, and i am curious. we have been presented this material that was not in our materials. i am recalling that these are not permanent. at what point? but they are required to be renewed every year. if an applicant who is not who eligible, daycare anthey can ree permit. >> should we deny the appeal,

and a permit can go forward, and the permit holder can commence their businesses, but they would be permitted to operate for at least a year unless weekend edition of permits for the duration? they would have to renew, and during that process common you would have to go through the process. >> there are no notification requirements. we evaluate whether there have been notices of violation to this merchant. whether there have been issues of public health, that we determined this was not an appropriate use. the department can revoke and

not allow it to renew. >> i did not hear any of incentive -- any bases. i did not hear you say development might not be affected economically by the exis. >> that would be correct. you have a situation of a location selling specific food. then you have a commercial enterprise. i am going to sell similar food and then turn it around and require the department to revoke it. >> thank you.

>> the matter is submitted. >> if i can ask the woman who spoke in public testimony to come up, thank you for coming back. i am confused as to the chronology. you started operating, or you applied to operate in november of 2011? >> we started to operate december 12 of 2011. we signed police -- the lease on november 1. >> when did the other one ceased to operate? >> my understanding is they were granted a permit on october 28.

>> you took over a spot, and someone was operating there. when did they cease to operate? >> october 31. >> you think they anticipated they were going to cease to operate? did they negotiate a lease before they cease to operate? >> they were subleased, so they do not want to do the business. that is how they came in. >> they said, you want to operate here. >> yes. >> the operation that was here before with not know? there was no disclosure teo --

now is closer to you? >> no. we have no clue about that until we got a postcard. goo>> thank you. five commissioners comments? >> may i asked a question as a citizen? public comment is closed? >> yes. >> i will start with what bothers me first of all. let's say you already operate of food facilitiey, and when you start to operate there is a similar operation within 300 feet. it would seem unfair that someone could open a facility

and put you out of business. i would have trouble with that. it does not seem this particular permit holder did anything irregular, and it seems to me in every way his permit is valid in terms of the problems raised by the appellant. we know there is no elevator there. we know the sidewalk is wide enough not to have an affect on pedestrian traffic. the fact there is trash, the problem has to be solved now by making sure those people already operates there.

the way that is might have nothing to do at all with these facilities. i am torn as to whether or not to uphold this, because we have new information where someone who was maybe purposely misled. they should have known this operation would be applied for, and this operator was going through great expense to be there, so i would like to hear what their thoughts are. >> i have a question for the permit holder. can you tell me what you knew about the place on the corner? >> no, according to her they

would operate entire food -- thai food. >> she said the enemies. you were not aware there was vietnamese food being served? >> no. >> did you walk around that block? >> we wanted to be fair. >> there was a food operation is a public speaker is operating from? did you go there bowma? i can understand you might have a little anxiety. if there food operation was there, did you go look at the menu in and see what they are selling and make your determination and now that you would not be in conflict with them? >> no. >> you did not? >> we did go around to find if

there was of food conflict. >> when you got to this area of the woman now occupies? >> i am not sure which one. >> she is going to be across from where you are. >> kitty corner. now >> is she kitty corner? >> across the street is wells fargo, and this building. >> if the building across is the 200-block, and you are at one, there cannot be 100. a one and 100 are the same. >> that is the address.

>> their location is the middle of the block. >> when you went to that operation, you could not tell if it was similar to yours? you felt it was not? >> we go around and see if there is anything similar. >> i am not talking about going around. q. now know where this woman who -- >> i do not have any idea of. >> thank you. >> i want to follow up on the comments of vice president garcia. i feel similarly and terms of if the mobile food facility is already in existence, the permit was properly issued.

that is how i feel. i do not feel as if any of the complaints made by the appellant are going to hold any sway with me, but the existence of a properly permited business should not be ousted by another business that comes after the fire. that is my thinking of it. i think is unfortunate timing. i would not go so far as to say there is anyone misleading anybody. >> there is a lot of similar thinking. your before i go there, the wall

is quite popular. i remember when i first started going to send francisco, i would sit on that wall so it is interesting. an agreement with what the other commissioners have said, some of the other issues we have looked at relating to the sidewalk and all those other things, i do not see those same issues we brought up before. in this issue of equity, it is unfortunate timing, and i am sympathetic to the other

business owners. the timing of this particular lease occurred later. it does not mean we cannot do something like that, but i am not sure what. i am leading to the fact that it is properly authorized permits based upon the findings the department issued. >> just thinking about it a little more, the business model is pretty well established given

the type of facility the permit holder has. the way i feel right now is is a possibility -- i am sorry, i do not have your name. miss tran's operation might have some things similar to the cart and might have things that are diverse and different, and her operation has the ability to alter their menu if it turns out this is to greater competition. is has been stated, is subject to review. i do not know what the impact would be or how to establish

incentives we did establish it, so there is no basis to compare what happens going forward. i feel the proper thing to do is to uphold the permit and to deny the appeal based upon the fact that the appeal has to do with the other issues we are talking about, elevated motion on the sidewalk and whether or not it is going to block the sidewalk, distance from the bus stop, trash, the individual operating is going to be responsible for picking up the trash. it has to do with the pushcart at the entrance to the appellant building, and if is well separated. i do not see that as an issue, so i moved we deny the appeal

based on the things just stated, that i did not find a basis to overturn or to give it a year to see what happens. >> i agree with that. there is a motion on the table. >> we have a motion to deny this appeal and uphold the permit. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this permit is upheld. >> we are going to take a short break.

>> item number 8. jay moses v. the dpw. protesting the issuance on october 27, 2011.