that i have had to deal with, and in order to start my little push cart and so i think that it is unfair and i also submitted to you that i am a queen of my industry. and that we were here trying to assist the young women and girls from being brutalized in the area and get the business through... >> thank you. >> we can hear from the department now. >> the department want to reemphasize that the department did receive a request from the merchant association and neighborhoods saying that they were not and they do notify miss lewis to be operation.

and based upon that, we did hold a public hearing informing mr. lewis of the action and of the allegation and asked her to provide the documentation that she was in operation and she was unable to provide such documentation in a director's hearing and based upon that, the department chose to deny her renewal and she appealed to this board initially, and and during the hearing. and that it was stated. and what we are looking for is that a proof that she was in operation during that time frame. >> the board itself provided miss lewis an opportunity to provide that information, which she was unable to provide on the rehearing. she is continued based upon the rehearing and she was able to provide the documentation and she was in compliance of the code which was to go into operation, for at least some

duration. we don't believe that there is a manifest in justice or additional information that is provided from the hearing request, and that it would be in the accepting ai rehearing request, and the same questions that you may have. >> can you remind me of the time period that we are trying to establish the operation. >> and it will provide a stop in november of 2012, i believe and it was during that period that she could have been in operation up to november of 2012 and she was not able to provide any documentation. >> okay. >> any more questions? >> no. >> i believe that i might have misheard the statements tonight and we saw some documentation

on the overhead, have you seen any of those documentation about the rental of the equipment on the dates within that time period. and that was never provided by miss lewis, until this package arrived. >> tonight. >> yes. >> okay. >> and until the written submission is what you are saying? >> that is correct. >> and upon seeing that, what do you think? >> would that have been evidence that you would have put weight into? to determine whether she was in operation? >> this acknowledgment of rental, but, again, i am not, i am uncertain whether that would be deemed as operation in this case. >> so what, full disregard of that information that has been submitted at this point in time? is that how you treat it? >> no, i would suggest that in the p three months that she was in operation there should be at least one or several sales that

could be documented in some way. >> so, the critical missing information is the documentation of sales? >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening commissioners my name is doug las robins and i represent the fisherman wharf community benefit district xtonight miss lewis has the principle of has discussed everything except the issue here tonight, whether there is any new fact or circumstance that would have changed the out come of the two prior hearings. except for her or for arguably a single day in late june or

july 2012, there is virtually zero evidence of her ever operating her food cart. there is no evidence of any operation and no evidence of paying a single dollar in sales tax and no evidence of any operating expenses. and no evidence of employee payments, or a single financial sheet showing profit and losses. tonight, miss lewis presents to you a single uhaul of documents but the question under that document, and whether or why that document was not provided earlier a lack of diligence is not a justification for a rehearing, and if she had rented a uhaul it does not prove that she used it for any operation in leavenworth and does not prove that she operated in san francisco and or what she did with that truck at all. >> more over the testimony on

this is radically inconsistent and she admitted that she did not operate at all, she said to the dpw, and not only that, i did not actually sell coffee, which i didn't have to, okay? i was there, representing my business. and i didn't see anywhere, where i had to sell something because i didn't. and then, before this board, on the october hearing, counsel wrote in a brief that it was operating for 3 continuous months. this is what they argued to you. they said, she began her daily operations at some point in august of 2012 and continued operations until october of 2012. but, when miss lewis came before this board in october of 23, 2013 they had the following exchange with president hwang, the president said, what were the dates of your operation? were there concern periods? miss lewis says just in july. >> the president say, just one

month? >> and miss lewis says, juflt one month. after i got it approved. >> and then, in the subsequent hearing, i am sorry that was the september 11th. >> i was not here. >> and then in the october hearing, miss lewis shifted the position yet again and now saying that she operated for 6 straight months. miss lewis said the dates that i was operating was after i received the permits. >> excuse me, please. >> this is his time. >> go ahead, please? >> you have a few more. >> okay, this is recorded on the video time on the board of appeals website and you can look yourself. this quote is found at time code, 25:55 to 14. >> and where she says that the dates that i was operating is the days that i received the permit and what time period was that. >> and that was july.

and commissioner fung says july. and she says, and june, 2012, june and july all the way up to about november when it started to rain and things like that. >> okay. now your time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, then commissioners the matter is before you. >> there is somebody. >> i am sorry. >> did not see you there. >> hi, my name is dianne carpio and i have actually seen this on sfgov tv, and it is kind of like a soap opera. but it begs, it actually further makes the point that you know, dpw did not get any, you know, the penalizing her for not submitting a sales receipt in a cash business and

yet, company, big companies are getting away without submitting anything. and so, it is interesting to me, and concerning that it can sway and it is up to the discretion of the dpw on ho how and what they collect and you know the testimony, at any hearing, and so it is not specific dates, she is an individual starting a food truck. i mean, for the love of monkeys. you know? and she is trying to do her due diligence and she is getting hit with lawsuits and you know, essentially attacked. and so, give me some weight as well as we are not attorneys, by trade, we are, you know, trying to do the right thing, she got her permits she has paid the fees, she is rented stuff and you know, it is a profit, statement, is not going to happen. it is going to be a loss statement, you know?

and this is, and it needs, some sort of i don't know, i don't envy you, you have a hard job and thank you for your time. >> any other public comment on this item? >> okay, commissioners the matter is now submitted. >> comments? >> okay. >> we know that the information, and there was new information and however it is dated 2011. and the other new information and they had no date. and so the issue is still one of trying to ascertain exactly what occurred and i see no new information that would change my opinion from previously. >> okay. >> any further comments? >> no. >> we will entertain a motion? >> move to not accept the

rehearing request. >> okay, thank you. >> on that motion, from commissioner fung to deny this rehearing request. president hwang. >> aye. >> hurtado. >> aye. >> lazarus. >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> and thank you. the vote is 5-0, this rehearing request is denied. and a notice of decision and order shall be released. >> okay. thank you. >> item 4 b is next, this is another rehearing request.subject property at 100 garces drive and 417-435 gonzalez drive. letter from julian lagos, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal nos. 13-107/120, lagos vs. dpw bsm, decided october 23, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-1-1 (commissioner hurtado dissented, president hwang absent) to uphold both temporary occupancy permits on the basis they are code compliant, and with a recommendation that dpw reinstate the execution period for the permits. permit holder: arborwell inc. project, 1st permit: crane, truck and tree chipper on south side of garces drive between grijalva drive and gonzales

drive; permit no. 13toc-2034. project, 2nd permit: closure of right lane and sidewalk on north side of brotherhood lane; will have tree trucks, chipper and equipment occupying this lane; from 9/10/13 to 9/20/13; permit no. 13toc-2237 >> we will have 6 minutes for mr. lagos. >> and i want to state for the record that i was absent and i reviewed the material and read the materials. >> thank you, president hwang. >> good evening commissioners i am lagos with the safe commission of lake merced and one of the focuses as a community group to bring various injustices that we find in our community to the attention of government bodies like yourselves. and that is why we are here tonight and we were here on

october 23rd, to bring to light, hopefully the fact that there was an injustice made in terms of a permit being issued to arborwell. and the issues regarding the safety. and other work and we, and this board, denied our appeal at that time and we would like to request a rehearing because we believe that there were misstatements made by the respondents that we believe had been more straight forward, with the facts, regarding this appeal, they might have been a different out come. and that is why we are here tonight. and so, i like to bring to your attention, the fact that we believe that it was manifest injustice in this particular appeal by the very fact that we have two individuals from the

respondents side who made the misleading statements about the permits that they claimed were issued. and the particular address. and also, the fact that they claimed that signs were being posted when they do not, provide any evidence to this body. and that, the signs were posted or that they were torn down and we believe that it is the due process to the residents of park merced and the residents have the right to be notified in a timely manner. and when there will be tree removal work and they were denied that. we believe that is denial of due process. and one of the keys issue and points of this particular rehearing request is a misleading statement made by mr. qwang and he claimed that there, and there were permits issued for a block on 417

gonzalez drive and i am going to put the map up here so that you can take a look at that. >> okay commissioners this is where the permits were supposedly issued for. and but the work was done on brotherhood way which was about 200 yards away. so, mr. qwang and mr. ruber cannot explain why they were issued for 417 gonzales drive which were over here and there were no signs posted and nobody recalls seeing the signs torn down. yet, the work was done about 150 yards away on brotherhood way and a number of trees were lost and we lost a number of

significant trees during a two-week period until we had to go and i am going to go to this e-mail here. and we had to go through norman yee's office. who is or district 7 supervisor and we had, and i don't know if you can see this here. we had to go through supervisor norman yee's office how in order to get the information on the permits because mr. john qwang from dpw would not give us that information. and we had, we were stalled for two weeks before we could get permit information and we believe that is manifest injustice. and we believe that we were denied due process to contest the work that we had already started. we had started work for two weeks, that we did not get a chance to contest these permits until september 9th, i believe. and so, also, i want to bring

to your attention, the fact that there is late information given to me by the director of this board and saying that the issue of a mta special closure permit for brotherhood way for this work could have been conceived by this board. and it was not and we would respectfully request that if there is any grounds for a rehearing it would be the fact that there is new information, and that, that special lane closure, permit, from mta, we believe is important because it involves safety for the public. and we believe that mta may have higher standards for when the simple permits which should have been considered that night in october when we originally brought this appeal to this body. so i want to thank you. and i hope that you consider rehearing, of this request.

and i will leave it at that. thank you. >> mr. lagos. at the previous hearing, you show pictures of the chipper, and the flag man, and those pictures were on gonzales or... >> well we show the pictures along garsis and brotherhood way, and i don't recall ever seeing the flag man, there was no flag man. >> in your testimony today you are indicating that the work was actually done on brotherhood way. >> and they got a head start. >> and they got a head start on august 28th. and a week and when we knew that they were doing work on brotherhood way and we could not track down the permits until two weeks later. and we had to go through norman ye's office in order to get the permit information because bsm

was stone walling us and i have two people here from the community who will testify to that. >> and we were stone walled for two weeks. and i believe that it was a reason why we were stone walled. it is called the denial of due process. >> okay. no. i actually have a request since you have raised the issue of our board's communication to you with respect to the special lane closure. >> yes. >> has it been explained to you that you could have fought to appeal that? >> yes. to... >> yes and, you fought not to. >> at this time. >> and why is that? >> what i at this time? >> because..., >> another time? >> i believe that this is something that should come up during the rehearing request. >> why? >> because, it was brought up

during the october 23rd hearing. and it was sort of glossed over. and it was. >> and you are concerned and do you have a concern with that particular special lane closure? >> yes, because it was a higher standard that is attached to mta permits. and... >> and you are not taking a jurisdiction request and you are not requesting a late filing on it? >> not at this time, no. >> and do you have any concern of the merits of that? >> i could not answer your question. >> do you know what i am asking sf >> question. >> if you don't have any problem with the merits that is what it sounds like to me if you are not bringing a request. >> at this time, no, yes. >> and solely for the purposes of the rehearing request, and you are bringing that argument forward. >> yes, because this issue came up. >> and it is hard for me to understand the logic, so...

i am trying to get that out of you. >> and yeah. i am still not understanding it if you could help me that would be great. >> i think that i have answered. >> okay. >> if you could clarify, this is the opportunity, and if you don't have anything. >> we believe that the jurisdictional issue should be considered tonight. >> the jurisdictional issue. >> no. i am not. i am asking why you didn't request an appeal for the special lane closure? >> well, we did not request the appeal of the special lane closure because we were told by miss golsty and by the clerk here that they could not be appealed. >> i think that i have already answered that. >> why are you raising that right now today as part of a rehearing request. >> i am missing your argument. >> my argument is miss president that it was raised shorter, and haphazardly. >> how are you harmed?

>> how about that? >> we are harmed because we believe that the mta permit has a higher standard. >> but you are not taking or requesting a jurisdiction request on that? >> no. not athis time. >> you are harmed in what way with respect to this? >> well, if these folks are allowed to proceed with the work along brotherhood way, we would hope that they would hold to a higher level of safety. >> okay. >> and that we don't believe that they are really committed to that from what we have observed in our community. >> i heard those arguments i am just trying to understand why the special lane closure permit itself is problematic for purposes of the rehearing request. >> okay. >> to the procedural issues for the board. >> no, it is not for the board issue i am trying to understand the merits of the argument for

today. >> if you are finished that is fine. >> i think that you have questioneder. answered. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> is the permit holder here? >> hello, i am with arbor well and i am the permit holder. and i am just here to request that i be allowed to fulfill the useful permit and fulfill the work. and i have nothing else to say other than what i said last time. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners public works again. and i both reviewed the brief from the appellant and his statement currently, and not to

say that there are misstatements by the appellant and the permit to the arbor well. and on september 6, 2013, and the occupantcy permit, the allegation that we were stone wall and did not provide him information and he was able to appeal the permit on september 9th. and with a start date by all of the september 10, it does not appear that there was attempt to stone wall in this case or that we received a request from the appellant and we provided him with the copies of the information. and if i may, provide the overhead for me? >> and zoom a little bit to see the whole entire permit? >> as you can see, the appellant requested a location

of 41704, gonzalez however, the permit itself, clearly states that the closure was on brotherhood way, this information was provided to the appellant specifically. the information again was for the work from 9-10 to 9-20, six clock in the morning and 6:00 in the afternoon. the suggestion that brotherhood way was 150 yards away is correct, however you have to remember that lot fronts both gon sal les and the unimproved portion of the brotherhood way in this case and that is one of the reasons why when we have entered this information it need to be on the appropriate address and that

>> there was no brief and there was no yelp and it has 7 reviews and one and a half stars for arbor well. and i am curious what the basis for this permit is. if they are claiming that they are the trees that are not significant or part of an eir or a science report. and so you can say a google map of the vidal and garsis and

this is where the trees were taken off and where the trees were taken down and these go to the safety concerns and these were two-man crew and nobody is flagging and this is low impact and this is off, brotherhood way, and this is what, the permit presumably was for, i don't know, there was nothing posted, anywhere in the park merced. and warner says that he is an account manager for the company, and here he is vp business development for the entire san francisco area. this is a hayward company. and i would like to know where the san francisco office is. >> these are all flagging and are all pedestrians and not to be confused with the flaggers and the