fact that she was looking into opening some other operations and they did not know what to charge. their three methods of -- there are three methods of appraising what a building is worth. the easy one is comparing. if you're building burns down, you have to rebuild it and appraise it. the third issue has to do with what is addressed. what is the building going to generate in terms of revenue? that gives it a value. that gives you an opportunity to make decisions. the way that this is operating, this being -- what is this called? 5.8 or whatever this legislation is, it seems like it is a rush to judgment. i appreciate someone coming here from small-business association to present a point of view.

maybe it was not valid, because there is a second point of view of the people who are the appellants. when someone says there are lots of problems with it so we are going to form a task force to solve some of these problems, but in the meantime, hang on. let this go through. six months from now, we can decide if it was bad legislation or if these spots were bad and we will overturn it. we've heard people talk about the fact some of these people who operate these restaurants that may or may not be affected by the operations of the truck, they will be marginal. six months from now, they might be out of business. it seems to me that we, even though we know it, we want information, more testimony going to economic impact, negative or positive, should have been presented to us.

commissioner fong refer to the findings. -- commissioner fung referred to the findings. it seems as though, at the basis of it, it is an economic issue. the findings read that, in this particular case, the idea is to encourage the use and vitality of the san francisco neighborhoods. the next sentence reads the vitality by scree -- bite streetscapes directly benefits the commercial and dressed in san francisco. you could make an argument that this will not really hurt a restaurant. someone would be willing to entertain that and you can amass statistics to prove -- amassed statistics to prove that.

no one could argue that this does not have the potential to do harm to these restaurants that already exist. i still feel, in spite of what someone said someonei2b 1 and 3, maybe that was not the legislative intent to make a distinction between like food and like presentation for it is seems that when legislation is overly interoperable, it is bad legislation. if things should be clearly laid out. i would want to hear that interpretation. at any rate, in spite of all the comments made about the economic things, i think this thing is problematic. the fact remains that we cannot upfolded today because of the lack of bathroom authorization. beyond that, my intention is to

not support this permit and to recommend -- and to overturn this permit. president goh: i think the trucks are a really great idea. i am with the board of supervisors on putting this legislation in place. i think it is the wave of the future. it is exciting. it is what young people want. i am not so young -- it is what i want. there is something appealing to it. it is quick. the tech craze, the things mr. paul was speaking about. and yet, in the application here and the way it has come through dpw, i agree with vice president

garcia that we could not approve it tonight. because there must be current compliance and there is not. i think we do not have a choice in that regard. in this particular area, maybe the hearing officer could have looked at mitigation measures around the area being fully by elisa, density considerations, ms. dick asked the question how many is too many? maybe there are too many here. the economy has a lot to do with it. we have heard from one appellant owner that all of the money is made in 1.5 hours. i believe that. it makes sense in this economy. if we were in a fleshy economy, maybe it would be different. maybe there would be enough to

go around. i agree with my fellow commissioners that those issues are worth considering. maybe by ceqa, maybe by the dpw hearing officer. the system is set up so that person has some discretion. i believe that person should exercise that discretion. we are able to review. we are able to do that tonight. i agree with my fellow commissioners. is there a motion? >> may i ask a procedural question? president goh: absolutely. >> there are three sites that are listed with this permit a. two are subject to appeal. one is not. i am curious as to whether this action would affect the third address or if we could proceed

with the third address and have the permits authorized for that. and have the matters authorized -- the matter is subject to appeal authorized for your process. >> you could sever the third location, but you would need to continue it one permit so that they could provide you with certification. in order to uphold that location. vice president garcia: is that 65 second street? >> that is correct. vice president garcia: if we could sever that so they can proceed with that and provide the rest room for. beale and california will be subject to this process. >> there is no way to celebrate it -- there is no way to sever it in that way. the board would have to uphold the permit on

>> and that would be the mechanism for which that they could do that. >> it would be the problem of of the board in their ruling to do that. there has been no opposition or challenge to second street other than the hearing stage or at present. >> really don't even have a motion on the table yet. >> i am not trying to rub salt in the wounds, i am trying to offer some sympathy to what seemed like a very nice people. they were very thoughtful and i am hoping they you can get additional spots. it looks like the vote here is to overturn. additional fees because of relocation, i will lead the department, i know it is minor,

to overturn that. someone spoke in public comment about an issue that has resonated with me. 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.

director: this is the board of appeals meeting. are you up to addressing that issue? >> yes, i just want to say two things. the first and i want to say is that i am giving up future locations in the city of san francisco because of this, and i think the city is going to work because of that. i get it, but i have to protect my business today, so i just feel i am put in the middle to make, and it is not really a fair process would have all of this is working now, fell at this point in time, i guess we would just have to look outside the city for sure for until this

gets worked out. these are the kinds of things that are going on. it is really not helping my business, that is for sure, so even though i am agreed to settle, i am not satisfied with that whatsoever for my future. it certainly will protect my career locations, and i just really do not think this whole process that one permit stress everything in here we are, i just do not know. i just think this whole process needs to be really, really evaluate it. the legislation needs to be taken a look at carefully. president goh: and your bottom line is that you are accepting the settlement proposal? >> yes. president goh: thank you. commissioner rcgarcia: i know it

is of no relief, but maybe you'd be interested in trying to amass some data that would shed greater light on the impact on brick and mortar operations. in a way, it is one to be interesting. -- going to be interesting. i would take issue that there is something wrong with our process. there are five attached to one permit. that is not unusual. it is not usually cumbersome. it is because we have all of these other things to nine associated with these other locations, it the other hearings, it made it cumbersome, but you are not barred for continuing this and having your day in court. it is not this board that a short circuit in europe due process by any means.

-- that is short circuit in -- circuiting your due process by any means. president goh: did he do something? >> perhaps we should let him. but with the tenants we are representing, we accept the settlement -- >> with the tenants we are representing, we accept the settlement, and we will withdraw our people. director: and that is with respect to the appeal of 11-117. i think that the permit holder was looking for the board to actinide and uphold the permit on condition that those two locations are stricken. is that correct?

>> if it is possible to do that what went wrong, -- with the withdrawal, i think that would be better for us working with dpw. director: it is suspended. if you wanted to do that, the board could continue the case to allow them to withdraw their appeals, and in the permit to be modified by dpw, but only when the appeals court lifted. >> just for clarification, it would need to come back to the board? no, it would not proved director: -- it would not? director: no, it would not. >> we can sufficiently do that

with the other parties. commissioner garcia: i am confused as to what you think that is a better process them what was first described by art director. >> with our fees and our potentiality for other locations throughout the city i'm sure that light could be shined on in the future. i do not know if we need to take the time to make sure that is a benefit or not. i just want to get this thing solved so it does not take more of the board's time. commissioner garcia: you could walk out here tonight, so i am confused. >> if that is the case, i am happy with that, sir. director: does the board wished

to hear from the department? i do not know if that is necessary, but i just wanted to -- president goh: are they part of a settlement or not? i guess not. >> commissioners, the department does not have a specific position in this case. you a couple of the decision and require us -- you uphold the decision and require us, there would be a prenotification requirements, which is what is mr. paul is concerned about specifically. commissioner garcia: and i think it is our content to strike the two. director: public comment, is there anyone in the public wishes to speak on this item?

ok, directors, it is yours. president goh: ok, we need a motion, pursuant to the agreements made by the parties. commissioner peterson: a stipulation. president goh: does somebody want to make a motion? commissioner garcia: you just made a motion. president goh: i did not. secretary pacheco: on that motion, [reading roll] thank you. the vote is 3-0. the permit is upheld