>> thsi iis is the property and the existing debt and drilling. -- deck and railing. commissioner fung: is this the top of the pair pat? >> this is the top of the curve of the roof structure. there will be a railing 3 feet higher. >> for every dimension of that? , at every point is the same elevation or is this a sloped piece of property? >> i would like to defer that to the property owner. it appeared to be level. the property is down sloping from the street which explains why there is a crawlspace

beneath. >> i am trying to get an understanding, if there was a misunderstanding how that took place. >> the dec is level. from side to side. the elevation of the deck and the main floor is by the garage door. and in the front of the property to the base of the property. it drops 14 feet. if you go the distance, it is 18 feet, 8 inches above grade. >> at the lowest or the highest point? >> at the highest point. the entire deck is 18 feet 8 inches above grade. >> do you have insight into how the misunderstanding might have taken place? >> when we had the conversation, there was an

existing home on the property while we were having a discussion that was not demolished. it was difficult to see the slope and difficult to see how the home would be framed out. we did frame out the main building but not the deck portion. we were in flux with the planning department on the with of the deck. it was difficult to set the elevation points. we did not have the sightline from the front to the back of the property. commissioner fung: it did make sense. thank you. >> enter department -- interdepartmental comment. >> i have a few comments and

that was subject to discretionary review. there was a notice, no neighbor views were filed. there was a hearing and the requestor did submit a letter in support of the project and this -- no complaints have been filed with the building department related to the construction of the building. the most recent visit was regarding framing and that was in the middle of december. it is our understanding of the project does comply. i am available for any other questions. >> i have a question about the poles. what do you think of a project's sponsor putting up story polls that do not represent the code -- spoke -- scope of the

project. it is difficult for some of us to read plans, to rely on story polls as representative of what they might expect to see. >> it is not a requirement of the planning department nor is it enforced by the planning department's. we do not verify. we rely on plans, the accurate record of what the project will be. based on the testimony the jurisdiction requestor did have an architect. we have provided them plans of the project. what? the department does not get involved? >> no. >> thank you.

president goh: is there any public comment? >> what was the variants log? >> it was different set back variant. president goh: is there any public comment? seeing none of the matter is submitted. >> this is unfortunate. we do not have any evidence there was any intention on the project sponsor to deceive their neighbor. i do not think that was the case. i mean this respectfully. it is our responsibility when a project is taking place that we think may affect our lives to go out and try to determine on our own with those dimensions will be and how it is going to look.

we might want someone to look at it and sign off and say this is what iit is going to be like. i am sorry but nothing has been presented to us that should cause us to grant jurisdiction. >> i feel likewise sympathetic to the requestor. likewise disinclined to grant the request. >> if you look at the photos, it would have been hard to imagine from the story polls the deck on that roof would have been lower than the appellant's deck or the jurisdiction requestor's deck. for whatever reason, the

miscommunication occurred, it is unfortunate. but the time gap also is not convincing to me to take away the rights of the permit holder. i would suggest they turned to discussions on creating a screen and perhaps that would minimize some of the potential noise or light interactions between the parties. >> i agree. is there moshin, commissioners? >> i would move to deny. >> is that on the basis that there was no error on the part of the city? >> thank you. >> if you could call the roll? >> we have a motion from the vice-president to deny jurisdiction. and the bases there was no error

on the part of the city. commissioner fung, at ghaniaye. commissioner hwang, aye. commissioner go. president goh: welcome back. we are calling items 6a-6i. the appellant is sheila murphy. dba is trabacco ristorante.

and 107 is john isaacs, dba as ziggy's burgers. 109 is dba portico restaurant. 112 is carlos aguilar. these are -- the addresses are, protesting the issuance

granted. the permit number is -- all nine matters were heard and are on for further continuation. the permit holder was to seek certificate of sanitation for the second street vacation. i am going to give the parties a chance to speak of the wish on that item in particular. starting with the permit holder. two minutes each. the subject is limited to the introduction of new evidence with respect to the certificate of sanitation. >> i did review the issue and read the recorded transcript.

i am prepared to listen to today and rule. >> good evening. i submitted a bathroom form. with bk industries. i submitted the bathroom form for this location. i wanted to say that we did not intentionally withholding. it was not my intention to waste your time by having you have to postpone until now. we thought there were separate so we knew we had to obtain the bathroom forms before we would operate. we thought this is a dpw. we wanted to make that clear. >> i know the date of the

signature was december 29. this was not even executed as of the day of the hearing. >> that is true. we're here today because we could not uphold the location because we have not submitted a bathroom form to you. we're supposed to submit it to the health department. we thought there were separate. >> do you have the form you submitted prior to the hearing? >> we did not submit one. we thought it was separate. a separate process that we had to do before we served but not relative to the dpw permit. >> there has been some confusion about the process for when the permit is issued and when the subsequent verifications are submitted by the permit holders. it is understandable there might be confusion about when this document was required.

>> thank you. >> i had one question after listening to your representative and one of the statements made, you stated they were at the table. were they there for purposes of supporting the legislation or at the table for supporting this permit? >> what he meant is they were at the table when the legislation was crafted. >> do you know the position of the organization on your permit? >> on our specific permit? they were here the other night so they would -- >> as golden gate restaurant association? >> i think he was.

maybe he was not. >> i do not believe so. >> there are members from the appellants that are members of the association. as a group, if they came out in favor or against. we're trying to clarify some of the more ambiguous aspects of the legislation. >> i am talking about your permit. >> i do not know he has an opinion. >> my understanding was that golden gate restaurant association was at the table when the legislation was proposed and were not opposed to it. the individual who represented golden gate rep -- restaurant association is no longer with them and now robert black is there and in some cases they might have had a difference of opinion about some issues having to do with food facilities.

>> we will hear from the department. >> good evening. as noted by the applicant, the department received the bathroom information and we forded that two members of the board for review. this would satisfy the department said tension -- sanitation requirements. there is some confusion even within the department of the timing, as it relates to the timing for this board to heal any -- hear any appeals specifically. there appears to be some confusion.

we have since remedy that situation. i am here to answer additional questions you may have. >> does this location have the same problem as the other, withdrawn permits having to do with parking issues? >> currently, there is a working group being established from supervisor wiener's office. >> that would be in the future. i was wondering if right now it will be in violation. >> there has been no objections or comments related to the parking issue. i stated previously by the department, the permitees will follow all regulations and specifically parking in traffic. it might be a window that we allowed the operate -- applicant to operate.

>> as far as you know, there is not that issue in this one, or there may be but mta's position is the same? >> currently we do not have any information that this parking is an issue specifically. mta stated again and again they will enforce all parking regulations. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the appellants in order if they so choose. starting with the appellant for appeal no. 103. 104. 105. 106 -- 106. >> hello, i am here on behalf of 106 and 109.

i wanted to make sure we were clarified. also to thank you. i will not be here next week and i am in all of the people and amount of attention you are able to give. i have always appreciate your attention. >> thank you. is there anyone who would like to speak for appeal 1 07? 11111 or 11112? the matter is submitted. president goh: is there an moshin?

>> i have a comment. the reason i asked about the park at -- parking, although it would not have swayed me, there is no opposition. with no opposition i would leave it to mta and to the permit holder in this case to work that out and for his sake, i hope this works out smoothly. and he has a very successful operation at 651 second street. i would move that we approve that location. >> i echoed that address. 625. >> since i spent time reviewing the tapes and mynas will say something. i am a proponent of global food facilities. i appreciated the comments of the permit holder and rep and i

thought they were compelling. i also found for the particular permits that were in my absence , i thought the people who came to testify, they had significant issues and i appreciated that everyone was able to articulate them. this is -- presents an interesting development in our city. i am very hopeful that the project or whatever we can call it, these food facilities get a chance to see if they can actually do something for our city. i'm not inclined to deny -- uphold -- i am not inclined to grant the appeal. there is no objection to that.

>> to uphold this permit on condition that the location at 50 california and 61 beale be struck from the permit. >> is it uphold the permit? >> grant the appeal. granting the appeal and conditioning the permit. modifying it. >> would you like to state basis for the modification for striking those locations? based on like food provisions? >> if i could refer to testimony and evidence that was given to us at the last hearing having to do with issues in

particular for me and others might have different feelings, issues having to do with the fact that a permit was granted by dpw that would put the operator in violation of parking laws is why i was opposed. we're looking for something else? >> -- were you looking for something else? >> the reasons for striking 50 california. >> i was not aware we had overturned. if you want me to get into that, my feeling is the legislation as written and the findings as presented referred to things having to do with revitalization of the streetscape. it seemed to be unnecessary for

that part of town. even though not strong evidence was given that a food truck or mobile food facility, because it would have lower operating costs, it would put the other operations, the brick and mortar operations at an unfair disadvantage. those were my considerations. do you want me to phrase that more tersely? >> i can give it a try. on the basis of -- the last thing you spoke on. insufficient evidence that the lower overhead of the food trucks would give them on -- an unfair competitive advantage. >> there was insufficient evidence 9. >> that it might give them, yes. >> right.

>> it also did not -- the findings went to the fact that in revitalizing the streetscape by having mobile food facilities, it would then improve the overall business in san francisco. and i find that troubling. i do not know if we had any evidence that was necessarily in that particular part of town or that they would necessarily do that. and not to be critical of dpw. i found the hearing, the minutes from the hearing, the representation of what went on at the hearing lacking. >> the mobile food trucks would vitalize those areas.

does that work? >> perhaps the more general finding that these locations is not in the best interest of the community. article 26, discretionary. >> i would get behind that. i am not certain i would get behind the more detailed recitation of reasons. we did hear a lot of evidence. >> we were responding to the criteria upon which the permit was issued. the issues upon which the department looked at in terms of clearances around in terms of walking. >> i am comfortable with the more general statement as articulated by our city attorney.

that would not be in the best interest of the community. >> absolutely. i like that better than what i felt was the recitation of reasons for my opposition. >> the motion is from the vice- president to grant this appeal of holding, modifying this permit on condition the location at 50 california and 61 bill -- beale be struck that food trucks are not in the best interest of the community. commissioner fong, aye. commissioner hwang, aye. this is upheld. thank you.

president goh: we will move on to item seven. protesting the issuance on october 282011 to the viet duong company, ltd. mobile food facility permit. we will start with the appellant. is the palin here? yes. thank you. you have seven minutes. to present your case. >> i am the vice-president of

general manager, located at the corner of bush and samson. i am here, i work for the agent representing, the owner of the building. located out of frankfurt, germany. i am here today to protest the issuance of the permits to the company. at one bush. despite the fact that this is not our building where the permit is being issued, this is the reason i brought this poteau. to show you -- it is hard to see because it is small. this corner right here is the corner where the permit has been

here. president goh: a wonder if you could slide the picture over because you are off the screen. >> the other building is -- that is where it will be located? >> i believe so. we have two mobile food trucks. permits have been issued for our building. the other is right here. we speak from our concern we have. we speak from firsthand experience at the adverse effects we feel the mobile food trucks create in this corridor. we have concerns about our building. we have to trucks there currently. this permits have already been issued but