>> -- 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, but i don't believe

these people need to be penalized because of someone else. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: you don't live in this district? >> no, i live in another district that's even busier than the outer sunset. >> president swig: could we ask everybody on that wall to sit down, please? the sheriff department said we were in violation of a fire contract. sir, sorry. you have to sit down. >> i'm a homeowner. i live on 42nd avenue, about five doors down from the proposed business. i currently frequent the other businesses on that same stretch of road. i take my dog to get washed at the dog mat down across the road. i bought a bike from swell across the road, and my daughter goes to daycare about three doors down on irving

street at the opposite side. at the moment, when i walk my daughter to daycare from my house, i walk currently directly pass the existing business. i've had to dodge dog poop, and i've there's broken glass, and i've had to walk around. it's sorry that we push out business owners and residents and long-term residents that are trying to put a brand in this space. i've never met these new business owners, but as somebody who lives so close and is so intertwined in this community that we have to support people to come and build us from the ground up. >> commissioner santacana: sir, i noticed you mentioned businesses there, as well. there's a sandwich shop there? >> there's a sandwich shop on

the block down, but another block, there's a better one with super awesome sandwiches. >> commissioner honda: next speaker. good evening and welcome. >> good evening. thank you. san francisco is my home. it's where i've lived longer than anywhere else. a big part of what keeps me in this city is the food community that lives here and how they show up and how they conceptualize and think about their city. i've had the pleasure of knowing dennis and monica through the food and wine industry and in the community specifically in their outer sunset beloved neighborhood.

it is clear that the intention of the small business attraction ordinance program was passed precisely to eliminate undue burdens for businesses and neighbors themselves such as monica, dennis, and their project. as a member of the local food community of san francisco, i also appeal you, just on behalf of the city and vibrancy of the city that i live in, but also that dennis and monica's business has been a beacon of hope and the antidote to the cynicism that believes it's no longer for locals to open vibrant businesses in san francisco. over and over again, i observe in my work young bright cooks and service staff witness hard working individuals like monica and dennis take their life savings locally to live out their dream. and over and over again san francisco not only creates

financial barriers for them to do so, but they're outright punished for acting in good faith. isn't it clear that they've acted in good faith by taking all the necessary steps in accordance with the planning department. i urge you -- >> commissioner honda: thank you. do you live in the outer sunset? >> i do not, but it's lovely. >> commissioner honda: thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: please fill out a speaker card, ma'am. thank you. >> commissioner honda: hi. welcome. >> my name is garrett tang. i live across the intersection, one house down, and today, i'm here to ask, you know, the board members to vote and restore the right to me and my family to have the right to elect on how permits should be issued, and i feel very sorry for the applicants that wanted to start the business. i understand that it takes a

lot of effort, but i think today's vote is not regarding what an impact it could have or whether who's right or wrong, but to vote and try to clarify the law, right? so i hope that, you know, you guys can make the right decision to support and uphold the law. >> commissioner honda: thank you very much. >> yeah. >> commissioner honda: next speaker, please. and welcome. good evening. >> hi. my name is omar diera, and i live a couple doors from the business that's about to open. and again, i do understand that it can be hard to start a new business in the city, but as somebody living in the neighborhood, i would still love to exercise my right to be informed and engaged when it comes to making such decisions because whether it impacts us in any kind of way i think is still right to do the right thing, and i hope you guys

would make the right decision to uphold the decision made by the city so we can keep the process in place. >> commissioner honda: okay. welcome. >> hi. i'm karen mckinley. i'm confused about what people are saying about the notification process because i received a notification from palm city about their intent to sell beer and wine. i'd like to offer my support to palm city and its owners. i live one block from the business and i've lived there 25 years ago. 20 years ago, i started my own business in san francisco, so i understand the need for careful

planning and short timelines when it comes to launching a small business. i've enjoyed witnessing the generational shift in the sunset that has ushered in many new opportunities for young people to start and sustain businesses in the outer sunset in particular, and i look forward to walking down the block to palm city with my family for dinner. it's important that this city make good on their initial approval in support of palm city. small, independent business owners do not have the financial resources to support six-month reviews, and more importantly, a review that was not planned for by the city in the first place. palm city has provided due diligence to the city and very carefully planned. specific evidence of their planning is their approval by the s.b.a., a rigorous vetting process of its own. it's important that the city help palm city get the permitting process back on track, back on track as soon as possible, so thank you for your time and your effort and your support of palm city. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

>> commissioner honda: next speaker, please. good evening and welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is robert fruckman. i live in lower haight. i live close to several bars and restaurants, and i've had no issues while i've lived there. i live near knock knock, tornado, brass tacks. and i'd like to read to you an article written by two real estate agents. while we advice commercial business owner -- advise commercial business owners not to try to open a new business in san francisco unless they have $350,000 to $500,000 in working capital, these business delays, most of which are out of a business owner's control can really tap resources if they're paying full rent on a space while waiting to simply open. and they also advise potential

business owners to hire an independent expediter for tens of thousands of dollars. frankly, i think that neighborhood notification, while seemingly desirable, has a negative effect on business owners. a report by supervisor mandelman earlier this year reported that neighborhood notification through the 311 process can delay a business by four to six months, and it actually recommends that if the board of supervisors wants to speed up permitting, they should get rid of it. frankly, i also think it's patently offensive that we should ask homeowners who are potenti potentially owners of small real estate if a business should be allowed to open or

just go bankrupt. i think that's achoffensive toe concepts of the united states in general. >> commissioner honda: sir, one question. so when you moved in, were those bars and restaurants there, or were they after? >> they've been there since i've moved in, and i hope they'll be there long after i depart. >> commissioner honda: thank you. good evening. >> hi. my name is daina bueschel, and i live in the tenderloin, and i live here bars and restaurants -- near bars and restaurants. it's awesome. i go there all the time. so this is -- like, i don't think that -- i oppose what the planning department does, and i support the appeal because rules should mean things? it's not a good way to run a city. it's, like, just someone has a different opinion than what this law means, then everything -- like, your entire

life savings are just gone. i also don't think the rationale for the 311 process makes no sense. like, do we need two opportunities for appeal? this just sends a horrible message to would-be business owners. like, you can cross all your tees and dot all your is, and, like, figure out what the rule process is yourself and do your best to follow all of them, and for -- then, someone else can thank you very much in and have a different opinion, and, like, you'd lose your permit and not be able to do your business. arizona state has ranked san francisco as the lowest ranked city to do business in. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. good evening, and welcome.

>> i'm here to speak on behalf of dennis and monica, and i don't understand the process very well, but i have two points that i want to make. first is i've heard a lot about how there's an interest in following the law to the t, whatever it may say, even if it goes against the intent of the legislators, but i also think there's an equally valued interest to be able to take at face value the word of supervisor's staff and workers because if you can't do that, then, you could have people second guessing the planning department. oh, that's their interpretation? well, i don't agree with that, and i'm going to do this because that's what this says. if people are putting their life savings into a business and they don't know whether it's going to be successful, and they don't know whether

they can trust the word of the planning department, that harms the community as a whole. secondly how this is going to change the character of the neighborhood with respect to people who live near these businesses, i've lived in san francisco my entire life -- nearly my entire life, i've seen it change quite a bit. but change is a natural part of life. in a city, there are businesses and homes -- the sunset was sand do yunes. i'll bet centuries ago, someone said, i think i'm going to build homes here. >> commissioner honda: sir, do you live in the outer sunset? >> no, i live in the inner richmo richmond. oh, we saved the best for last. >> i'm here to support the zoning administrator's

decision. mr. cantwell has not been truthful. he said his business would be a community gathering place for the neighbors. he should have worked with the neighbors from the very start to hear their concerns and gain their support, but instead, he chose to keep his plans secret. [inaudible] >> -- on april 10, and got a refund for the fees. however, he did get an over-the-counter permit approval for a change of use to a restaurant serving wine, beer, on june 18. mr. cantwell claims there is ambiguity about the requirements.

if that is so, he should have been advised by his lawyer and his architect to request a letter of determination from the zoning administrator about the interpretation of the 311 ordinance. rather than seek this decision, mr. cantwell decided to talk to a wide variety of people for their opinion, even though they were in a position to make this call. now he should be welcoming the 311 process to finally meet with his community. i request this board to please support the zoning administrator as the person who is the responsible party for interpreting the laws in relationship to the planning code. he has done so correctly and decided the 311 notice is required. the appeal should be denied, and thank you for your support. >> commissioner honda: thank you. and you live in the outer sunset? >> i live in the sunset. >> commissioner honda: not the outer sunset. >> katy tang was my supervisor, and i fall -- >> commissioner honda: yeah, i

think that was a no. good evening. >> good evening. my name is kathrin howard. i ask you to support the zoning administrator. my family has lived in san francisco over 50 years. ten years ago, we moved to the outer sunset. we chose our block of 42nd avenue for its location. we were therefore stunned when we got a notice in september from the alcohol board. the quiet corner store was going to be turned into a restaurant serving alcohol on a site surrounded by homes and in a lot surrounded by residential. apparently this had been in the plan for a year. you have talked to the appellant but you have not considered the impact on our neighborhood. you really should. our little 42nd neighborhood contains many families that are

concerned. you have their letters in your packet. please understand that no matter how much people may like the new business owner, the next owners may be very different and not in a good way. the fact is that the change of use is what would become permanent for our family neighborhood. for everyone to weigh-in, the public, the applicants, and the neighbors, we all deserve the right to a fair and open hearing on this project to explore the many questions that people have raised tonight about it. i'm sorry. it cannot be done tonight. that's really not fair. to suggest it is very discouraging. we need a full 311 process. we need plans mailed to us, we need a chance to meet with the applicant, and we really need our rights, and we hope that

you will support them and support the zoning administrator. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. and if there are anymore speakers for this evening, could you lineup on that wall, please. hello, and welcome. >> hello. my name is matt wright. i don't have much prepared. i just want to say quickly, i live a few blocks away, in the outer sunset. this is a really horrible situation. i feel for everybody involved, but i just wanted to add a voice of support as somebody who lives in the outer sunset for dennis and monica. it really does feel like they made a good faith effort to follow the rules explained to them, and it just seems like a potentially devastating thing to them, to tell them those weren't actually the rules, so i just wanted to offer my support as an outer sunset resident. >> commissioner honda: thank you. good evening, counselor williams. >> good evening, members of the

board, president, thank you. >> commissioner honda: oh, no, that's the president now. >> steve williams. i was hired by a nearby neighbor to take a quick look at this thing, and i mean quick, because we only got the reasons for the appeal six days ago. the law is not ambiguous at all. it's crystal clear. can i have the overhead, please? it states only that it applies in neighborhood commercial districts. this issue was discussed at planning. they discussed l.c.u.s at planning, they discussed it at the board of supervisors, and they decided not to include them for this very reason, that they are a 100% surrounded by residential uses. imagine if every corner store could suddenly become not only a bar, a restaurant, a place of entertainment? these things are -- this is not hidden. here is a hardout that i attached as exhibit 3 to my brief. it's three pages long, and it said -- here is a handout that i tached as exhibit 3 to my brief. it's three pages long, and it

said if you're going to do a change to an l.c.u., you have to do a 311 notification. there's no businesses on this block, zero. no other businesses. no outreach, zero outreach even to the direct neighbors who are just inches away from their walls. it's not only a change of use, it's an intensefication of the use. you go from a corner store to an on-site alcohol consumption. the equitable stoestoppel, you have to balance against the rights of the neighbors, and in california, on every instance, they come down on behalf of the public in land use matters. there's a new case in los angeles that was a 50-year use that was set aside because it wasn't allowed. that's the shaver versus los

angeles case. i have it if you want to see it. >> commissioner honda: and i believe you don't live in the outer sunset? >> i do, but i have residents who live in this neighborhood. >> commissioner santacana: sir, isn't it true that there's a doggie bath and -- [inaudible] >> commissioner santacana: it's down the block. okay. that's fine. >> commissioner honda: next speaker, please. is there anyone else that has public comment? okay. >> good evening. >> commissioner honda: and we're really saving the best for last. >> i don't know. my name is greg miller, and i support the zoning administrator's decision in this case. the purpose of the 311 is to promote notification and promote planning decisions that promote accord throughout the community and all people involved in it. the basic elements that i

understand are in the 311 process are a written notification in a timely fashion for people living in the vicinity, disclosure of the building plan, so they understand the scope of the project, what it is and how it might impact them. usually, a community meeting, where the applicant brings people together in the community at the site so they can see what the plans are, talk it over, see what the applicant's intent is, if there are conflicts or problems, try to work them out at that time in a manner that brings community concord. so in any case -- and then, beyond that, there is the right to petition for a hearing before the planning commission, and finally, if you -- within 15 days, the right to appeal to your board on this whole issue if that's required, and

hopefully, it wouldn't be, after a full discourse. in any case, you've heard from a number of people on both sides of this, and people have good arguments in one way or another, but i would say there is an age-old adage, two wrongs do not make a right. so the applicant seems to be saying i was wronged, i was told things, i followed them, and i'm being hurt, but the solution is not to take away the rights of this community, myself, and my neighbors, not only to understand the plans and to discuss them, but to have any right to appeal this decision. >> commissioner honda: and you live in the outer sunset? >> yes. i live a half-block away. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. so we'll move onto rebuttal, and we'll hear from the appellants. and you have three minutes. >> afternoon -- evening, excuse

me. we spoke to several members of the planning department at all levels, and every single person we've talked to has basically acknowledged there's some sort of ambiguity in this program. as first-time business owners, when we reached out to supervisor tang's office and then supervisor mar's office, looking for some sort of clarification of what sort of process we would have to go through, we got confirmation through a connection we retained at gordon mar's office to the planner who basically affirmed our plans saying that 311 notice was not required due to legislation. it's not a matter of trying to avoid it, it's a matter of this is the process we were told we had to go through. at that point, we did everything we can try to communicate with members of the community. there is no homeowners association. we reached out to the sunset youth services. we the

next six months or however long the discretionary review

process has gone through. we've spent our life savings. we've spent 125,457.58. needless to say, this has been a pretty challenging process for all of us involved, and the sole intention is to help make the community a better place. we understand we live next to some unruly college kids and we've created dialogue with them to make sure we have a working situation, and that is our sole goal. this small program -- small business attraction program was intended to help people like us. it was intended to fill spaces like ours, and it was intended to give people the opportunity to create neighborhoods that they care so much about. this property has been in my wife's family for generations, and we care so much about it. >> commissioner tanner: i have a few questions for you. thank you for your intent to

build a small business in san francisco. could you tell us what you intend to offer at this location. >> so it's a restaurant. you're looking at the staff right here. it's my wife and i, and something we've always talked about. >> commissioner tanner: so what kind of food would you be serving? breakfast, lunch, dinner. >> so the hours of operation would be noon to 9:00. we think those are manageable for us. we were able to pick up one of those hand crank meat slicers. we've been quoted in an article of doing grandma food, very comfortable, very affordable, stew-y comfort foods. part of our access is we've spent so much time trying to survive in this city, my wife as a teacher, myself as a restaurant manager, we go out and spend all of our money in

the city. we want to bring something to the community, one of the last few genuine communities in san francisco that we have a tie to. >> commissioner tanner: so was there a change, that you were going to have a project review meeting -- was there something that you had in mind? >> no. the reason behind the project review meeting was we spoke to our architect -- we didn't know how to do this. like, we didn't know what process, we didn't know if we were going to have to give 311 notice, and for small business owners, you understand that for the most part, project meetings to our understanding are for larger projects. they're over $1,000. we paid for the project, the $1,000 and simultaneously reached out to our supervisor's staff to hopefully get some information to not have to spend that $1,000. so we got connected to supervisor mar's office through

someone at the planning department, senior planning department basically explaining what our business was principlely permitted, what -- principally permitted, what we wanted to do, and that public notice was no longer required. >> commissioner tanner: so that's why you cancelled the meeting, was you were going to go on another path? >> yeah, to save $1,000. >> commissioner tanner: and what does your license allow you to serve at your business? >> beer and win. >> -- beer and wine. >> commissioner tanner: so type 41. okay. thank you. those are all of my questions. >> commissioner honda: there was nothing on the permit subject to final approval from the city and county? >> it was basically the six months allowed us --

>> commissioner honda: due diligence. >> yes, our due diligence and allowed us an out if our permits -- if one, we couldn't get our s.b.a. loan, two, we couldn't get permits, and three, we couldn't get our liquor license. and we got all those. >> commissioner honda: sorry to interrupt. i know this is tough. >> yeah. >> commissioner honda: how many square feet is the current structure now? >> just around 1500. >> commissioner honda: so at 1500, it's just going to be mom and pop or husband and wife? >> correct. >> commissioner honda: and then initially, some of the people, the public that have written letters to us and gave public statement indicated that initially, it was supposed to be a wine bar and a grocery and a meeting place. was that ever a description of what the property was? >> so when we first signed -- that reference comes from our

initial planning review meeting, and that was filled out by our architect. so a lot of times, concepts don't fit in a perfect little box. our concept is our background is in wine. it doesn't mean we're opening a restaurant. hence the name palm city wines. >> commissioner honda: it wasn't a bait and switch? >> no, absolutely not. >> commissioner honda: okay. and then, is there a reason why you did not meet with your immediate neighbors? >> so when we originally initially signed the lease, as i stated, we -- we reached out to the program director, the 43rd annex playground director, and that to us was the most adjacent -- >> commissioner honda: you mean, you spoke to ron and dawn -- >> sunset youth services, yes, and then, the program directors at the 43rd avenue annex. we reached out to katy tang and gordon mar.

>> commissioner honda: what about your immediate neighbors left and right? >> so we dropped -- we dropped handwritten letters into the boxes of our immediate neighbors just to introduce yourselves, provide an e -- introduce ourselves, provide an e-mail address -- >> commissioner honda: i remember that, but could you remind me the timeline? >> that was august, so we actually received one e-mail from our most adjacent at 1410 42nd street, and they said hey, we ayou're banging on our wall, and we said we'll be more aware, and we'll try to keep it down. >> commissioner honda: thank you. i think i have all my questions. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from planning department. >> thank you.

scott sanchez, planning department. the approval is for a restaurant use that is principally permitted in the zoning district, and even with the l.c.u., they are seeking a type 41 license. it does allow just for the beer and wine. has to be a bona fide eating place, meaning more than 50% of sales have to come from food, that is food based, not from alcohol sales. there's been some discussion about maybe the development of the concept and getting to the current permit, and i don't see anything in the record or from my conversations with staff that the applicant was trying to do anything to subvert the code. we have something called planner shopping just when people go from one -- >> commissioner honda: trying to get the answer they want. >> yes. that's possible because staff have different interpretations of the code, and this can

happen, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. in my experience, it's very common for concepts to develop. people have ideas, passions they want to develop into a business, and they want to look at the code and see what business does it fall under? they chose to pursue the restaurant use. there's been mention of the preapplication. we have community outreach preapplication process that's triggered for certain permit types. it generally refers to building expansions because honestly, most of the time when we have d.r.s, d.r.s are on that rear addition. we don't get as many d.r.s even though we do section 311 notification for, you know, hundreds, if not thousands of variations a year, they're with

neighbors about building additions and concerns about light and air. those are most of the comments that i wanted to raise, but i'm available for any other questions. i guess lastly, there are conditions that are imposed by the fact that it is the l.c.u. under section 186-b that the building is maintained in a sound and attractive condition, with general conditions of the neighborhood. hours are from noon to 9:00 p.m. public sidewalk can be used, as long as they have the standard permit. thank you. >> commissioner honda: one question, mr. sanchez. so considering that there was

another business there, and it hasn't exceeded the three years, the usage is still continuing, right. >> so the l.c.u. is only abandoned if the prior use has been vacated for more than three years, in which case it could be restored with a conditional use authorization. that hadn't always been the case. it used to be once you lost it, you lost it, but now, it can be restored via conditional use. >> commissioner honda: and regarding some of the terms that you just rattled off, is that building in noncompliance now, in terms of rundown, so it is not in compliance now? >> certainly. what i understand their business to be -- >> but, if the landlords would be -- if we deny this, the building would be -- >> they would then be required to restore the building, figure out what to do next. >> commissioner tanner: i have a question -- >> commissioner santacana: is

it true that the supervisors -- supervisor tang's aide said that no business in this district other than a cannabis dispensary has been rejected, and once everything had gone through, all processes? >> i haven't done the research, but you know, generally, you know, uses that are principally permitted and subject to these neighborhood commercial -- you know, the neighborhood notices are subsequently approved. rarely do we even get d.r.s on them? it's more common for, like i said, the residential additions. but it's not common for a principal notice that goes through to be denied. >> commissioner santacana: this may be an odd question, the nonconforming use not be made greater. and the question for you is if you set aside the service alcohol for a moment, if this liquor store or grocery store

or whatever it was had been changed to a place that serves food, a sandwich shop, for example, in your view, would that have been -- would that application result in a greater nonconforming use or a less or about the same? >> well, while this is a nonconforming use, it's also a commercial use, so it's given greater allowances and variances under the planning code. they actually are allowed to go -- they could sell hats or you could get a permit to be a bar. the l.c.u.s have the ability to change uses. they refer to the zoning controls in the n.c. 1 or a more restrictive district. it's more restrictive, but once you're a hat shop, you can serve alcohol. it doesn't intensefy in that regard, so it's not the same

intensefication that we would have. >> commissioner santacana: so is it a different way, then, that this particular change of use even including the serving of alcohol is completely code compliant, the only question is whether to provide 311? >> and that's our question. this is principally permitted, completely allowed, legit. the only question is the 311 notice. >> commissioner tanner: i have a few questions, mr. sanchez. one of the things that one of the speakers spoke to is rh-2. this is not changing the zone, this is changing what it's allowed to. when 311 notice is required, how does the planning department go about

administering that? >> they submit a building permit application for the change of use. it's routed internally. it's not approved over the counter, and planning department staff provides that notification. >> commissioner tanner: so it's not up to the applicant to provide the notice or not, it's up to the department that site notice is required and perform that noticing as required. >> that's correct. i see no notice that the applicant tried to sidestep the requirement. >> commissioner tanner: and then, just with the -- in terms of the plans for the building in terms of having a kitchen, making sure that it is legitimately a restaurant, is that part of the review that staff would perform or building department would perform, and somebody says i want to have a restaurant in a place that wasn't a restaurant to make sure that it can actually function in that manner? >> it's part of the plan review. we don't typically get into the level of reviewing menus and

things like that, but to meet the definition of restaurant, you have to be a bona fide eating place to get that type 41 license, and bona fide eating place is defined in the requirement. and they're generally used in the past by a.b.c., so that's more than 50% food service, less than 50% alcohol service. it's primarily food based. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> president swig: so i want to wrap my arms around this a little bit. what i heard tonight in public comment was a -- was basically a retrial of the supervisors' -- of the legislation. and which, that's nice, but it's already been legislated, and i'm not dismissing -- sorry. i don't want the public to

understand that i'm dismissing your points of view, but what we have here, is what we have here really is an l.c.u. included in the legislation which was passed by the two supervisors? and is that -- is that the -- that seems to be, like, the question. >> yes. essentially, section 311 says that in this geographic area, notice is not required in neighborhood commercial districts, and that's -- you know, that led us to this suspension because we're saying this is not a neighborhood commercial district, it's a residential district. you know, the -- the confusion is that we know that under section 186, certain rules and regulations of the neighborhood commercial districts apply to l.c.u.s, and it's not clear that this exception applies in this case. >> president swig: and if the supervisor or supervisors who

sponsored this legislation were here, i think we heard from the legislative aide that they would say no, no, no, you don't understand. the l.c.u.s were wrapped into our intent. so what we have to decide here today was mr. teague misinformed and erred in abuse because he didn't properly pay attention to the legislation that was passed or i'll cut him some slack, interpreted the -- the legislation based on some ambiguity that may be in the legislation, that there is no ambiguity, l.c.u.s are included

in this legislation. so what are you talking about? >> so the zoning administrator is looking at the plain language. the restrictions only apply in n.c. districts, and this is not a n.c. district. speaking to our staff who went through the process, they stated that was not clearly part of the intent. that was their memory, that this should not be included. also looking at it itself, and the zoning administrator came to this conclusion. now i don't believe that the supervisors' comments were known to the zoning administrator at the time, but the zoning administrator kind of went with what's officially in the record and our conversations with staff. and you know this board, through its field process has the benefit of the public notice and hearing everyone's thoughts. that's not something that the zoning administrator can call for in making a decision. in your office, you're considering the facts that you

have, but now, the board has this public hearing, has heard the public process, and can make a decision. >> president swig: so do i play a johnny carson, there may be a note to mr. teague or the supervisors, please be clear on this when you're passing legislation and throw everything including the kitchen sink into your legislation if you intend -- don't be subtle, right? so basically what we're -- we're being victimized here potentially is -- is we're all being victimized. i'm going to throw us all into this bucket, is the leave-outs and specificity of the legislation, where it was intended to include an l.c.u. -- the l.c.u.s but it was a leave-out as far as specifics. >> we always ask the legislation be as clear as

possible, but in defense of the supervisors and legislative staff, planning code is very -- >> commissioner honda: careful, they're still behind you, and i think they're allowed to carrie guns. >> no, the planning code is very complicated. it's difficult -- we have code cleanups for a reason. we have usually annually a big code cleanup where we're making changes to the code. ex exorcism was listed in the code, i think it was misspelled to exorcise. >> commissioner tanner: i can comment on this. i was working briefly for a supervisor at the time this legislation was first generated. i can say even as a former planner, i don't know the hundred zoning districts that exist and what 23450nooks and

crannies of the exhibits they lie. i think you are right in the sense that it was not as comprehensive as it intended to be. >> clerk: thank you. this matter is submitted. >> commissioner honda: actually, i'd like the project sponsors to come to the podium. i have a question or two. >> president swig: all right. i'd like to start with him and move down the way so we can get organized. >> commissioner honda: if you were granted the permit, not that we're saying that right now, but you have the right to open until 10:00 p.m., but you mentioned that you would be open until 9:00 in your public comment. is that true? >> yeah. i mean, if weekends, if we feel that we can generate a little extra revenue and still maintain peace in the community, then we'll stay open

until 10. you don't open a business in the outer sunset and not hope that you can't get the support of the community around you. >> commissioner honda: okay. and the next question is, you've applied for a 21 -- or 41. are you planning to expand that to hard liquor? >> absolutely not. >> commissioner honda: okay. so just as it so happened, you would not mind a restriction regarding that? >> no. >> commissioner honda: you're looking at me like i can't do that. >> clerk: we don't have the permit before us. >> commissioner honda: oh, that's right. >> clerk: just the suspension request. >> commissioner honda: that will be in december. >> clerk: well, actually, that is a revision permit. >> commissioner honda: but we still have control of it at that time. okay. thank you. that was my questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thanks. you can be seated. >> commissioner tanner: just had a question for our city attorney, if that's possible. i know you wanted to start, but i wanted to clarify something. they mentioned in testimony today in letters received about vesting rights, about estoppel.

are there any legal issues that we need to consider regarding any -- there are a lot of legal issues, but in regards to those items if they have any bearing on what we need to consider or -- >> what i could tell you about astop el is it's not something that's been brought up -- about estoppel is -- it's not something that's been brought up except by one member of the public. it's relying on something that the government did, to their detriment that they relied on that. to establish in california is very difficult, especially in the land use context. if the board were to want to make a decision based on equitable estoppel, we would probably need to request additional evidence from the parties. >> commissioner tanner: and a vested right -- >> that usually requires that they actually have undergone

work on the underlying permit that's being either revoked or suspended. >> commissioner tanner: so in that, they've invested. so would work at the property include that. >> it would, but again, i don't know that we've got before us all the evidence that we would need to make that determination. if that's something you're interested in looking into, that would be that you could continue the case. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> commissioner honda: give it to you. >> commissioner santacana: all right. i'm happy to start. so the way that i see -- there's a couple different ways that we can look at this case. the way that i see it, that the specific question that we have to decide is whether the planning department should have the ability to suspend permits for an unlimited amount of time based not on new facts but on its own change and interpretation of the law. and i don't know the specific and total and comprehensive

answer to that question, but in this case, what i would say is if that is ever allowed, it would need to be accompanied by well considered reasons and explanations for why the law should be interpreted in a new way and why the zoning administrator thinks that with respect to the permit holder, the new interpretation should be applied. i don't think we have to decide what the supervisors actually meant because everybody, including the planning department agrees that the law is ambiguous. and given that the law is ambiguous, i think it was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion for the zoning administrator to belatedly change the rules that applied to this set of permits without providing an explanation for that change. i'm very sympathetic to the

neighbors, especially the neighbors who live adjacent to the proposed business, but if the appellants are correct about what the supervisors intended, which is -- i mean, the supervisors have told us what they intended, then, the neighbors were not intended to have 311 rights in the first place. and so while i am sympathetic to them, this is not a policy-making body. the supervisors wrote this bill. they told us what they wanted it to do. they got a majority vote in the board of supervisors. they set the policy for the city, and in districts 4 and 11, they are telling us they don't think 311 should apply in this situation. nevertheless, i'm happy they've had an opportunity to give us their comments, and i would underline that even if we went through 311, a year from now, we would be back here. we would be deciding this appeal de novo. in light of the supervisors'

comments to us, we would be approving this project, but a year would have gone by. so i'm not sure in this situation, there's really any purpose in pursuing 311 even if they thought that 311 was required. so for all of those reasons, i would vote to grant the appeal on the grounds that the zoning administrator acted arbitrarily. >> commissioner honda: wow. similar but different. i think that's what before us, as the public has mentioned, and being very aware of what's in the sunset, i believe the only business that was -- was denied recently was ace pharmacy on 20-something and noriega, which katy used her silver bullet for and brought down. and then, right after, another cannabis dispensary came on and now is open as of last week on

irving street and i believe 22nd. as my colleague has mentioned, i also feel that the -- the -- the planning code is arbitrary and confusing. at the same time, as he mentioned, if it comes back to us next year in the same form, same players, same people in here, basically, it only needs two votes to win. tonight is a much harder process. it requires all four of these -- of us commissioners to -- to get this project through. regarding notification and awareness, i think, or having plans sent or that the neighborhood was aware of it, i think in this particular case, as the department has

mentioned, 311 notification is not a part of this process, and the only thing that you're avoiding is potentially being able to have a discretionary review in front of the planning commission which at which point at the end of that process would still come before this body. i do feel bad for -- for the neighbors, for -- and again, if this does get approved before this body, the permit is still being appealed, or a portion of it in front of this body, so we still have the ability to condition it and change things around, i believe. sorry, there's no more comment. we're in -- and so -- and as i mentioned earlier, when i opened my business on noriega, in the 80's, i was the only one open until 10:00 p.m. i was the only one that literally had a neon. i think there was a dry cleaners on 22nd that had a neon. safeway was closed for four years due to remodelling. it was a very quiet town, and when you told people you lived

in the sunset 20 years ago, they'd go oh, really. now, when you tell people you live in the sunset, they go oh, really. it's same words, but so different. i remember when devil's teeth was a photomat. who remembers when it was a photomat? that was 40-plus years ago. there's people with their junior fives in front of their house now. it's a different perspective. i think the only -- the only thing that would happen by turning this permit down -- and i'm not using the financial hardship as an excuse, but i think at the end of the day, what would happen is we would have just broke these particular people, and would you have had -- you're going to have another restaurant or another bar in that same place. and to me, you've got vested

people that are from this community that live in this community that want to be a part of this community. and i think that overall -- and i still live in the sunset, i do. i've lived in the outer sunset, i've lived in the central sunset, i've lived in the inner sunset. i happen to live in golden gate estates now. i drive down all those streets now. my first date with my wife was at a place called paradise pizza, and they sold out and moved to west portal. i'm sorry to the people that feel they did not have a lot of process. i believe that it's going to continue to have process, and any permit that's given can be revoked. so if they're bad players, and they're not playing in the neighborhood, you can make them go away, but i support my felly commissioner, and i believe

that unfortunately the zoning administrator -- i wouldn't say abused, but erred in his decision. >> commissioner tanner: i agree with my fellow commissioners. one of the things that i've learned on this body and in my career as government, it's important to layout a clear idea of what's going to be done so people have a play book of how to get from point a to point b. despite that, it seldom happens. people do have to hire lawyers or experts or expediters or folks who understand it. people are working hard to understand this many, many volume tome and understand how these sections interrelate. and in this, the appellants did their process to understand, and get expert help from the staff and find out how to get from point a to point b, only

to find out they were misinformed or not misinformed. we heard there was not clarity in the intense of the legislators, there's not clarity how these different portions of the code interact, although the administrator made the decision, and we might make a different decision. so the question is who bears the brunt of that mistake? and in this case, the city is insisting through the zoning administrator that the burden of that lack of clarity and that mistake rests with the appellant and the applicant who had to figure out how to navigate our process, and i find that conclusion or assertion fundamentally flawed. i would remind my fellow commissioners that there are people who come before us, asking for relief under different provisions of our laws.