test, test, test, test, test, test, test, test, test test

>> welcome to the april 10th, 2013, the preceding office is chris fong and two commissioners. to my left a district attorney city attorney and that's the controls of the boards legal assistant. we're joined this evening by he representatives from the departments that have matter before us. also representing the planning commission is the other people with the building inspectors and larry is here from the environmental health section of the department of public health.

and let's conduct the swearing in process >> the board requests that you turn off all cell phones and pagers. the boards rules of appreciation department representatives each have 7 minute to present their cases. people affiliated with those parties must conclude their comments won t within the 7 minute period. no rebuldz. to assist the public the public is asked not required to submit a speaker card. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions there are

comme comments cards on the side of the table. the board of appeals office is located on mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sf gov. tv. thank you for your attention at this point in time we'll conduct our swearing in process if i wish to have your testimony please stand and say i do. please note that any member the public my speak without taking this oath.

>> today seldom swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth? thank you >> thank you so looking item number one is there any member of the public to speak on a issue that is no one o not on the agenda? commissioners any comments? >> go ahead. >> i just want to note that i now will be absent from next week's meeting. >> i also will be absent from next week's meeting. >> i guess we'll be rescheduling a meeting.

>> any other commissioner comments? any public comment on item number 2? move on to item 3 for the boards consideration are there any adoption? is there any public comment on the minutes? call the role please and on that motion from the president to adopt the march 13, '13 minutes? (calling commissioners names) those minutes are adapted and a thank you. so we'll call item number had the subject property is at tree

avenue. we received a letter agent appellant requesting a approve from the planning department. at this time the board voted on the basis that the permit was properly issued and the project was to create first story stare at bedroom, bath at upper level. >> before you start i watched the tv version of it and prepared to listen to this request. >> thank you. >> you guys hear me well.

we're here to say that we have property reporters of the object of this permit is to make an additional basement unit it's not to the upkeep of the foundation. it's in the party wall. this building here is part can i show this? okay. so this is my little chart. the permit holder have two party walls so she had to take down

the walls. she needed 3 permits. half of the foundation is on the different lots it's our property therefore with our permission of authorization it's not on our property. here's the copy of the party wall agreement it clearly says that this agreement here wants the land so whoever gets the land it's this alternate. the parking wall is to benefit both party. we're not getting two foundation walls upgraded and any future buyer of our property is

wondering why we you couldn't up grade the property. it's not cause us problems in the future even though the engineers say this will not negatively impact our believe therefore we're not going to grant the permission for this work. please consider. >> please state your name for the record. janet son. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> i'm the property owner of this tree. according to the rehearing

procedure the appellants need to show different facts and circumstances have arisen. there's two reasons the reason that the d by you didn't have the authority to issue the permit and second the permit issued is not in koorng with certain sections. based on our review all of this was covered in the prior hearing at length and the plans that were submitted are according to code and it's for both properties. >> i'm the project architect. just to recap since the last hearing that my client peggy did

meet with the owners of the adjacent property and once again offered them a comprises that we would build a new foundation on the side of the property line. they choose not to accept that answer so it leaves us at a little bit of an impasse. i mean just to reiterate what peggy said i don't think they present any new he reasoning. their brief details they do not understand the calculations that was done by a engineer. i don't think they've come forward with any evidence in any way to say their deficient or in

any way their inadequate so we're not to accept the rehearing request >> any departmental requests? any public comment? and okay seeing none, the commissioners matter is submitted. >> question for building department. >> commissioners. >> watching it on tv is a little bit different than looking at the packet and drawings attached but one of the issues that was raised was related to our pursues 3 they straddle two property lines. >> well, we do have those types

of properties in san francisco where they share party walls. sometimes, it requires two permits but the party wall that they're doing i think they're putting plywood on that site. this building should have been split. years ago when it was done they never physically split the building. it's very difficult project but in answer to your question the building permit they have is okay. if their not going underneath the foundation on the other side which is a different lot.

it's difficult - at any time hard from stopping people from doing work on the property that they own but it's better to split the foundations and make them separate at this .83 and that's what the permit people are trying to do. there are going to do it in small sections >> thank you. we're in deliberations. well, it's too bad they can't

find a solution future problems will arise because of the non-circulate of what structure is in what property but the question is if this is new it hasn't been addressed >> i would move tonight. >> if you could call the roll on that, please. >> we have is a motion from the vice president to deny this rehearing request. (calling names) the vote is 4 to zero and this request is denied. move on to item 5 which is

appeal 1 - 5. vs. the department of public works the subject property is at montgomery street. it is for a food permit. application number 12 and this is on for rehearing today january 1, '67 the appellant does not appear on the hearing. and on february 13th the board granted the rehearing request. so we'll hear from the appellant >> good evening i'm the owner of the try cart i want to thank the commissioners. i'm here to appeal the denial of

the permit and i want to first introduce what my business is the try cart is a food cart it's not a truck my cart is 7 feet by 5 feet it's on the sidewalk. i have two carts on market street. and we only sell indian tea mixed with milk and spices. we pour it out in a cup and hand it to the customer and every transaction is 30 seconds we have no line of customers unlike a food operation that you might

have seen that were so one was the light food and congestion was the problems. in terms of light food in the dp w order itself it says that the light food shall take into consideration the content of the food. they give an example that a coffee cup should not effect the diner. so using that logic in the letter they said they were two examples one was starbuck's which is close to the proposed location. so i visited it and it has 32 choices of drip coffee and x

press drinks, tea bags 12 choices and sandwiches and baked goods. but we did a survey with our customers we asked two things similar is our try tea that is served. and how many choices the customers have in the financial district to depreciate with we have surveyed and in the results our customers said our try was very different. i think it's not the exact the same. and then second example that was

given was tot to jam juice. they do sandwiches they have cakes and use cream they have an extensive menu and again try tea is one on the menu. i'm going to address the congestion for the letter itself doesn't give any details as to why we will be adding congestion to that location so i'm going to address some of the things that might have been considered. we do have a - we're not near a

cross section. we are not a traditional food caterpillar in the first diagram you can see the times and days we sell our products is usually in the morning and in the afternoon and the second ones if we take one day you can see the distribution of who we serve. we might serve 20 customers in an hurry so i don't think that's causing congestion on the situations in the way i have starting a line. and if you look at the food carts permits that are 3 hundred

feet around our location there's 3 other permits that offer food trucks and this compared to maybe something else in the financial districts. so i don't think that particular location is congestions with food trucks especially because other food trucks have permits. i don't know what the reason is for that but we're not near a mall there's nothing special about this location that is different from the rest of the financial district and lastly i've been operating two carts in the financial district and then one cart on val street.

outlining all i'm requesting is let us operate or give us a conditional permit for 6 months and if there's a complaint i'm happy to address that. and i'm surprised this permit was denied i could not understand. thank you >> thank you. i have two questions for you. the two issues that you brought up as german to your case i didn't see in our brief or your oral presentation how your