 8, 2012. please note that the planning

commission is meeting at this time -- i should note that the scheduled joint hearing between the planning commission and recreation and park commission is cancelled. we have a proposal to continue the items on that special calendar and the proposal for continuance is to march 22 at 10:00 a.m. to be held in this room. the planning commission will consider that proposal for a continuance and prior to the action of the commission, they will entertain public comment period before the commission will be a proposal for a continuance of all items on the calendar which are item one, 48 washington, certification of the final eir. case no. -- the case number is the same for all of these -- is all for eight washington street

for adoption of findings under the california environmental quality act, part b is to consider shadow limits force to be urban park. then an action for the recreation and park commission only where they would have recommended to the planning commission the shuttle from the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on the park and a consideration by the planning commission to consider whether at the shadow cast would be adverse to the park and outcries allocation to the shuttle to the project. then a request for the general plan amendment to map the northeast waterfront area part of the plan.

2f would have been a consideration of emotion -- of a motion -- that the hybrid classification for the zoning map to reclassify two portions of the southwestern area of the development site to the 92 e height and bulk district and 136e to another portion. then the conditional use authorization. all of these items are being proposed for continues to march 22 at 10:00 a.m. to be held in this room. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners. >> [inaudible]

>> second. >> commissioners, on the motion for continuance of items one and two a through h, i am going to call on site. [will call] -- [roll call] we have a unanimous vote for continuance of all items on the calendar to march 22, 2012 at 10:00 to be held in these chambers. thank you. >> the meeting is adjourned.

before i take roll, let me remind everyone to turn off your cell phones or any other electronic device that may sound off during the proceedings. roll call, commissioner moore, commissioner sugaya, commissioner antonini, commissioner fong, commissioner wu, commissioner borden is expected. item one is case no. 270189d for 721 beach street proposed for continuance and you might want to consider changing this date but it's currently proposed for continuance to march 22, 2012. item 2 a and b, case no. 2011.0

304dv for 147 andover street proposed for a continuance to april 5, 2012. and that's it for your items proposed for continuance. >> do we have an alternate date for beach street? >> i would not put it on the 5 but i would put it on the 12. and commissioners, i hate to second guess myself, but because i have not talked about this with staff so they haven't notified the project sponsor, you might need to continue it to this date and on the 22nd, continue it to a further date out. and for the record, commissioner borden is here. ok, so those items are before you. i don't have any speaker cards to speak to the proposed continuances. president fong: any public comment? >> if you can speak directly? president fong: commissioner moore?

commissioner moore: move to continue items 1, 2 a and 2b to the dates proposed. >> second. >> i think there might be public comment. >> i didn't know i needed to make out a card. president fong: would you like to speak to one of the items on the continuance? >> and you're speaking only to the proposed continuance, not to the merits of the case? >> yes. >> my name is robert coolie. i own a couple of rental houses across the street from 147 andover. my only reason for appearing, i don't understand the delay with this case. this thing's been going on for a year and a half. i don't -- i'm not addressing the merits, i'm not taking any sides to the actual case but i would ask that the commission hear this case and make a decision one way or the other. i fully expect that the losing

party will go to the board of appeals, a further delay. in the meantime, the house looks terrible. the sidewalk is inaccessible for people in the neighborhood. they have to walk out in the street. two parking spaces are lost and the whole block doesn't look good at all. so i just would ask that the commission hear this case and decide one way or the other. thank you. president fong: thank you. any other public comment? so there was a motion and a second? >> mr. president and commissioners, if i may respond to mr. coolie, the speaker, on the continuance of 147 andover. it was not the request of the project sponsor or staff. it was the request of the commission secretary because we had proposed joint hearing with rec. park and your calendar was

going to be so unmanageable that we, that i, took the prerogative to continue cases on your would do accommodate that joint hearing. in this case, it was not the project sponsor nor was it staff that proposed this continuance. president fong: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: secretary avery, it would appear there were no other dates? before the fifth was the earliest? secretary: no, yes. the motion on the floor is to continue items 1, 2a and b to the dates proposed on the calendar on that motion. [roll call vote was taken] secretary: thank you, commissioners, those items are continued as they have been proposed. commissioners, you are now on -- i have 30 seconds. you are on your consent calendar. the item 3 makes up the consent

calendar. this week it's considered to be routine and would be acted upon by a single roll call vote of this commissioner. there would be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, public or staff would so request and in that event, the matter would be removed from the consent and considered at a future hearing. we're talking about tase 2011.1283c for 4028 24th street, a case to allow a small self-service restaurant within the 24th street noe valley neighborhood commercial district and a 40-x height and bulk district. following any public comment which would remove this item from the consent calendar, this item is before you for your consideration. president fong: is there any public comment on item no. 3?

seeing none, commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. secretary: commissioners, on the motion for approval of 4028 24th street, commissioner antonini, commissioner borden? commissioner miguel, commissioner moore, commissioner wu, commissioner fong] roll call vote was taken] secretary: the item was approved as proposed. you are on your regular calendar beginning with item no. 4. consideration of adoption of draft minutes from the regular meeting of january 26, february 2, february 9 and february 16. i have no speaker cards but following any public comment on these items, any modifications and/or corrections you may have, these matters are before you for your consideration. president fong: is there any public comment?

seeing none, commission miguel? commissioner miguel: i move adoption of the draft minutes of january 26, february 2, 9 and 16th. >> second. secretary: thank you, commissioners. on the motion for approval of the draft minutes of january 26, february 2, 9 and 16 -- [roll call vote was taken] [motion was passed unanimously] secretary: draft minutes have been approved. you're on item no. 5, an informational presentation on the eastern neighborhoods transportation implementation planning study, en trip. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm john sway, staffed with the department's plan implementation group and i'm going to be joined shortly by timothy papdrao to provide a

short update on the eastern neighborhoods transportation implementation planning study work going on. the area plans adopted by the commission in 2008 identified further transportation planning work to support land use change and create complete neighborhoods. shortly after the plan adoption, a team of city agencies including the planning department, san francisco municipal transportation agency and san francisco county transportation authority obtained grant funding to conduct this further work. this project, no one as en trips, has been carried out by the city team, consultants and in collaboration with community stakeholders. the study's final report was released recently and is now available on the planning department's website and timothy pappendrao is on schedule to give the presentation and i spoke to him earlier so i know he's planning to attend and i apologize that he's not here at this time.

secretary: thank you. commissioners, we will come back to item no. 5. in the interim, we'll consider item no. 6, case no. -- >> is that right? secretary: i'm sorry? item no. 6, case no. 2012.0068d for 55 jordan avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm david lindsey, department staff. case 2012.0068d is a request for discretionary review of a project at 55 jordan avenue. the subject lot is 30 feet wide and 120 feet deep in a neighborhood of similarly sized lots. the buildings on the jordan avenue frontage of the block are almost all large, single family houses while the buildings