deny this conditional use, and we leave it as such, we will still have the same problem that miss hester'm wondering what are the commission's thoughts about that issue. >> president hillis: that's a good question. could we ask mr. perry. could a cafe -- could a restaurant -- >> sure. so it could be -- if the conditional use were denied today, the space would revert to the last legal use for the building, which would be a retail financial service. but within the c-3, there are certainly a host of other retail sales and service uses that could go in that space. a retail notice is not required. it would be an over the counter permit to change of limits use to a restaurant. >> president hillis: so it would not have to come back to this commission for a restaurant, but they could take it being back -- >> it they were to open the cafe back up to the public, it would be operating in a manner consistent with a restaurant or limited restaurant. it would be principlely permitted under code, and there would be no need for a conditional use authorization. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >>

>> sue hester. this is the third project that i am here for saying hurrah. u.s.f. did the right thing. conservatory of music did the right thing. and this one is doing the right thing. and you had a presentation a couple of weeks ago from san francisco state. they're trying to do the right thing. you need to approve this housing. we are really beleaguered in the city by students competing for housing when they should be accommodated by the institution, and the smart institutions are building housing to keep the student students' rents down as well as keep them a part of the campus. people like san francisco state need to be encouraged because you don't have jurisdiction over them, so encourage them. encourage u.c.s.f.. you also don't have jurisdiction over them. and they also need to be encouraged. this is monumental. if we can leave some of the -- if we can relieve some of the pressure on the housing in the neighborhoods, including monticello street, it is not too much to really look at these projects and find out how they're accommodating housing and doing the ri

his friend, laura hester. >> did any of it make sense? were you able to come up with a theory of what had happened there? >> no. i mean, this was a man that just was so beloved by so many people. >> jeffrey moss lived across the hall from rusty at college. >> always had a giant smile on his face no matter the situation. ended every conversation with, how can i help you? what can i do for you? >> in the tight-knit jewish community where rusty lived and was raising his family, a man like him is called a mensch, yiddish for a standup guy. and now that very supportive community gathered around his wife of ten years, andrea. >> she seemed to be a good fit for him? >> absolutely. they had been together since college. he always spoke about her with great affection and respect. >> the couple moved to dunwoody, affluent suburb of atlanta, after rusty, a software grad, accepted a job with a software company. >> they had a great house in atlanta, a summer house out at the lake, a boat, two great kids. they were living the dream. >> a dream that was

that goes back to not just knots, which they do discuss, but hester versus united states in 1987. oliver versus u.s. in '84. this underlying public space doctrine i think matters here. the second is that it doesn't address this informant doctrine. this comes from a long line of informant cases prior to katz. then katz specifically says it leaves informant doctrine untouched and following katz we have two more cases that reinforce the informant doctrine. and finally, the mere evidence rule. they don't really adequately explore the relationship between the fifth amendment and the fourth amendment and the extent to which demanding your records may be used as evidence against you in violation of the rights laid out in the fifth amendment. so to conclude, i just have to say, i think this is the right result to reach in this case because of the privacy interests that are entailed in this. my concern is the reasoning that the court uses actually creates so many more issues than it resolves that i'm concerned about what this is going to look like moving forward. thanks. >> thank you so mu

that goes back to hester and alled states in 2007, versus u.s. in 1984. this underlying public space doctrine, i think, matters. the second is it does not address this informant doctrine. this comes from a long line of doctrine. prior to katz, leaves doctrine untouched. following that we have two more cases that enforce the informant doctrine. finally, the evidence rule. they don't adequately investigate the relationship and the extent to which demanding your records may be used as evidence against you in violation of the rights laid out in the fifth amendment. to conclude, i have to say i think this is the right result to reach in this case because of the privacy interests entailed in this. my concern is the reasoning the court uses actually creates so many more issues than it resolves and i'm concerned about what this will look like moving forward. [applause] thank you so much, professor donahue. next we have professor stephanie powell of west point army cyber institute. professor powell is a location privacy expert and she also served as majority couns

that goes back to hester and united states in 2007, all oliver versus u.s. in 1984.this underlying public space doctrine, i think, matters. the second is it does not address this informant doctrine. this comes from a long line of doctrine. prior to katz, leaves doctrine untouched. following katz we have two more cases that enforce the informant doctrine. finally, the evidence rule. they don't adequately investigate the relationship and the extent to which demanding your records may be used as evidence against you in violation of the rights laid out in the fifth amendment. to conclude, i have to say i think this is the right result to reach in this case because of the privacy interests entailed in this. my concern is the reasoning the court uses actually creates so many more issues than it resolves and i'm concerned about what this will look like moving forward. [applause] laura: thank you so much, professor donahue. next we have professor stephanie powell of west point army cyber institute. professor powell is a location privacy expert and she also served as majority

don't really grapple with that, and that goes back to not just knots, which they do discuss, but hester versus the united states in '27, and air pollution board versus western alpha in '74 and oliver versus u.s. in '84. this underlying public space doctrine, i think, matters here. the second is that it doesn't address this informant doctrine and this comes from a long line of informant cases prior to katz then but it specifically says it leaves informant doctrine untouched and following that, we have two more cases that reinforce the informant doctrine, and finally, the mere evidence rule. they don't really adequately explore the relationship between the fifth amendment and the fourth amendment and the extent to which demanding your records may be used as evidence against you in violation of the rights laid out in the fifth amendment. so, to conclude, i just -- i have to say i think this is the right result to reach in this case, because of the privacy interests that are entailed in this. my concern is the reasoning that the court uses actually creates so many more issues than it resolv