type of 41 and they've received all their letters of support. >> i'm a manager at the brenda's food. i reached out to the neighborhood we joined the first meeting. we received nothing but praises with that so we moved forward with the neighborhood. i received a letter from the motor coach thinking and we would like to move forward >> okay. questions commissioners? >> okay. why don't you have a seat i'm opening the floor to public comment. there a public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

motion? >> i have a motion to approve. >> any questions. >> all right. we'll take a vote (calling names) >> okay. >> grits and shrimp. >> i'm sorry i'm sorry please forgive me. >> good evening commissioners - good to see you. wards to brenda the 652 hazed received no protest to limit performance application.

i did receive a letter of report at the motor coach it's a very nice letter. that being said northern station no objection it this application >> good afternoon again, all item number b. oh, gosh doing business as 3 fourteen columbus expend hours. >> to or so this is a extended hours it's been operating for years and now their coming out in compliance. central station has proposed some conditions for this permit. i think your passing them

around. >> are those the conditions? >> yes. >> everybody have them? >> no. >> you can share. >> commissioners i'm project sponsor. just a little bit of background on 315 columbus i've sure you've heard many issues the corridor is a hot topic. very recently law enforcement from central xhansz the area and made inquiries on a lot of the stabts. unfortunately, when alex prufrd the building was unaware that

extended hours are a new application. to this was brought to his attention he said look i need to meet city compliance. to you went to the voice of broadway wisp able to have a meeting along with the officer and captain tom and representatives 710 tell and i did go over the desire to operate the business in applicant fashion. we're prior it was, you know, it wasn't up to code so to speak. alex has owned the establishment and he's present when he's open that. he will have professional security.

it's a small place so it's under 49 with security personnel there. he's already installed surveillance video because in the past it's been sketchy at times. and he will continue to share with the police department. he's here if you have any questions he's open from questions from the commissioner >> are there cameras inside and outside your establishments. >> yes. >> other questions commissioners new central station here? come on up.

>> steve from central station. central station relsz approval to prove the public life it should maintain their existing security guard on friday and saturday nights. they'll continue to maintain the security cameras and made available to the sf pd upon request and they make sure there's no loitering within 1 hundred feet of the restaurants >> okay. any questions commissioners? my questions nsz seeing none, public comments is closed. commissioners >> i would like to approve that

with condition in tact. number 2 i think that at least thirty dayss will be made to the sf pd upon request. i'm not sure upon request should be their ways to get that if the owner doesn't want to comply so i'm weary of putting on request on there >> we have a motion to approve with all police departments approval second? >> this is a similar issue that came up n in the last entertainment commission meeting with the commissioner stated

that all existing footage of cameras be available. it's not just an interior cameras so whether it's right or wrong this is an ongoing question but commissioner hyde's changes doesn't necessary address the inside and outside camera assess and i'm not clear that makes it more of an option for the venue. if you remove the work this video footage shall be made available to the sf p.d. period >> would it be helpful to you

the applicant has the cameras inside. he's done that so whatever his reason is would it be helpful to you in this motion if you posted a sign outside that stated his premises had cameras and they're under surveillance so the public would have an option to go in or not go in? >> so my attachment to how this is - i don't know that informs the public who what could occur as far as there's a search-and-seizure and because the camera variance doesn't all

the time this particular issue. i think we need to be consistent. if we're telling venues and the community as a whole that cameras that the video recordings sidewalks and outside sort of public spaces are open to less privacy but once is cross a doorway and your entering into a private establishments there's different rules we need to be consistent. so if we're going to do that condition two should read the camera outside looking at the door should be made available to the police department upon request >> one of the things i was trying to address was the idea

that the police can ask the venue for the video footage and upon request it expends the arm of the police say just go in there and be as a part of their condition they have to give up this video footage and i'm not really comfortable with. it wasn't until i heard it yesterday that was what it is. month venue owners do comply with requests from the police, however, then the police can go and get a warrant and use the warrant to go and get the footage. but having it upon request a that's what i was trying to address. i don't think the police should have the power to go in their

and because it's on their permit as a condition that the police can just get that upon request that's not proper due process. that's something that i didn't understand fully until yesterday. >> so then we're speaking to a whole history of conditions that have been placed on venues so it's not just certain about the surveillance and the lack of a warrant but also surveillance on the sidewalk. so why we we have conditions of them controlling the outside of the venue if we're not going to dictate and directly inform how

that surveyances should be used for the community? >> i love this conversation. >> the video cameras usually be better for business he owners for employees not behaving or it's actually for the business owners protection. the outside cameras i'm not, you know, i'm not sure what kind of privacy and should the commission be asking business to do that additional what about the expense being put on the businesses? >> i think that consistency is

subjective. in this case of this he had the cameras installed he does it for his own arraigns. so they're asking him already with the installed cameras. if the venue doesn't have to have cameras or if the venue is a bad characteristic then putting cameras in maybe a problem. like temple had an issue inside their club where somebody get punched in the head and they decided to put 367 cameras in and those are decisions business owners can make on their own. i understand your need for consistency i think that every

venue is different and therefore, the venues have been to individual. this venue has the cameras and the police a ask that he maintain the footage for public safety and make it available >> you're right. i guess the issue is such a person's insides the private space vs. the space even though it's privately owned camera it's public space the sidewalk. so i'm less inclined to believe that that should be whether there should be a warrant for that footage is something we can debate. maybe there should be some kind of legislation because we're

asking owners to give up their private video >> they could get a warrant so, you know, i mean, the cameras protect your business and insurance companies are asking us to stall cameras. so, you know, unless you change the language in this case of an investigation >> we're talking about inside and outside. we're getting feedback it's not just the privacy of the cameras nike already has the cameras this is about surveillance and privacy >> he is responsible for a one hundred feet in front of his

door. >> so it's the question of the video surveillance of the outside permanent should be made available upon request until we get legislation from some other entities we should be safe to say that as far as the inside camera we should not put p a condition on that arrest. >> so they shall maintain the camera and monitor it for the restaurants and it shall be available for thirty days. >> so the video footage of the outside keeps should shall be maintained for thirty days and

be available for sf. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag that side upon request. >> i'm feeling uncomfortable about the fact that from what i think so those venues usually comply but i do believe that saying making it available been request the reason i'm bringing that up it over steps die process. i think there's still an argument about inside and outside and what people can expect this is a conversation on and on but i can talk about upon request that's overstepping due process >> command can you tell me how long it takes to get a warrant?

sorry i'm sorry. you're the highest ranking officer i should address you and >> one thing with the cameras upon request there if there's a crime and investigation we will not walk in and say give me the footage there has to be some kind of investigation. but the warrant it only takes going to a judge >> so if the crime happens at night you go the next morning. >> and if there's on call judge we get it that night. >> thank you very much. >> so this is a bigger issue because commissioner hiding is

bringing he's uncomfortable ability with all the permits we have with the conditions made available upon request but we don't have a solution or some kind of standardtion how about we should deal with that. there's a compromise about night life safety but the footage would be rapidly available and how much of a delay with would it be in thanks happening on the sidewalk >> this is on behalf of our pay grade and this is either a city attorney issues or legislative

issue we can't legislative by conditions. >> we should curtail our discussion here but it's an important issue and this is the right venue for having this conversation but i think that one of the commissioners should bring this up and we'll try to have a city attorney available and if you have certain questions you'll have written information to you to inform that discussion a less expensive way then having an attorney here. or whatever but i want to

request that you bring this conversation up so, please - >> can we restate is it just removing the words upon request doesn't change the way it says made available. >> put a period after thirty days. camera that monitors the restaurants thirty days >> who seconds it? so with you have a motion and a question. >> all right. approve this application upon request. >> i didn't do public comment?

652 pulp? >> i'm mark i'd like to committal on fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution section one of the california constitution has one of the strongly privacy clauses of any state in the union. it basically guarantees the right to privacy. your spot on there's no expectation of privacy. i tell all that my clients to get video their stupid if they don't they'll lose their insurance. it's now considered best practices to have a security system. but this rampage toward the whole society is not good.

the police can get a search warrant quick enough but let's make a distinction here >> thank you any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed >> i move to make this permit paragraphed with the conditions by the police and number 2 will be changed to have a period after thirty days and omitting upon request and number 3 the north beach shall not loiter within 1 hundred feet of the restaurants. >> so we're going to approve

that with the conditions that commissioner hiding just state stated (calling names) >> okay 6 c omar a doing business as. >> this has been continued to a later date. >> do we inside a motion on the continuance? we move to continue can we do it without objection? >> same house, same call? >> matthew doing business as a doughnut place. >> this is continued too it was

my faulty sent their application to the same place. >> they'll be going to june 18th. same house, same call. c doing business as as >> this permit as you may remember was continued due to a planning department decision. we respects received a permit and they're allowed to be in business. they've been at the location for over 80 years but the board of supervisors has been renting it out for concert and the wedding

etc. leading up to the last hearing the commission received several letters of support and also from opposition. all the letters are in the binder. and for the first hearing - for this hearing i contacted neighbors and let them know about the hearing and there's quite a bit of certain about the events that are held at the hall. as well as outreach to the neighborhood. they've reached out to the neighbors and they are put in conditions on the permit >> okay hall folks come on up. >> sorry about that.

>> thank you. we have compiled with the recommendation of the process the electrical, the building the fire department, the noise abandonment, san francisco police department we've compiled with the rental agreement. after the weekend in february we put on.com we're having an open policy if anybody wants to come and complain. there were 3 people who came and complained and then he went ahead and addressed those are issues. in february we had our pock a

party and they came and stated until 1 no longer. we have invited folks to the meeting of tuesday's and nobody ever shows up. i'm personally a member of the charity board as an auditor. we're also very well established with the merchants association. i have a business two blocks away i can be reached any time of the day if anyone wants to meet with me i'll readily variable >> that's about it. >> questions commissioners? >> commissioner perez.

>> on your application i say you're going to be renting and people bring their own system? >> how do you manage one group doesn't go too high or how do you do that. >> we went ahead and did a sound 12th and we looking at that. >> but who's responsible for monitoring the sound? >> it doesn't go up. >> so you are renting and people can have the different sound levels? >> the building is concrete 2 1/2 feet