this is not true, it is a zero sum game. i would move that we uphold the sperm that under the condition that it be continued to such a time that the applicant can be in full compliance with the permit. is that the language he would have me use? >> i think it would be a good motion, but i think he would not be able to act on that at this time, you would have to continue it. commissioner garcia: all right.

>> to be clear, you of the permit holder to obtain a certificate of sanitation for the second street location. but the intent of the board is to overturn the other two locations. ok, do you want to specify a date? commissioner garcia: miss paul, it would be your client -- how much time do you need to get that certificate? it will be up and down the issue. >> i might recommend on if it would comment for him to reissue the other permits for the third location. it might save time and effort. >> of the half year of prohibition? >> said the board has adopted findings do not have that applied.

>> one permit can be at multiple locations. as they are suggesting here, there might be four or five locations where to our objectives are appeal. and the other two are not. we issue a new permit, i assume this is denied. the notification requirement will be considering a new permit, or are we just modifying the permanent and the specific case? third, one applicant is allowing a maximum of seven permits. there become the issues where the of the applicant is asking

for several different locations in several different permits. there are nuances as this legislation is established that will create challenges in the interpretation and execution as we move forward. commissioner fung: given the indication that this board has made what they would like to see happen, what with the department recommend as a process? >> if the action of this board is to suggest -- the department can either revoke the sperm that, making the understanding that it is still the best and

permit. they will issue is as is, they will provide us with -- commissioner garcia: we can continue it and you can work it out. in whatever way must the benefits of the appellant and serves the purposes of this board. is that possible to have that in the future? >> i think you need to decide tonight if you want to continue its and allow them the opportunity. maybe you can ask what their preference is. >> their preferences other than getting all three locations -- q. can't separate it, right? we live like to proceed, i guess, with giving you the

reforms the need for 625 second and doing that as soon as we can. mechanically, i've got some of the best way to make that work. the preference would be to drop the spot in contention and be able to keep the one that had no opposition. >> if the board were to continue this to allow them to submit the needed paperwork, you would not be able to hear this before january 11. the calendar is very full, but that would be the earliest. i dunno if that is enough time for you to get the letters that you need. commissioner fung: why couldn't we condition in? we have conditioned things on the future receipts of some material. >> of the ordinance makes it a

precondition for the permit, a sense the board is going to issue the permit, approved the issuance, all three conditions should be met before it is issued? >> but in your own language, you say that we are sitting in in this case, for the department of public works. their own practices are to allow 90 days or some stated time for them to obtain that. >> the 90-day time is within the legislation. upon the approval of the director of public works, the applicant has 90 days and if they fail within the 90 days, the permit is disapproved. >> it is only once they have

obtained that that the issue of pulled the permit. >> we have to notify people. >> it seems like the board could continue this to allow them to get the needed a bathroom for the second street and that the permit holder indicated that he preferred rather than having to start with a new permit. >> i think that makes sense. commissioner garcia: it seems as though that we should be able to condition it, but i am not an argument of mood. >> i'm sorry, but this is a new process for everyone. since you don't want to go down the path that would make it more cumbersome for you in the future, i believe this board

has the authority, because the dtw director has the authority to modify the permits. by modifying the permits, you can improve the of the location and make conditions for it. and you cannot deny the other permits. i believe this is possible. if you need more time how to work this out, maybe continuing in the week to allow the city attorney and everybody to discuss if will be beneficial or you will create a precedent for a procedure that will be extremely cumbersome and the future with every one of these permits having five, six, seven locations. you have got to be thinking about this for the future. i think the way the ordinance is written, the dp debbie director has the authority to modify these permits and to modify them and relocating them to

other locations, this board has the similar authority. that is my opinion. the city attorney may need more time to look at it for what the appropriate measure might be. commissioner funggarcia: i'm thinking this probably shouldn't even have come before us because we can't uphold o'hare -- a permit that is not in full compliance. i would agree with the city attorney and the madden director the at present, the best way to proceed will be to continue this to allow them time to obtain in the necessary bathroom authorization, and hopefully it means they come before us on the 11. can we do it by consent?

gosh i don't believe he would need to have a hearing. commissioner garcihwang might h questions, but you can move right back to deliberations. >> we need to submit the paperwork associated with the rest room. >> continue to the eleventh and given three pages and five minutes or something? >> ended in the pages? >> just the one document. commissioner garcia: to the permit holder, if you can't get it by the eleventh, he just has to notify the office and they can put it to another day. >> that sounds right to me, too. the motion is to continue the matter to january 11, 2012 to allow the permit older time to

obtain a certificate of sanitation for the second street location with the understanding that the other locations are to be struck. >> hugo allow the permit holder to alter to withdraw those locations, it might simplify the matter. and we come back with a bathroom for a mock, a restaurant forum for the second street location. >> he will land at the same place anyway. president goh: given that the permit is under suspension, there is no action does allow that the department a level at this time. i think we are ready for the rule now. >> the motion is to continue to

january 11. on that motion to continue. commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner hwang is absent. president goh: aye. >> the vote is 3-0. president goh: we need a break. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> welcome back to the december 14 meeting, i am ready to call item 7a- 7d.

through 7d. the appellants are -- [reading names] this is the protest of the mobile food facility permit. president goh, i believe the permit holders agent would like to address the board. >> thank you. on behalf of the permit holder of these locations, i have been

speaking with the appellants and would like to ask that this board, without a public hearing, save us the time and difficulty of that, to proceed to disapprove hora pulled this permit, disapproving the two locations at beal and california street and to uphold the other locations of the permit. commissioner garcia: mi ssission and washington? >> i have spoken to the appellants and they agree with that. >> should we ask for the appellants to address the board as well?

we'll do that, starting with the appellant. this is in specific reference to the proposal, 97 minutes of testimony. -- not the 7 minutes of testimony. >> and karen smith, i understand the question is if i would like the permit application to remove or withdraw the location at high street -- at california street. they are withdrawing those

locations. >> are you in support of the proposal that the permit be upheld with those two locations being stricken? gosh yes. >> and the other addresses will go forward. nearly 2600 mission -- there is no appeal there. the only appeals are for these two addresses. >> is one permit, the entire permanent was appealed. >> of the way the ordinance was written, one permit can be -- one applicant can file for a permanent has multiple address locations. in this case, there are two addresses under this one permit that is being withdrawn and i agree with that. >> of the appellant for a p.o.

#11-114. would you step forward? speaking to the microphone. >> my name is john glenn robinson, and i agree to drop this location. i am for that. >> i agree to drop these locations. but just to be clear, the 535 washington street location is also out in the financial district. how is that also on the docket? >> yes. >> by train to take off the to, we are allowing him to have a permit at 535 washington? >> correct. >> i don't agree with anything in the financial district.

commissioner garcia: then we will have to hear the case. what do we do have about the fact that there is no appeal, there is no papers with the address? >> is available for the board as far as testimony arguments and the permit itself. if anyone wants to raise it as part of their testimony, they can do so. >> when he is through conferring with his client, is it safe to assume that you have a valid bathroom permit for this location? for all these locations that are still under consideration? arguments are going to go to washington and division.

>> the other three locations that we have are all approved, they have a bathroom permits. the washington street received neither any contestations during the initial public hearing nor any appeals. it is outside the jurisdiction of bestsellers application to appeal as the property owner because under washington is far outside of that. in terms of notification, excuse me, it is far exceeding the 300 feet notification. >> i think we should proceed the hearing, i don't think we need to hear from the other appellants unless you care to. >> i don't think there is any

reason to. it seems likely to proceed to have a full hearing because one of the appellants who is objecting to the proposal submitted by the permit holder. >> to and accept the proposal as to the location of 101 california st., we are prepared to accept that and not so this room with any more rhetoric. >> we can address in just the one appellants concerns in here one of the appeals, but it is one permit with multiple appeals of the board can only act once. >> if we agree to his proposal, can i send my people home? >> that is your call, because what the board will do if they have a hearing will affect the

permit for everyone. >> if we are just going to hear the concerns of the appellant that is not willing to agree, i should probably hear from the appellant for a 11-117. to see if you are in agreement or not with the proposals. >> i don't quite follow that, because it is moot. they are all connected, it is one appeal and all of these addresses are connected. whether any individual appellant agrees with the proposal to settle, we have to hear this case. >> and was stipulated by this gentleman that they don't have a dog in the fight anymore, when

they are called, they just say no comment. it just gets down to the issue of washington and the mission and we will hear from whoever has objection to washington. >> we are in agreement with the proposal that has been stipulated that the 101 california st. location and the deal st. location will be withdrawn and there'll be no applications for those, then the remaining locations are ok. >> there are five locations. i think we are having a hearing. >> my suggestion would be, as

the vice-president mentioned, we will call the appellants from all of these appeals and they may choose not to testify given the stipulation. >> the thing that is right, but the permit holder might not feel like withdrawing 101 california at 25 via live we are going to have a whole hearing. >> with some frustration, i would say that we would not. it would require us to either go through the public hearing --

and i suggest we continue the matter for us to present those forms and we proceed to seek our permits if that is what the appellants would prefer to see happening. president goh: i tend to agree that if we need to continue. commissioner garcia: we might have a change of heart. >> i feel at this time, that you know, we are obviously upset about the other two locations that are right in front of us within 100 feet. i am glad he is pulling it and he doesn't have a bathroom at

this point. if we go ahead with this other location, it is one of the locations we were looking at for expansion. i don't know what to do at this point. i don't want it to affect my current business or future business. president goh: when an appellant has concerns, it is important to have a hearing. >> and the first question, do they even have bathrooms? commissioner garcia: you are not able to address them, you addressed the board.

president goh: let us have a conversation about what to do about the bathroom certificates. >> commissioners, it seems another continuance might be in order. commissioner garciafung: it's nn order if the permit holder submits he will waive on that particular item. >> the certificate that he has a restroom. commissioner garcia: i am not sure where you're trying to go, but we should not have to hear testimony unless miss paul would continue to pursue 101 california and beal. i don't see the value of that. also, if this individual,

forgive me for not knowing your name, deborah sellers -- miss sellers, if she was not properly mpynoticed, then i think we shod go ahead and i think you should be asking for a continuance. you might not have -- >> if i may, there is a bit of the clarification issue. anti-washington location, she was not within the 300 foot radius for notification. it is 1 per met with several addresses and the permit is in front of us. we have jurisdiction and we may intend to keep jurisdiction. it is causing me to think that

we should keep jurisdiction, commissioners. commissioner garcia: i agree with that, i am just wondering if we are better serving everyone involved if we were to continue the matter totally. i don't really know how i feel. >> we could certainly do it and the best case, we would end up where we were in the last case to have in front of us, the health department and restroom facilities certification query -- and certification. for a couple of weeks, it will perhaps agree on carving up california -- out california. president goh: i don't know, but it's an idea. >> and the appellants that are

only concerned about those locations would be free to withdraw their appeals. commissioner fung: commissioners, we have a process and we have an appeal. a one issue that i was trying to give -- and to get at, all of the forms are submitted. it is not fair to provide an in