specific facility is defined as a cart in conjunction with the commissary or other permited food facilities where it is distributed at retail. it does not include a transporter used to transport packaged foods to a facility or other food sources to consume for purposes of a mobile food caterer. in this specific case, it must be a commissary, food for consumption. again, had we known that it was their business plan based upon that discussion, it is the wrong permanent tie. it doesn't match what is defined. in this specific case, it is a little different. the department, based upon the late-night request for the

applicant for an evaluation. we were not able to get a response from the police department and we wound the receiving correspondence to the permit officer with a recommendation for denial of the sperm that. the station capt. does not want her, specifically, the food court to have extended hours. therefore, they directed us to deny the permit. they changed her time based on disinformation. we correspond with the police department once again. and we were informed by the permit officer that the capt.

does not want the facility there at all, specifically. based upon this recommendation, we deny this permit. we corresponded with the applicant specifically. this is a decision for the police department, we will comply with this. this is what the appellant in this case what request. again, these are processes that the department can follow.

we tried working with the applicant to determine if it is available because a search for a secondary location to provide for it is unfortunate -- appeal the decision of the nile for the department. i will answer any questions you may have. this correspondence was between my staff member specifically. >> the answer is yes? >> there is a time yet for when the police sent this. . the notice came to disapprove. is that normal?

>> since your documentation shows that your folks were prepared to approve it. >> this is an interesting situation. we informed the police department requesting updates. what happened was, during that time, the individual processing does permit were no longer allowed to work for the tenacity and county of san francisco. the process up to that point, we had to follow it up in november. specifically, the local police station to determine if they received misinformation had what their findings would be. we finally got it in november of 2011. there were also issues during that time for the other permanent that we discussed earlier. this was all during that time

when occupy sf was in the area. they were trying to clean the area and handle a more compelling situation. there were certain delays and built in to the sperm that. for that, i will apologize. >> my question was going to be, until you showed us the communique, and there were nothing's -- there was nothing in a brief periof. that memo on the overhead, i didn't see it in the brief. i'm talking about the police one.

it was more of a statement, i didn't see it. the department did not receive a brief from the appellant and chile did not know what the discussion would be. >> i read it while you were doing it. i am just saying that to me, it was a very telling them all. -- memo. president garcia: what is the difference between bakery, waterfront, and darren's? what is the difference in the way they operate, between the waterfront bakery and darren's? in otherwords, you approved this, the police will find out of their rationale, because the police wouldn't away and on if something is like food or not.

it must have something to do of fully with like a safety. to disapprove the first one because of some like food nearby, it seems to me that a bakery that sold suites, that is why you will then died of a permit. >> we were not even able to reach the position of generating a next step which was the public hearing. already the police department had responded negatively to this request from the applicant. >> and they are party to these determinations?

>> and the police department is required to respond when the hours of operation extend beyond. president garcia: once the business plan was changed and they were no longer going to operate -- >> based upon the initial objection, we went back to verify. would it still be appropriate and what the department have any issues? they continued to have issues even after the reduction of hours. >> are you saying that the department did not undertake its own investigation as to whether this is properly permitted or properly falling within the provinces of the permit?

did the department to its own investigation after receiving the recommendation from the police? >> the initial comment from the permitting office based upon the information that we received was that the captain of the station was concerned about drugs and other elements in that area. by reducing the hours, it doesn't mean that those elements would not be there. >> to the department undertake its own investigation? >> holly did not have that knowledge. >> as to whether there were like foods in the area. or did you rely solely on the police department's recommendation? >> of the department would not be able to take the next logical step in the police department

had denied it. if they, on a follow-up had a reduction, we would be able to move on with the investigation. >> department seeds of this jurisdiction entirely? >> in this case, the department does not see a reason, specifically, to overturn or ignore the recommendation from the san francisco police department. we don't believe it would be appropriate within several types of permits, where they specifically stated that they want the hours restricted. >> i think you have said and i am not following, if the department years from the police department that the police department doesn't recommend granting the permit, the

department of public works says that we can take the next step and make our own assessment as to whether it is proper? we don't second-guess the police department. that is what i am hearing you say. is that the way it goes here. >> that will stand to reason because and this specific case, there are reasons that the police department pointed to, and when we follow up the issue that is a definable, they did not waver from those specific issues that is ongoing for the specific site. >> i understand the basis of the nile relates to like foods. i might be misunderstanding the basis, but that is how i understood it. >> de police department in this specific case had a multiple objections. one is like foods. one is the elements as defined

under their notification the was the potential of intoxicating people, violence in the immediate area, fights, noise associated with drunk people to the specific card. drunk people groping together at 3:00 a.m. is a concern. by reducing the time, we went back again to the police department with this specific issue as it relates to public intoxication, a gathering of people. >> what is in black and white of the december 22, 2011 letter with your signature to the appellant, its eighth specifically the basis as being like food. it's news to me that it relates

in any way to disturbances around the car as the basis for the denial. when communicating with the permit applicants, the department needs to be really clear as to the basis of its denial. it clearly isn't under your own documentation and under your own signature. i did not know that that was served as the basis for denying. this is new information for today. >> what we did do it within the correspondence between the applicant and the police department, the permit officer didn't specifically point out

the situation as it relates to like foods. that information was provided to the applicant. >> we will take public comment on this item if there is any? president garcia: you wouldn't happen to be officer mathias, would you? i wish somebody could shed some light on this. i'm sorry, public comment. please step forward. two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. the executive director of the fisherman's wharf community benefit district. regarding the leavenworth street location, the resident neighbors that are very close by which includes the conrad park area,

we have an issue of noise and a safety issue in the evening. they are requesting that this permit not be issued along with the businesses in the area. the marriott courtyard hotel, the waterfront bakery that is on that side of the street which is near the entrance as well, it also sells like foods, coffee, tea, sweets, pastries. it is just on the adjacent and it is also projecting into this food carts. as mentioned earlier, there are no public rest rooms within 200 feet of the proposed location. the nearby restaurants are only accessible to 10 cents at patrons of businesses.

we have challenges related to safety issues, and what we call 10b officers to help us mitigate some of the issues that we're having. >> any other public comment? the will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> what they are not saying is that the police department received, after i had a hearing with taylor, the police department received several personal letters from business owners in the area telling them to deny my permit even though

the permit process had been closed 7-22. in other words, any person that objected to my permit, according to the ordinance, they had to supply that objection so that i can have a hearing in to be able to say my part. in this situation, what happened was, i was told i would be able to get the permit a there were no objections. all of a sudden, an objection was created and a cop came back and said i was like several places. and then he subsequently sent me the pushcart permit that had no bearing on this process at all. this is the situation for me where it is obvious that somebody had an influence, and rather than dpw taking the hit,

they put it on the cops and allowed them to derail my permit. when i said, where is the appeal process and how can this happen three months after a 7-22? basically they had no comment except for pay your fees, we're denying it based on these businesses that were contacted by the police through their association. that is ultimately how i found out that i wasn't going to be able to move any further. i don't know how you would feel if you were in my shoes, but to me, it was quite a blow. because at no point did anyone tell me that i had the have the permission of the police department.

they said i had have permission for my hours, and he noted they are talking about half of july -- in june 20. my notice was not sent out until the twenty second. it was because of the communication within the police department and the adjustment of my hours that ultimately thought there proved. we went forward with the n > .o.i. >> this is adjustment of 6am to 3am. >> they spoke to me at length about it, and he and i and the police department, my understanding was that that was the compromise. that is why he went forward. i do have the original fact that was sent to me on the twentieth and given to me on the twentieth by dpw.

president garcia: the hours you submitted are exactly what? >> 24 hours. president garcia: i thought it had been amended. >> at the very beginning. >> what are the hours that were submitted for this particular permit? it can't be 24 hours if it was changed. >> six to three. president garcia: those are the last hours we had. thank you. >> [inaudible] president garcia: it might be the other microphone? >> in this specific case, it was very telling. it is starting to make sense.

what happened was, the individual that initially started the process left. that was one of those situations where things were less well documented. as were we to investigation and follow-up on this. one of the challenges that we continue to face is that this came at the beginning of the program. it started in march, when the notice that we sent out was in june of the same year that was almost immediately at the time of the application. we contacted the police department, and they knew specifically what the intent was. the language that was in the new legislation came directly from the police. again, as it relates to ours, there were objections as it relates to the hours of

operation. we contacted the police department, the continued to say that it was not appropriate. in the meantime, we did the notification and we received injections. but it was in the situation, given that the police department had recommended strongly to denied a permit that we did not take that next step, which would have resulted in determining the additional appropriateness of this permit. again, this was the beginning of a new program. over time, we can better understand the process to better the minister is. this was challenging and interesting to begin with.

in this specific case, we did try our best to follow the attendance that was established under the law. and of like to apologize to the appellant that if her understanding was not clear from one of our staff in this case. commissioner hwang: would you have any insight as to what hours the police department would have the appropriate -- found appropriate, and their disapproval would have been put forth? >> i would venture from the morning, and the clock for 9:00 possibly until 5:00 or 6:00. they were specific as it relates

to public intoxication. >> if the police department were flying with the hours, would you hold a directors hearing? commissioner hwang: based upon what was received, yes. it would state that the police department determined that the extended hours was appropriate for this location. and there would be a determination, and additional the termination of like foods based on public testimony and the appropriateness. we have situations in residential areas at a late night operations were permits were denied pacifically because of objections from the neighborhood. >> the police way in, and if the police say no, you denied a permit.

in this case, as opposed to the other one, there was no directors hearing? >> correct. >> the matter is submitted. commissioner hwang: this case is actually in my opinion, different than the previus case -- previous case for two reasons. one is -- one of the emails from staff indicated that there were no complaints. there might have been complaints coming in subsequently verses of the previous case.

in this location, there were zero complaints, and if one looks at the language, it is not 100% in the affirmative. there is a slight bit of a difference to its that would have led the appellant to believe she was going to receive for a permit. -- receive her permit. i guess the other issue is the question of liek foods -- like foods. it was not clearly made that it was the determination, although it was stated that way once. they were prepared to go forth,

and so my concern here is a little on the due process side, and in addition, since the police information didn't really come to us, and not prepared to give a lot of weight to that other than the fact will -- the fact was that they did recommend disapproval. i would be interested in supporting the appellant in this case, but i would wonder whether we can draft a different time period. versus s6:00a.m. to 3:00 a.m.

>> i agree a set for the last fang. i think things are out of whack in my humble opinion. i appreciate the comments by the appellant in her opening regarding having new issues thrown at her, even today to have to respond to without an opportunity to consider and absorber, research, and present to us. at every turn here, in this case, where so than the last, there has been a changeup. i think it is patently unfair, and this appeal should be granted and the permit should be allowed. there is nothing in the record here to indicate that dpw has

done its own investigation. with respect to the like food which is the only basis that i could read in the denial, and does nothing showing, in fact, the finding was made that those entities have food similar to what i believe to be a very distinct type of product that this appellant is attempting to sell. >> i would agree that the process is confusing here, and in the letter, there corresponds with the police officer. it was brought up with close proximity, there is not a lot of detail to support any of that. i am somewhat uncomfortable making a decision either way based on the information we have. i would support a continuance to try to getdd