tv [untitled] December 14, 2011 8:30pm-9:00pm PST
of these locations, i have been speaking with the appellants and would like to ask that this board, without a public hearing, save us the time and difficulty of that, to proceed to disapprove hora pulled this permit, disapproving the two locations at beal and california street and to uphold the other locations of the permit. commissioner garcia: mi ssission and washington? >> i have spoken to the appellants and they agree with that. >> should we ask for the appellants to address the board
as well? we'll do that, starting with the appellant. this is in specific reference to the proposal, 97 minutes of testimony. -- not the 7 minutes of testimony. >> and karen smith, i understand the question is if i would like the permit application to remove or withdraw the location at high street -- at california street.
they are withdrawing those locations. >> are you in support of the proposal that the permit be upheld with those two locations being stricken? gosh yes. >> and the other addresses will go forward. nearly 2600 mission -- there is no appeal there. the only appeals are for these two addresses. >> is one permit, the entire permanent was appealed. >> of the way the ordinance was written, one permit can be -- one applicant can file for a permanent has multiple address locations. in this case, there are two addresses under this one permit that is being withdrawn and i agree with that.
>> of the appellant for a p.o. #11-114. would you step forward? speaking to the microphone. >> my name is john glenn robinson, and i agree to drop this location. i am for that. >> i agree to drop these locations. but just to be clear, the 535 washington street location is also out in the financial district. how is that also on the docket? >> yes. >> by train to take off the to, we are allowing him to have a permit at 535 washington? >> correct.
>> i don't agree with anything in the financial district. commissioner garcia: then we will have to hear the case. what do we do have about the fact that there is no appeal, there is no papers with the address? >> is available for the board as far as testimony arguments and the permit itself. if anyone wants to raise it as part of their testimony, they can do so. >> when he is through conferring with his client, is it safe to assume that you have a valid bathroom permit for this location? for all these locations that are still under consideration? arguments are going to go to washington and division.
>> the other three locations that we have are all approved, they have a bathroom permits. the washington street received neither any contestations during the initial public hearing nor any appeals. it is outside the jurisdiction of bestsellers application to appeal as the property owner because under washington is far outside of that. in terms of notification, excuse me, it is far exceeding the 300 feet notification. >> i think we should proceed the hearing, i don't think we need to hear from the other appellants unless you care to.
>> i don't think there is any reason to. it seems likely to proceed to have a full hearing because one of the appellants who is objecting to the proposal submitted by the permit holder. >> to and accept the proposal as to the location of 101 california st., we are prepared to accept that and not so this room with any more rhetoric. >> we can address in just the one appellants concerns in here one of the appeals, but it is one permit with multiple appeals of the board can only act once. >> if we agree to his proposal, can i send my people home? >> that is your call, because what the board will do if they
have a hearing will affect the permit for everyone. >> if we are just going to hear the concerns of the appellant that is not willing to agree, i should probably hear from the appellant for a 11-117. to see if you are in agreement or not with the proposals. >> i don't quite follow that, because it is moot. they are all connected, it is one appeal and all of these addresses are connected. whether any individual appellant agrees with the proposal to settle, we have to hear this case. >> and was stipulated by this
gentleman that they don't have a dog in the fight anymore, when they are called, they just say no comment. it just gets down to the issue of washington and the mission and we will hear from whoever has objection to washington. >> we are in agreement with the proposal that has been stipulated that the 101 california st. location and the deal st. location will be withdrawn and there'll be no applications for those, then the remaining locations are ok. >> there are five locations. i think we are having a hearing.
>> my suggestion would be, as the vice-president mentioned, we will call the appellants from all of these appeals and they may choose not to testify given the stipulation. >> the thing that is right, but the permit holder might not feel like withdrawing 101 california at 25 via live we are going to have a whole hearing. >> with some frustration, i would say that we would not. it would require us to either go through the public hearing --
and i suggest we continue the matter for us to present those forms and we proceed to seek our permits if that is what the appellants would prefer to see happening. president goh: i tend to agree that if we need to continue. commissioner garcia: we might have a change of heart. >> i feel at this time, that you know, we are obviously upset about the other two locations that are right in front of us within 100 feet.
i am glad he is pulling it and he doesn't have a bathroom at this point. if we go ahead with this other location, it is one of the locations we were looking at for expansion. i don't know what to do at this point. i don't want it to affect my current business or future business. president goh: when an appellant has concerns, it is important to have a hearing. >> and the first question, do they even have bathrooms? commissioner garcia: you are not
able to address them, you addressed the board. president goh: let us have a conversation about what to do about the bathroom certificates. >> commissioners, it seems another continuance might be in order. commissioner garciafung: it's nn order if the permit holder submits he will waive on that particular item. >> the certificate that he has a restroom. commissioner garcia: i am not sure where you're trying to go, but we should not have to hear testimony unless miss paul would continue to pursue 101 california and beal. i don't see the value of that.
also, if this individual, forgive me for not knowing your name, deborah sellers -- miss sellers, if she was not properly mpynoticed, then i think we shod go ahead and i think you should be asking for a continuance. you might not have -- >> if i may, there is a bit of the clarification issue. anti-washington location, she was not within the 300 foot radius for notification. it is 1 per met with several addresses and the permit is in front of us. we have jurisdiction and we may
intend to keep jurisdiction. it is causing me to think that we should keep jurisdiction, commissioners. commissioner garcia: i agree with that, i am just wondering if we are better serving everyone involved if we were to continue the matter totally. i don't really know how i feel. >> we could certainly do it and the best case, we would end up where we were in the last case to have in front of us, the health department and restroom facilities certification query -- and certification. for a couple of weeks, it will perhaps agree on carving up california -- out california. president goh: i don't know, but it's an idea.
it is not fair to provide an indication of where the board is going to go with this. >> if, in fact, i am pressured to make a decision -- being withdrawn by these folks and it is not being withdrawn, -- are they going to withdraw 101? >> we won't know until we had a hearing. where my existing business is today, versus a future.