i think that is where the issue is better set, and that is why we agreed to the stipulation. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good afternoon, president hwang, commissioners. we have a of -- we have reviewed what was put forward to the -- to us. there is information that was not previously provided. this board agreed to the rehearing request because of some of this new information that has become available. it is required to go before the planning commission in order to continue the use as a tourist motel. so that due date would have been several years ago now, but they would not have been able to file the c.u. because it has been more than a decade now, so the result of this appeal will allow the appellant to move forward with the conditional- use to legally continue the tourist mattel use. that would be a hearing for the planning commission to make a decision about the appropriateness of the continuation of that use, and i am available for any questions. thank you. director goldstein: is there any public comment on this item? do any

. >> you are ok with those stipulations? >> is there a second mnemonic -- a second? >> i just want to say i have misgivings granting of permits. i had this the last time they came. i do not see this as a community outreach. i feel like my concerns are not heard, and i do not see this as moving forward, as a positive thing for entertainment in san francisco. when i see would good operators go through to take care of the seriousness of entertainment in san francisco and dealing with the problems we have not only on one side vanilla -- one site but with the city, i am not confident this place should be granted the entertainment permit, and i am not feeling that i got today all whole lot more than i got last time, and i do not know how i feel about it. >> would you feel better if there was another condition that they came back after three months with a permanent? if i feel like we are getting the same results after they come back, and they are unsatisfactory. >> we need a second to discuss this motion. i will second it, and i wi

i would be inclined to stay there has not been a stipulation, and in line eighth they stipulated that would go out. i would be inclined to overrule the objection. >> i understand the portion of has been stricken begins with online 7, and the rest of it is what is in dispute. any other comments from commissioners used on this particular paragraph? >> i think i would allow it. for background evidence, i think it is fine. >> any dissenting view on that? i think it should be overruled in light of the view of commissioners. we can waive that evidence as we will. para dr 10 -- paragraph 10. >> yes, thank you. again, part of the disputed portion of this apparel ross -- of this paragraph supports miss lopez's believln dealing with her not just as a friend but as an attorney, and it explains in large part why the videotape itself was made, so i think it is highly relevant to dispute the mayor's assertion that the attorney-client relationship was made up after the fact by lawyers, so that is why we see this as highly relevant. >> i think our argumentso are that these go to attorney-client privi

. >> you would not stipulate that it was? >> no. >> any other questions for mr. kopp? ms. kaiser? >> i frankly think that even as mr. kopp would stipulate to the term domestic violence, that would not make car of evidence irrelevant or cumulative because it is not really the term that controls, it is the act we are trying to show and the significance of the act. we believe that the act is a true act of domestic violence as placed within properly understood within the context that was supplied by nancy lyman and again by linnette peralta haynes. i have to agree with mr., bu ko that whether we leave that, neither of us really want that. we want you to understand and explore the significance of the act. to do that, we are permitted to submit this relevant evidence, and it is relevant. >> ok, but what fact in dispute are using miss florez's testimony to help prove? >> we are trying to prove that this is not an insignificant -- >> ok, i don't want descriptive words. i want what fact, the actual piece of evidence, the thing that happened that will -- that this will help us decide. >> we

ok, 84, 86 are in by stipulation? >> yes. >> okay, let's take 85 first. i think it is here say. if he could asked at the officer? >> it falls within the evidence code, 1280, it is for writings made by and within the scope of duty of a public employ about an act, condition, or event that fits the bill. this is an incident report about the act and event that occurred when they arrested sheriff mirkarimi and discussion. under case law, this provision applies to incident reports, and they, and an administrative cases. i have a copy with a bunch of case cites, which i'm happy to supply the council and the commission. >> you could have submitted becker's instead of daniele's. we gave you the option. >> that is right. >> i do not see becker's report as anything new, i think it is cumulative. if we gave you the choice and you made your selection. plus, i have not heard of police reports been able to come in under these kinds of circumstances. i open it up to my fellow commissioners, but i would be inclined to sustain the objection. >> may i ask a question? >> course. >> can you indicate

. -- be bound by that stipulation. is there anyone who would like to discuss further? >> i would like to say i am not in favor of just moving forward with that. i think there are a lot of things that go into creating bylaws. i do not think there needs to be -- i think if someone wants to be president for a third term, there should be special requirements that should be met by that person as far as how many votes they get, and i think it is good to keep voices rotating. i think it is set up to get as many voices as possible heard on the commission, and i understand on this commission there would be many good reasons to continue with the leadership and we have had, but i do not think this is something i would be in favor of changing straight out i as stated. >> even with the changes it would be of to the commission to alive whoever they want. it is not bound by any -- it would be up to the commission to elect whomever they want. >> each one of us commissioners can speak our mind at any time. i think the presidency is the

all the other paragraphs are stipulated to. i do not see a need to have factual findings on this. they are conceited as true as stated in the charter. the focus of the party should be on evidence, that supports or not support -- does not support 63, 1924, 26, and 30. -- 19 through 24, 26, and 30. you'd want to identify additional facts he thinks has been established that are in favor of the defense. the mayor may want to as well. my thought is that each of you have five additional facts that you can identify and then put supporting evidence for. my thought is that you submit that so the other side can put the citation with the record they think disputes that fact or the can say they stipulate. does that make sense? have we lost you? >> i would have -- i have not had the opportunity to sit down and parse through the amended charges in that paragraph. and so i am concerned about agreeing to a number that may turn activate the lovetere person think that we cannot work with. >> here is my concern. these are your charges. presumably, you put in their everything that you think we need -

i would be inclined to stay there has not been a stipulation, and in line eighth they stipulated thatt. i would be inclined to overrule the objection. >> i understand the portion of has been stricken begins with online 7, and the rest of it is what is in dispute. any other comments fr

. -- be bound by that stipulation. is there anyone who would like to discuss further? >> i would like to say i am not in favor of jus

. -- be bound by that stipulation. is there anyone who would like to discuss further? >> i would like to say i am not in favor of just moving forward with that. i think there are a lot of things that go into creating bylaws. i do not think there needs to be -- i think if someone wants to be president for a third term, there should be special requirements that should be met by that

the missouri -- >> the one stipulation was that i not ask him about abortion or todd akin. how did this happen? if this was working the way it was supposed to be working, when the republicans cooked up this plan for dealing with todd akin. they would be scheduling interviews for mitt romney to talk about todd akin and how crazy he is and how much he disagrees with him, that's how you would win that allegation on the war on women thing. by exponging them. that's how you might turn this to appeal to women, right? that's what was supposed to be the good side of this policy for you. you get to look like the guy standing up for women's rights by going after todd akin. instead -- >> the one stipulation was that i not ask him about abortion or todd akin. >> that was quick, i sort of hate campaign books now, but when the campaign book is written about the mitt romney campaign in 2012, there will be a chapter on whose genius idea it was to try to turn the todd akin issue into a republican asset. the week before the republican convention, and how it's backfire screwed up any chance o

. >> you would not stipulate that it was? >> no. >> any other questions for mr. kopp? ms. kaiser? >> i frankly think that even as mr. kopp would stipulate to the term domestic violence, that would not make car of evidence irrelevant or cumulative because it is not really the term that controls, it is the act we are trying to show and the significance of the act. we believe that the act is a true act of domestic violence as placed within properly understood within the context that was supplied by nancy lyman and again by linnette peralta and again by linnette peralta haynes.