so it's up to the applicant to decide, if he's willing to share some of this. f he doesn't want to i think we should continue with the written process so those records and that information can be retained as confidential. >> ms. porter, would it be possible to continue it in a closed session so that the questions could be asked directly that are relating to the employment? >> unfortunately there's not a legal basis for closed session, under the brown act. but there is a legal basis for the records to be confidential and the information in them to be confidential. so it really does make it largely a paper-driven process as far as what the commission can discuss publicly. but the commission is entitled to see the records and the information but those don't become public by virtue of that process because records are otherwise exempt. done. we've got questions and we've got answers. >> the continuance before was for the questions and concerns the commissioners had to be posed, and for the applicants to provide a response to those. so the hope was that that was going

does not and i believe you have the application as evidence. on page two of the same application the statement that the plan show the removal of part of existing warehouse no other work. this wasn't part of existing warehouse as mentioned in the applicant's own letter in 2012 to the planning department. these were two buildings in his words 3,000, and 4,000 square feet and two buildings that were delollished and under the planning code requires any demo in one of these district tosi -- to be replaced and no mention the building was compromised. however in the process this was compromised as evidence of by the photographs in your file. mounds of dirt and soil. was there encroachment sidewalk permit for blacking the pedestrian area? no. were there dust controls for the workers and the general public and the neighbors and san francisco driving by? no. contrary to the late response of my brief that they state two horses were tapped into the building only one garden horse was used to control the dust in addition to a leave blower and that is in your

i don't think that's fair to the applicant and what we said before so that's my only caveat here unless somebody objects to that. >> no. i think the process we put in place was put in place for a reason. i want the record to reflect commissioner loftus spoke to the applicant personally and here and came back up so i don't know if that discussion will be given to us secondhand or not. i'm uncomfortable because i don't know what was asked. i think if we want to put it over get it out on paper. this poor guy is trying to get their jobs and we agreed on a process and we're dragging this process out and i just want to get it completed. >> president mazzucco: commissioner loftus. >> yeah. i was trying to respect the privacy rights of the officer that he wouldn't be pulled up here to answer a question and a question that a fellow commissioner had. so i'm happy to -- i'll take the advice of the city attorney, my fellow commissioner had a question in a she felt would be helpful and be dispositive is this. >> if the information will be helpful and dispositive it's something all commissioners shou

is the owner or the applicant here? no. any comment on this item? >> mr. yep -- >> yeah, i'm just waiting for the timer. i am used to waiting for it. i am mr. yep and lived in san francisco for 50 plus years. this is a neighborhood i am familiar with especially at night and i am questioning since the city is on record for supporting small businesses why we're still issuing new beer and wine licenses? if i remember correct leeann earlier discussions here. >> >> at city hall there was going to be emphasis on trying to slow down the spread of these licenses, so if we're serious about supporting small businesses, especially in this area, maybe not issue it and this way give existing businesses, and also i think in the future when we have these liquor license statements i would also like to hear from the district supervisor in the area where the license is being considered so this way we have some sort of district input from city government rather than just the police and the planning department, so i think if we're going to support small business in san francis

company that created that or the applicant. >> have you verified that the information given by the applicant is true to the notification that was given? >> at the initial notification, it was correct. >> thank you. >> we'll take public comment now. can i see a show of hands of how many people will speak to this item. keep in mind any owners of the business listed as 2nd street merchants should not be participating at this time. if you could please line up on the far wall and if you have not already filled out a speaker card, you are not required to, but it helps us in the preparation of minutes. >> i will limit testimony to two minutes. >> okay. first speaker can begin. >> good evening commissioners. ken cleveland, representing the building owners and managers association. i would just like to go back to the starbucks objection. the applicant seems to feel that starbucks does not continue to object. i talked to kim winston, who is the senior manager for government affairs for starbucks, and starbucks is loath to be publicly opposed to small independents, of course. they are 17,000

so, any member of the public wish to address this application? >> okay. seeing none, the matter is with the commission. >> motion? >> i move to approve. >> i second. >> the conditions commissioners? >> sorry. that is the police conditions. >> yeah. >> second that. >> commissioner akers? >> aye. >> perez >> aye. >> hyde. >> aye. >> joseph. >> aye. >> lee. >> aye. >> newlin >> aye. >> approved and good luck. >> robert patterson, dba, ken, ken ramen, 3376, 18th street, place of entertainment permit application. >> a complaint with this address, and once that complaint has been resolved, this item can be calendared again. >> so we are continuing this item? wonderful. >> now is there a public comment or a motion to continue? >> do we need a motion to continue? >> okay. well do we have a motion to continue? >> any public comment on the continuation of this issue? >> none? >> all right. then how about a motion to continue? >> i move to continue the item. >> second. >> item has been continued. >> now i notice that the next four items are all extended permits for s

. >> thank you for the follow-up work and the applicant for responding to your questions. eard that they were quite responsive which is great. i still have concerns about a couple of things. and i'm going to watch the city attorney to make sure i don't step out of bounds and definitely follow in what is needed. but it looks like there was a temporary restraining order and it did not result in a permanent restraining order but i am concerned about some things that were alleged to have been said by this applicant. i wanted to ask the applicant whether or not he said these things and i'm going to look at the city attorney to see if so that's one thing i have. another piece is there is mention -- seems like there's a question about whether or not this applicant resigned from the broadmore police department because he was forced to resign or voluntarily resigned on his own. there is conflicting information it. i understand that the applicant suggested that chief gregg love could be contacted to confirm the way inu%(zÑ which he resignd i wanted to see if that happened at all. >>

the department doesn't really have additional to add as it relates to what the applicant has provided. all we can state that we did follow the process as prescribed under article 25 of the public works code. in the process of this permit with a lot of processes notification was given. we received objection. there was a hearing and final determination was made based on that hearing and we do not believe procedurally there were any errors by the department. thank you. >> is there any public comment? is there any rebuttal? okay. commissioners. >> do we need to offer the department rebuttal? >> we can. do you anything further to add? okay. >> commissioners? >> i think given that the appellant has not appeared, and we have no brief in support of that position i think our only option here is to deny the appeal for the reasons stated in ms. nernst brief. >> is there a motion commissioner? >> yes, and i would move to deny the appeal for those reasons. >> so we have a motion then from scmr hurtado to deny this appeal and up hold the permit as stated for the reasons in the brief. >> they didn't

>> so the applicant has given a poster to post on property. it's my understanding that that poster was prepared and that a poster was placed on the property and confirmed by staff. >> when did that take place? >> that would have taken place in the beginning of april. >> okay. >> they did meet with the applicant right before the hearing in april a couple of days prior to the hearing. at that time they requested a continuance of the matter. and i believe the appellant, the actual applicant did appear at the hearing. i went back to review the tapes and we confirmed and he confirmed and stated back to me it would be continued one month to may. so this was my recollection and confirmed by the tapes. >> were you given any reason for the no-show on the may hearing? >> no. or the continued hearing? >> i haven't heard from anyone. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, you indicated for the july that two attempts were made to contact him. what form of con tact was done? >> i believe by phone after the may hearing. >> there was no answer? >> it's my understanding

i want to emphasize to the commission how much neighbors wish the applicant's business remain where it is now or relocate to a neighborhood more intended for commercial purposes. by my count of neighbors who contacted the planning commission, 49 neighbors did not support it. only 5 neighbors supported. these 47 people are diverse, some are young with children, some middle-aged, some are elderly. some have lived in the neighborhood for decades and others have moved to the neighborhood more recently, because they sought a quiet neighborhood. i was particularly struck by the letter of noel loxson on behalf of his elderly montgomery mother, who lives right next door to the subject property. he writes on her behalf, i she has lived there for more than 30 years and at her age she likes the quietness of the neighborhood. by having a child-care next door. and gordon lieu writes, "it's always been a nice peaceful neighborhood and putting in the daycare would really change the make-up of the area." adding 40 car trips perat per day and many neighbors are concerned once this conditional use is gr

, and the cfc where we had axj v single family é3 on the application, a nn-q cfc permit that says three up, but -- and i offered him to go through the unit verification. so i'm available -- >> thatqd,bc offer accepted? >> yes i believe -- >> vice president fung: and the results? >> we haven't started itç1 >> whenç<-(dój was the hearing? what was the date of the -- >> we're actually meeting tomorrow morning. >> but when was the prior hearing? i can't remember. nof 7.1q1 and you offered it the day after andhe tomorrow? >> yeah. it's a little differenty'nnñh from -- i don't think it -- it probably may not make a difference to this but it takes a while to get it all together, youb&j-5eñ know and get it set up. we just had scheduling conflicts whatever and we're -- the :seçi attorney and me are meeting oc >>(c is there any public comment? seeing no public comment, commissioners, the matter is submittedsfe$m. >> well my opinion is that we should grant then>qcvÑ÷2b c04<]c request. in my mind, it's more of an issue of manifest injust if we don't clear up some of thedlc confusion more than -- i

years old within our zip codes and many openings include family child-care centers just like the applicant's preschool. i would urge the commission of what they offer. many providing bilingual services as working capital. we appreciate the applicant's offer to give them their cell phone numbers for blocking sidewalks and driveways and double parking, but blocking sidewalks and driveways and double parking is unlawful. such an offer doesn't fully address neighborhood concerns regarding the issuance of a conditional use permit that is permanent for any future owner. for example, in addition, the findings say there are no exterior modifications to the building, but, in fact, the applicants propose to move the front door of an historic 1905 pre-earthquake home. it's worth noting that the proponents who speak in favor are from outside of this neighborhood and those speaking in opposition are from the immediate neighborhood. for all of these reasons, i am respectfully asking the commission to deny this application. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi my name is tommy goy

application. we don't know until they come into the hearing. >> it's a suggestion that it should be a box on the application; it should be translated so people can ask for that. at some point i would love to talk to the assessor's office about that. -- it could be helpful; we did augment there budget to provide the services. >> does have to go through the approval process at the state level so this is the perfect time for us to be of the view that. >> thank you ms. duran. at this time we will open for public comment on this item. >> thank you. as an immediate past board member for board 2, i would like to speak in support of kristine nelson who is quite capable and served long hours in the field of appraisal. >> thank you so much. any other comments? >> i would like to speak in behalf of ms. lewis and ms. mendoza's candidacy. i've had the pleasure of serving with ms. mendoza, board 1 and 2 hearings; she has been very professional and knowledgeable. i will urge the board to consider her again. >> thank you. >> (singing) won't you appoint a good applicant for us and you. won't you appoint one - one for board,

you said the grading permit application was submitted 2002? >> no, so. submitted early 2012 within three years of the letter of determination and the state of the time lapse had not been violateed. >> i have a question. in general what is the purpose of a time lapse period, of imposing one? what is the purpose of that? >> fwrairchgly the planning commission has discretion and the time and performance conditions they place on conditions of approval. the typical one is you have to obtain the building permit within three years but again most projects and conditional and authorization and restaurant in a neighborhood district, not for a subdivision with 122 lots and more than 180 units so i think that the condition of approval that the commission adopted in 2005, and i am speculating here, but i believe it allows flexibility and size of the project and flexibility to pursue it. >> okay. >> i have a question. it seems to me it does hinge on the lapse use question and this may sound a little convoluted, but are there documents or other material that an applican