and then it was how many they have as of the first permit. and then it was how many stores they have operating. but this language is not in the statute. you have the opportunity to look at what is really going on here. and combine the question of oska and the rebuilding of this store and we hope that you will do that. thank you. any other public comment? okay, seeing none, we will start with rebuttal, miss ota you have three minutes. i was appellant of alan tan and when i was there we had to do our own foundation and it was the building and it was a total mess. he had the opportunity before (inaudible) moved in to rec identify the foundation and did not. secondly, with regard to the pop up store. i went down and interviewed the mer dhant chants and they all agreed that is closed at the end of february and at the put up a posting saying that a pop up store was never that was closed on january 1 and it was posted on february 28th, two months after the fact. they still o
thing. i would like to see the permit to be okay to give the permission that it does not relate to oska the way that i am hearing it. at the same time i would like to be assured and guaranteed that it is not tied in any way to oska that it is just to repair the foundation needed and put in the handicapped bathroom and they can search for a business that will not be a retail that this may be. my concern for the merchants we don t want to be a city of one huge mall where you can have formula retail and all of us small business folks will be employees of the corporations that is what happens. if we want to be who we are, independent, diverse, and we get the employment to local people and that is what we like and that is what i like to see to make sure that this repair is not part of the lease for the oska. thank you. thank you. next speaker please? good evening, president hwang, board members and staff. my name is penny (inaudible) and i am a long time resident of san fran
and starbucks as they find ways around the literal reading or the application of the law and another is international stores, where the latest come to fillmore street to announce that it is coming to fillmore street has less than 11 in the u.s. and 202 worldwide. so those are larger policy issues that have led a lot of retailers and retailers to target fillmore street as a location that they have to locate before they get to eleven. and in the last two years, about 20 stores have opened on our street. none of them had more than 11 stores when they opened. almost all of them have more than 11 stores now. so, the result has been that our hardware store is now a french clothing store and the cleaners is now a chase bank and the thrift shop is now a part of the gap empire and i could go on and what has happened is that the fair amount of disengenuous or we call it a gallery or pop up or we put it in some else s name and even the permits none of them have oska s name on it and it
commissioner garcia: i will ask the same question for mr. kornfield. it seems like most of the issues raised by dr. kravitz have to do with nonconformance to a permit and not why he did not file in time, except for the notice issue, which has been addressed. if there questor fort jurisdiction 0 requestor for jurisdiction did not do that, there are other options than the board of appeals, correct? the department of building inspection could verify that it is what on the building plan what is on the building plan. so there is a question of whether planning should have in the first place granted the permit? that is an argument that could have been explored. however, i would point out that even if there is a minor view issue, that in and of itself would not be enough for us to deny the permit. we would have to have other reasons for denying the permit. as i said, this is the first time i have heard of it. commissioner garcia: thank you. commissioners, the matter is bef
san francisco. because i grew up in southern california, a am acutely aware of how necessary it is to be vigilant and how important to save things we tend to take for granted. i think these views should be protected. they are a legacy to the city. they are a legacy to people around the world and to future generations of san franciscans. i think anything you can do to support that would be very, very helpful. president peterson: is there any other public comment? seeing none, unless you have further questions, the matter is submitted. commissioner garcia: i have a question for mr. sanchez and a question for mr. cornfield kornfield. private these are not protected. public views are. i am sure that was taken into consideration when the permit was reviewed by planning. under section 1 01 0.1, which was derived from prop them, dues from public rights of way would not be impeded. i am not aware of any blocking of the public view. this is the first i have heard of it. i have not