a good contractor, it just feels like the city is trying to make us start over from scratch and sit around and wait just for the sake of it. our business will not be able to sustain this. as mentioned, not only have we spent our entire life savings on this, dennis left his job, and i quit one full-time job and work only part-time at a wine bar to help this. this isn't about avoiding public notice. the steps we have taken point to the fact that we are law abiding citizens. everything that the plans department has advised us to do, we have done. were we to have known that we needed to have give public notice, we would have done so when we gave our notice and would be done so or close to. we aren't a large organization with plenty of ventures to

fallback on. we are taking a massive chance to open a business in the neighborhood that we love. we are two small business owners trying to give back to the property who followed all the steps set forth by the city of san francisco and we need your understanding that there is a gray area in the legislation. this isn't a simple mistake, this is a misinterpretation of a law that was mental to help people just like this, instead, this is costing us time and money that we are running out of. the city has had a long and complicated relationship with small businesses. we've all heard the story before, and we know what usually happens to the little guys, except this time, you have a chance to change the ending. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. we will hear from the planning department. >> commissioner honda: you're going to have a fun night tonight, scott. >> these are the worst nights, actually. i love coming to the board of appeals.

>> commissioner honda: but you love coming to the board of appeals. >> these are the hardest cases of all. the property itself is an l.c.u., limited commercial use. what these are is over time, generally, the zoning of the city has been downgraded. so when we had our first zoning ordinances in 1921, uses were much more permissible. 1931, we had a down zoning. my assumption is that's what's happened in this case. under the code at that time, they were actually supposed to terminate, depending on the type of the construction of the building over a certain amount of time, but as we got to the 70's, and another major city rezoning in 1978, there was at long last the recognition that commercial uses in residential districts are actually a good thing and that they serve the residents of those districts, so the l.c.u. permissions were put in place indefinitely for

these to continue as long as they meant certain requirements, certain hours of operation, they can't expand the places, and 186 generally referring to the zoning district or other generally restrictive zoning districts within a quarter mile. the permits that have been suspended here are two. the first is the actual change of use which establishes a restaurant, and this is a restaurant operating with a type 41 a.b.c. license. what that allows is for beer and wine and so pretty standard operation. not a full bar. >> commissioner honda: it's not a 47 or a 48. >> no 47. 41. it does have to be bona fide eating place. that means that more than 50% of the sales have to be from food, not alcohol. so it's primarily for food sales, with some alcohol sails. the second was more structural in nature, dealing with some

structure of header. that permit was appealed to the board of appeals and i think that's going to be heard on december 4. suspension requests are not something new. they've been brought to you on appeal before. i think what stands out for me in this case is usually, when we have a suspension request, it's someone's gone beyond the scope of a permit, why is the misrepresentation on the plans? from what i can tell and all our staff can tell, in this case, the appellant tried to do everything right here. this is the case -- the best case snare jcenario of someoneg in and speaking with multiple levels of city government, with experienced staff and getting information that kind of later found to be incorrect. and what is at issue here is the interpretation of planning code section 311.

311 notice, as you know, notice to owners and occupants within generally 150 feet of the property has basically the same notification standard that the board has for these hearings itself. so what you've sent out to notice for this hearing is essentially what a 311 notice -- the same radius, the same parties would get notice. what is different is that the 311 notice does provide you with the ability to take it as a discretionary notice to the planning committee and give you any chance to raise concerns. but what is before you tonight is just the suspension request and not any of the actual permits themselves. so how did we get here? and it is true that very senior and well respected and certainly by me member of our staff reviewed section 311, reviewed the recent changes, and you know, i've said it before, but reiterate again,

the planning code is a massive and complicated document. we get 50 or more code changes a year. sometimes it's one page, sometimes it's 200 or 300 pages, and we have a very intelligent and dedicated staff that reviews them, interprets it and provides it. i think looking at the language here, they said some of the recent changes were meant to improve or reduce notification requirements, and there's a geographic boundary that was established. this project does fall within the geographic boundary, but in the code, it only says that it applies to neighborhood commercial districts within that geographic boundary. i think there was always some level of confusion because these l.c.u.s, while we do have them citywide, the process around them is quite nuanced. we don't get a lot of changes

of use necessarily. it's not a high-volume thing, and there's always some question of what level applied to l.c.u.s because it does apply to the neighborhood commercial districts for the use controls but not the noticing controls because this is still within the r.h. district. i appreciate that we have different opinions from staff who initially reviewed it and made the determination that no notice was required, but also very much see where the zoning administrator is coming from and reading and interpreting the code. and as you know, under the planning code, the zoning administrator is ultimately the person responsible for enforcing the planning code, the final word from the planning department, then it comes here. i know the zoning administrator did not take this situation lightly. i've had conversations with the appellant, and the zoning

administrator has, as well. the appellant has been nothing but respectful, and this sucks. no one should find themselves in the situation they find themselves in tonight, but unfortunately that's where we are in interpreting and applying the planning code. i know we have some differing opinions on what the intent of the planning code was. the zoning administrator reviewed the code and couldn't find any references to extending to l.c.u.s, so this matter is now before you. you're going to hear the public comment that has come tonight from the noticing that was done for this hearing, as well as from the -- probably people who are involved in the legislation. i would -- my last thought is either way, this is correctible. if the zoning administrator erred in this -- >> commissioner honda: or abused. >> or abused.

and also, if the board were to orturn the zoning administrator, the board would have the ability to do that, as well. >> president swig: i'd like to stop you, but i'd like to ask a question, and if you would please clarify your last point 'cause we're kind of rushed. >> my last point, whatever happens from here, if the board upholds the zoning administrator's decision or overturns it, if either one of those is incorrect, the board of supervisors can legislatively fix this, can either say very clearly that does it apply to l.c.u.s or that it doesn't apply, depending on how the board may find tonight. >> commissioner santacana: but that doesn't necessarily -- they may be able to fix it, but that doesn't help the

appellants. >> it doesn't, but i wanted to point that out for of board tonight when you consider that. >> commissioner santacana: okay. i have a few -- can i go? >> but i guess if he decide to overturn the suspension request, that's a different issue. >> commissioner honda: batter up. >> commissioner santacana: okay. i have a few questions. you said notice of the hearing went out to the same radius as 311 notice. >> yes. it's my understanding from the board rules, that the noticing is the same from the 311 notice. >> commissioner santacana: but it would open up the discretionary review process, which one way or another, we could expect to come back here where it would be de novo on the underlying permit. and that underlying permit has been appealed and we'll be hearing that on december 4. >> so the permit that's been

appealed is the zoning permit. they could actually cancel that permit. it's more of an elective scope of work. the original change of use was approved over the summer, and that appeal period has passed, but that was included in the suspension. >>. >> commissioner santacana: the merits of the change of use can be reviewed de novo by this board. i think we received 150 pieces of public comment in both directions, so we can consider all of those now rather than in 18 months when this comes back after discretionary review. >> you will consider all the public comment. i know you will do a thorough review and public comment. we think there is a distinction

difference between a process that goes to the planning commission and having a hearing here. while the recipients may be the same, it's a different scope of work. so there are some differences. >> commissioner santacana: i understand, but i think process is the topic of the night, so it's a little difficult, i think, to be -- i don't think that planning should be giving lessons on process right now. so what are the policies at planning right now based on permits based on planning's interpretation of the planning code? are there any policies and procedures in place? >> no, that the zoning administrator enforces and interprets the planning code, and when a permit was improperly issued based on the

enforcement and interpretation of the planning code, they have a right to suspend the permit. >> commissioner santacana: so there are permits that are years old that the zoning administrator can say actually, the planning code is different now than when you received your permit, is that right? >> it would be the position of the plzoning administrator tha the permit was improperly issued. >> commissioner santacana: i didn't see anything in the letter in here that asserts that the 311 as amended doesn't apply to units such as this. it doesn't mention the zoning

administrator's interpretation of the code. >> that was my fault because i waived our brief so the appellant can have an expedited hearing. i think that the suspension letter does state the reasons why, and i know the public comment submitted, i believe yesterday or the day before, also provides information related to that. under section 311 is, it says notice is required for change of use. under section 311-b-1-a, and it says further that this section shall apply to neighborhood districts in the following geographic areas. so it applies to neighborhood districts, not l.c.u.s in residential districts. >> commissioner santacana: well, it doesn't say not l.c.u.s, that's your commentary. >> just that it says it applies only in neighborhood commercial

districts. it doesn't extend the exception to l.c.u.s. >> commissioner santacana: it doesn't not extend it, either. when the code talks about l.c.u.s, it talks about them almost like an appendage of l.c.s. when we talk about neighborhood districts, we talk about l.c.u.s, and sometimes it's not clear which is which. does anyone have the e-mail from supervisor safai when he rendered his interpretation of the law? >> i don't have that with me, no. >> commissioner honda: no disrespect to our former building inspector, corey teague, but i'm pretty sure i'm the only commissioner on this

board that was a small business owner for a very long time, and in the outer sunset for a very long time. what's confusing to me, and what's the core issue, it's the operating language and the conflicting inconsistency of how this was written. because if you look, and you read through the n.c. 1, which is something 186, then, you get into ahsha's and katy's language. it's very confusing. and as a small business owner, for me, for a very long time and real estate and small developer, i found it difficult to sort through myself. and so -- and i appreciate that you didn't throw edgar under the bus, but i believe that edgar was the planner at the desk that was giving the education. having worked with him many times, he's very experienced.

you're encyclopedia scott, and he's google edgar. you gu between you and edgar and corey, you are the brains of the business. the question is, do you feel that there's some inconsistency or confusion between 186-c-1 and the legislation that katy and ahsha submitted? >> the code could be clearer on this point. that's how we got to this in the first place. >> commissioner honda: not to grill you, mr. sanchez. when i went through it, i had a hard time deciphering which was which, and even a staff member

like edgar had this problem, as well. >> the problem with l.c.u.s is they're pretty much an afterthought. it does come up here and there, but how does that language need to be in order to extend it to l.c.u.s? it could have had another line there, shall apply to neighborhood commercial districts and l.c.u.s in the following geographic areas. >> commissioner honda: and i'm almost done. last question. you know, it's an understanding that when the building department or the planning department errs in issuing a permit, that they take no responsibility for that. and being on this board for 7.5 years, we've seen that many times. but in this particular case, it seems that even -- i mean, it wasn't a clearer ror. it seems like to me that there's -- that the language is very muddy, at best, in regards

to the n.c.d. and being on 4 2e a2e -- 42nd and 43rd. sorry to put you on the spot. >> there's a reason that i quit my job. mr. teague doesn't like being in this position. it's extremely unfair especially when somebody has done everything right. this is their life on the line, but that's why we wanted to bring this to the board as quickly as possible. we've waived our brief, and the board can make a decision regarding this notice tonight. thank you. >> president swig: mr. sanchez, please, sir, just -- >> commissioner honda: hola. >> president swig: you know i always look to you for your guidance and your help. so two guys in the planning department are sitting next to

each other, two separate desks, and they're looking at this, and one person makes the evaluation, because of the ambiguity, this is fine, of course. this type of business is included. and then, the other person looks at the ambiguity and goes of course, no, it's not included. and my biggest issue on this is the clarity of the law. you know that i've sat up here many, many times and says the law sucks, but we've got to go by the law even though somebody is clearly getting hurt by this. am i -- am i misreading this in saying that the zoning administrator took a very clear point of view in his

interpretation whereas that metaphorical person sitting at the desk next to him could have taken an equally strong interpretation of the law and therefore what we have is the same law but subject to interpretation due to its ambiguity? and based on that ambiguity, someone might kind of get hurt, somebody who really followed both of the law? or am i wrong here? >> no, there is ambiguity to the law, and i can see where the zoning administrator and staff came to different conclusions. i do think that the zoning administrator has reviewed this very thoroughly, looked at the legislative intent. and you know, i support the interpretation that they made. >> president swig: you have to because that's your job. no disrespect intended, but you have to.

well, but, can you -- i had a question before my senior memory makes it go away. >> commissioner honda: it went away. >> president swig: no. here is my concern about this type of action which is in front of us, and this is totally consistent. you heard me say it a gazillion times or how many times i've said it, more than dozens, is that we have to uphold the law here. and because two weeks from now, somebody's going to come in and say well, you -- you bent this or you chose not to recognize the law, and because the -- the person had a nice smile on their face and seemed like okay, you assumed your wide powers and you grant it, and you went around the law. and i always say no, we've got to find the law because we don't want to be in that trick bag where somebody's going to come back two weeks from now

and say how come you're not treating me the same way you're treating that person? here, i would like to maintain the same rigid nature of my position and not have somebody come back two weeks from now. but my question is, do we really have a -- a law, a solid legal base because of the poor -- quite frankly, all respect considered for the supervisors who got it passed, who wrote the documents, but isn't this ambiguity setting us up for failure, and is this lack of clarity undermining this law? because you could look at it -- corey can look at it one way, and the metaphorical guy in the desk next to him could look at it another way. this is a problem. >> yeah, and it's a problem that you have when you have a complex planning code amended more than 50 times a year.

we have zoning districts, special use districts. we used to have controls regulating the toaster press. you could have a panini press in west portal, but not anywhere else. it's a challenge for staff. we have an incredible staff that deals with this insane planning code to the best that they can, and that's where we are. and in terms of, you know, how this would be in the future and the precedent-setting nature of it, aren't board decisions precedent setting? i don't know how we would prevent other arbusinesses in this geographic area -- >> commissioner honda: well, maybe after this, the board of supervisors will amend their

legislation. >> we have a lot of changes that come from that. >> president swig: basically. wh -- basically, what we are doing is we are the person at the other desk. mr. teague has made his decision, and we're the person at the other desk, and we either have to go along with mr. teague's interpretation, since we have 1.25 votes -- our vote is stronger than his vote. >> commissioner honda: err and abuse. >> the zoning administrator is making a decision, and you have to have all four of you. >> commissioner santacana: and i have to disagree with you because i'm not sure that's necessarily the only options on the table. i don't know that we have to be making policy planning department-wide right now. the decision we have to be making is whether the zoning

administrator abused his discretion in issuing these zoning permits. so one thing i'd like to understand better is how it works in planning in terms of policies or procedures to ensure that decisions that planning makes about how the code works are well considered. because for me, what's problematic is that it feels to me, it looks to me like planning acted arbitrarily, and to me, that's the abuse of a discretion. whether mr. teague is correct or incorrect about what the law means, i don't know that he should be changing his mind. and so i want to understand what, from the staff perspective -- from the staff step in the process. >> so there was -- no one changed their mind, just to be clear, too. so staff reviewed this at the time over the summer, did not consult with the zoning administrator. >> commissioner santacana: are they required to? >> if that were to happen, you

think the process is slow now? nothing would ever get done. we can't have every question brought to the zoning administrator. we have 250-plus staff in the department, and each one of them is effectively a mini zoning administrator that is interpreting and applying the planning code on a daily basis to thousands of permits a year, and every question cannot be brought to the zoning administrator. >> commissioner santacana: so does this come up -- do staff conflict with each other, and then, the zoning administrator has to suspend one over the other? >> it may not get to the zoning administrator, but there are differences of opinion among staff members. >> commissioner santacana: and how does it get resolved? >> well, they'll go to their staff supervisor and then, it will go up to the zoning

administrator, but usually, there's a collaborative process. they'll talk to other staff members and talk this out.

>> clerk: public comment. >> president swig: exactly. so i asked for her to go first. but still, the question, how many here are for public comment, raise your hands, please. >> clerk: okay. >> president swig: seeing the amount of people here, i'd like to limit it to two minutes, please. >> clerk: okay. public comment is limited to two minutes, and if you could lineup against the wall, and when -- before or after you're done speaking, please hand a speaker card to miss katie sullivan up front here so we can keep accurate track of the minutes, okay? >> president swig: and the supervisors' representatives -- >> commissioner honda: can you come to the penodium and get ts party started? thank you. >> commissioners, sue sullivan

on behalf of district seven supervisor ahsha safai. he had to be someplace else. >> clerk: if you could stop the time here. >> commissioner honda: one second, please. >> clerk: thank you. >> he just wanted me to read a quick statement, and again, he apologizes that he could not be here. so this is district 4, not in our district. we are district 11. it was drafted with former district 4 supervisor katy

tang. they were under the assumption that l.c.u.s weren capsulated by that. the answer is yes, the intent of the legislation was to remove all restriction on the areas in their respective districts and incentivize small businesses such as this one to move in. thank you. >> commissioner honda: miss sandoval, so given the situation, do you think that your boss, supervisor safai, is going to sponsor an amendment to change this to incorporate these into it? >> we have not got in that far. like i said, this was brought to our attention not long ago because this was not in our district, so we want to be mindful of the controls that are in place. because even if we did something, it would be for our district only, so we can't speak as to what will happen -- >> commissioner honda: have to

call gordon up. >> yeah. but supervisor mar is aware. supervisor safai has been in conversation with him, so there is that dialogue happening, but i can most definitely relay that message to the supervisor, and thank you. >> commissioner honda: good evening and welcome. >> good evening. my name is deanna keyzon. i currently live approximately seven blocks from the property in question, and i am in full support of the opening of palm city wines at 4055 irving street. the previous establishment was a liquor store that is a vacant, blight, and eye sore on a commercial corridor that has become vibrant over the last decade, it would be absolutely wonderful to have a husband and wife team with a focus on the sunset to have a gathering in

the neighborhood. i'm a former legislative aide to supervisor katy tang. she partnered with supervisor safai to pass the small business attraction legislation to make it easier for businesses to open up shop in our neighborhoods. the legislation should apply to situations like this where the property is former a liquor store being constructed to a restaurant. i understand that neighbors are upset that they did not receive notification. even if it was in place, i have never seen representing the city and district that i live in, operations opening in the city except for cannabis. what i have seen is how difficult it is for residents to open business in san francisco and yet we wonder why we have an issue with

increasing storefront vacancies. businesses change the neighborhood and make it a vibrant community for families to walk-through. i understand the difficulties that you have today, but i know working for supervisor tang that her intent was to help businesses open up like this and thrive. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: and it's i love pizza. that's what it is. next speaker, please. it is i love pizza. that's the name of the company. >> my name is james park, and i live very close to the property that's under discussion. there's a number of issues that trouble me and i want to make sure that are paid attention to. number one, i believe we need to have the right and maintain the right for the 311 process that allows us to have commentary about whether we

enjoy about our neighborhood being changed fundamentally from a sleepy, a come home, i have a decent time at my own home that i've invested my life savings in and have the enjoyment of that property without having it turn out to be like the outer lands, which is seems like the dining spot for all of marin county, valet parking for oakland and the east bay. this is our neighborhood. we sleep here, and to change it from a nice grocery store that would service us, and we could walk back, and our kid, and turn it into the same kind of foot traffic that these megarestaurants have just around the corner, i can't find parking now. i won't find parking places because of the 100-plus unit building places that are going

to be done on 43rd avenue for the affordable housing, which i agree with, but with no parking provision. so now, i have to find a place that will be having cycling cars through, find parking places at 10:00 at night, way after i come home, and i believe that's an obstruction for me not to be able to have a comment. i'm very much in sympathy for the people that own that property, but i'm much more in sympathy of my ability to give comment on this issue. >> commissioner honda: thank you. and how close are you from this property? >> i'm on 44th, judah and irving at 44th. >> commissioner honda: okay. so two blocks. >> when i walk my dog, i'd like to not be hit by a guy coming out drunk. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. next speaker, please. good evening and welcome. >> good evening. thank you for your time, and thank you for the attention to this matter. my name is ben herrod, and i was actually born in san

francisco, and i live a couple of blocks away from the project in question at 46th and judah. i'm in full support of ben and monica. i think the intent of katy tang's legislation was to attract businesses to this neighborhood. we've talked about interpretations of this law, but i think the most important thing is the intent of this law. what she was trying to do was bring people into this area. this liquor store, it was not a grocery store. this was barely anything on the walls there. there was literally nothing. you wouldn't shop there for any reason. and her intent was to change this space, to allow businesses to come in here, restaurants to come in here, to activate the space, to give us, the neighborhood, more dining options. if you look at any number -- hook fish co.

and more businesses, i see more neighbors walking down the street, sharing these meals. i'm in full support of dennis and monica. i think the full intent was to allow these businesses in here, not the interpretation of some planning department. i mean, the planning department guy, he said no one should be in the position that dennis and monica are in. you guys all have the power to change that right now, and you implore you to make that decision. thank you for your time. >> commissioner honda: thank you. how long have you lived in the outer sunset? >> i first moved to the outer sunset when i was 21. >> commissioner honda: and you're 22 now? >> add a few. >> commissioner honda: thank you. next speaker, please. hi. good evening and welcome. >> hi. i'm connie beg, and i live right next door. so my windows actually have their windows in the same area.

so i am very much in support of the 311 process because i just want to know what's going on. i am also in support of small business. i did frequent the corner store that was not just a liquor store. it did have other things. it was definitely going out of business at the time, but to change that space to a restaurant or a bar is going to really alter the space. so in my opinion, because i live right next door, and i'm going to be impacted by that severely, i -- i feel like i should have been notified. and you know, i love the outer sunset. i've lived there for 33 years. i've lived in that spot for 33 years. i am fully in support of small business, no problem. i frequent them all the time. i don't want a bar and restaurant next to my house. there was never one there before, there shouldn't be one now. i'm totally in support of putting something else there.

and you know, in terms of activating the space, i don't want the space activated. i want my quiet house, i want my place that i can do my work at home. i'm a teacher, and i'm an artist, and you know, it's important that i have quiet. so i feel really, really badly for the people that are -- oh, okay. >> commissioner honda: you have 30 seconds, ma'am. 30 seconds. >> oh, any way, this is a horrible situation, and i wish we would have been notified. that's my biggest thing. in terms of the interpretation, if we should have been notified or not, it's being changed drastically. it's not just the mom-and-pop store, it's a restaurant with alcohol being served, not just taken away, so in my opinion, it's a very different kind of space. >> clerk: thank you. will you please fill out a speaker card? thank you, ma'am. >> commissioner honda: next speaker, please.

good evening. >> hi. good evening. my name's chloe manner. i've lived in the same house with connie for six-plus years, and my windows are about 6 feet away from the wall from the building that has openings that are actually looking into my studio/bedroom. so i also work at home, and i moved into this area because it was very quiet. i used to live in a very kind of busy neighborhood, and i didn't like that at all, and i thought that it was pretty safe to consider that this house would be quiet for many other years. at no point in time i thought that this would change into a bar versus a liquor store or a corner store. and since the very beginning, i'm actually disappointed by the process because we've never been notified, and they claim that they want to create a

community space, but -- and include a community that they care about, but they do not care about warning the people who live around that their life might change because a bar is actually going to move in. so, you know, since the very beginning, it 's been very confusing as to what it's going to be. we've got different information, we've read different things about the business, and we still do not know what it's going to be moving into that store. so this is kind of hard to imagine how it's going to impact our lives? if, you know, it's going to be bearable? if we have to move? if the space that we call home and quiet and safe will be still the same way in a few months or years. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: next speaker. >> clerk: can the previous speaker give her the card? thank. >> commissioner honda: good evening and welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is angel davis. i own two wine bars in the city

with my best friend. my family's been in the city for 50 years. i'm here to show support for dennis and monica and their business, palm city wines. protecting and ensuring the survival of businesses like this should be a main priority for the city. they offer a sense of community, mentorship and are what makes the neighborhood special. it is the failure of the city's ability to guide businesses like this that's kind of destroyed the place that i grew up in because it's starting not to exist anymore. owning a small business in san francisco is really hard. it's one of the hardest challenges i've ever faced. so i feel, like, it takes, like, two weeks of paperwork.

but we still all have hope, and that's why we're still here. we, like you, have chosen a job to serve the public. it saddens me to hear stories and struggles like this because they're far too common. the joy we used to feel from our work is not stripped away from us, not by our customers or community but by those making decisions -- legislative decisions. this is not a normal city to run a business. it's expensive to do anything here, and any minute of closing makes it that much harder to stay open. i'm just going to cut because of time. i'm just going to ask you to support small businesses and support palm city wines. i love san francisco, but it's starting to feel like an abusive relationship, and it's getting harder and harder to standup and dpefend it. we are here. we're the heart of the city. we've been here, and we will

always be here. >> commissioner honda: and i assume you do not live in the outer sunset? >> i do not. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. next speaker, please. and good evening and welcome. >> thank you very much. all right. my name is deaon garcia, and m family and i live in the outer sunset and have since 2003. i've been an active member of our community through a business i owned as well as volunteering at community events. what brought me out today is the familiarity of the situation that the owners of palm city wines are confronted with. in 2015, my brother and i acquired a cafe in the neighborhood. by september, we did what we felt was due diligence required by the planning department and obtained a building permit. we started our buildout, and in january 2016, we found out our permit had been suspended by

the request of the planning department. it took us from january 2016 to december 2016 to get in plan of the planning -- in front of the planning commission where our permit was approved. we estimated this to cost us a lot of $70,000. we opened and maintained the business until march of 2019, when we shut our doors. i sincerely feel that we were never able to recover from the delay and costs of the delay. all of our plans for opening were completely blown out. we had several adjustments to our business plan due to timing and changes to the business and economic dynamics of the immediate area. our cash reserves were severely depleted. small business owners often don't have the resources to

sustain delays. we didn't and the result was utterly heartbreaking and depressing. i urge you to support people trying to create small businesses by the ocean. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> my name is zach clifton, and i decided to come here to support this business. we're here because a new small business has had its permit suspended because of the planning department's own confusion. it's unacceptable. we're a city that's going to chain stores. but it's ultimately the letters in the file that brought me here today, the ones opposing this project. i sympathize with the

immediately adjacent neighbors who want to know how this project will affect their homes. i live directly across from both a bar and a restaurant. however, there are letters in the public record for those that want to live their lives in quiet retirement as though restaurants and retirement are entirely incompatible. one letter objects to the presence of any business near a residence, despite a commercial district just feet away. i note we live in one of the densest cities in the country. there will be and already are many shops in the area. neighborhood restaurants by definition have neighbors. i encourage the board to support the project.

thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: next speaker, please. >> -- so that means three units, then, if an a.d.u. is added in, given the new statement legislation allows a.d.u.s. so possibly this is a good site for middle housing or housing trust units, which is housing trust units is a big discussion we have at housing rights.

i think i personally would like a more kprecomprehensive understanding of the implications of this permitting. is it precedent setting in some fashion? through this process, are we taking housing out of the equation? so those are my main concerns, so thank you for your time. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: next speaker, please. >> and good evening and welcome

to --

>> i live in a different part of town. i have a huge building that's going to go in beside me. i went to some meetings about it, but it stinks and it's the life that we live. i think when the neighbors say that their lives could be impacted negatively, it's fair to say that they could remain the same. just as the previous gentleman said, maybe it could be better and more vibrant. i don't think we should speak in these conditions just because of nervousness. i've been working in this industry about 13 years.

when i ran into dennis a year or two ago, it blows my mind. this is really inspiring. to know that you can do everything the right way for people trying to do this is even scarier than even the prospects of doing it. i don't think you can take it out on other people again just because you're comfortable with something. what if someone moves into a house and they turn on their car at 5:00 a.m., it's just living in a neighborhood with other people. thanks for listening. i hope we can all have a drink. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. >> i am going to read my little

statement. i live on the 1200 block of 42nd avenue right down the street where it was about to open. i'm here tonight to support the zoning commissioners for the 4055 irving street location. i feel strongly that the neighborhood surrounding the 4055 irving street location should have been properly notified on the new wine-tasting/restaurant business called palm city. i find it disrespectful and very unfriendly to overlook the voices of the immediate tenants and the neighbors that will be directly impacted by this change of views and this proposal, and i do believe it will set a precedence if it is called and distinguished as a bar that a different kind of bar could enter the neighborhood in the

future. i understand the resident knew of the 311 process and decided it was unnecessary, unnecessary to his business plan. now residents are asking for a voice. our 311 voices are important, due to the conflicting reports about what exactly this business is going to entail. i've heard so many stories of different scenarios. so strong are the specifics that i feel we need to have a more detailed, planning situation through the 311 process, as i see as the lawful way to proceed. please enforce this voice for our neighborhood voices.

>> i am here to support the decision to require the 311 neighborhood process and to suspend the permit in question. we already have many restaurants and other businesses two blocks away in this corridor. i'm very concerned about the proposed business being part of an encroachment to what is a currently quiet, residential area where i live. the 311 process and other requirements are in place. we neighbors will be affected

and will deserve to be part of this decision-making process in this change of use. i also want to speak as a business owner. we very much understand that business permit requirements and regulations might not always be easy, but they are part of doing busy and must be followed without exceptions. i also feel like the financial hardships cited in the appeal should not be considered, since every business owner knows that business challenges are part of having your own business. these financial hardships do not relieve the business owner's responsibility to do what is right and required by the law. the zoning administrator made the right decision and i thank him for protecting our rights. [ please stand by ]

>> -- excuse me -- were the right answers for them to open this business. so now, not only have they signed their life away to a small business loan and signed contracts with contractors and applied for a liquor license as well as quit jobs, so not only do they have an earning income, they are not sure where their next dollars to come from. so for them to be penalized on this issue is absurd. i think this issue needs to be looked at,