by reducing the hours, it doesn't mean that those elements would not be there. >> to the department undertake its own investigation? >> holly did not have that knowledge. >> as to whether there were like foods in the area. or did you rely solely on the police department's recommendation? >> of the department would not be able to take the next logical step in the police department had denied it. if they, on a follow-up had a reduction, we would be able to move on with the investigation. >> department seeds of this jurisdiction entirely? >> in this case, the department does not see a reason, specifically, to overturn or ignore the recommendation from

the san francisco police department. we don't believe it would be appropriate within several types of permits, where they specifically stated that they want the hours restricted. >> i think you have said and i am not following, if the department years from the police department that the police department doesn't recommend granting the permit, the department of public works says that we can take the next step and make our own assessment as to whether it is proper? we don't second-guess the police department. that is what i am hearing you say. is that the way it goes here. >> that will stand to reason because and this specific case, there are reasons that the police department pointed to, and when we follow up the issue

that is a definable, they did not waver from those specific issues that is ongoing for the specific site. >> i understand the basis of the nile relates to like foods. i might be misunderstanding the basis, but that is how i understood it. >> de police department in this specific case had a multiple objections. one is like foods. one is the elements as defined under their notification the was the potential of intoxicating people, violence in the immediate area, fights, noise associated with drunk people to the specific card. drunk people groping together at 3:00 a.m. is a concern. by reducing the time, we went

back again to the police department with this specific issue as it relates to public intoxication, a gathering of people. >> what is in black and white of the december 22, 2011 letter with your signature to the appellant, its eighth specifically the basis as being like food. it's news to me that it relates in any way to disturbances around the car as the basis for the denial. when communicating with the permit applicants, the department needs to be really clear as to the basis of its denial. it clearly isn't under your own

documentation and under your own signature. i did not know that that was served as the basis for denying. this is new information for today. >> what we did do it within the correspondence between the applicant and the police department, the permit officer didn't specifically point out the situation as it relates to like foods. that information was provided to the applicant. >> we will take public comment on this item if there is any? president garcia: you wouldn't happen to be officer mathias, would you? i wish somebody could shed some

light on this. i'm sorry, public comment. please step forward. two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. the executive director of the fisherman's wharf community benefit district. regarding the leavenworth street location, the resident neighbors that are very close by which includes the conrad park area, we have an issue of noise and a safety issue in the evening. they are requesting that this permit not be issued along with the businesses in the area. the marriott courtyard hotel, the waterfront bakery that is on that side of the street which is near the entrance as well, it

also sells like foods, coffee, tea, sweets, pastries. it is just on the adjacent and it is also projecting into this food carts. as mentioned earlier, there are no public rest rooms within 200 feet of the proposed location. the nearby restaurants are only accessible to 10 cents at patrons of businesses. we have challenges related to safety issues, and what we call 10b officers to help us mitigate some of the issues that we're having. >> any other public comment?

the will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> what they are not saying is that the police department received, after i had a hearing with taylor, the police department received several personal letters from business owners in the area telling them to deny my permit even though the permit process had been closed 7-22. in other words, any person that objected to my permit, according to the ordinance, they had to supply that objection so that i can have a hearing in to be able to say my part. in this situation, what happened was, i was told i would be able to get the permit a there were

no objections. all of a sudden, an objection was created and a cop came back and said i was like several places. and then he subsequently sent me the pushcart permit that had no bearing on this process at all. this is the situation for me where it is obvious that somebody had an influence, and rather than dpw taking the hit, they put it on the cops and allowed them to derail my permit. when i said, where is the appeal process and how can this happen three months after a 7-22? basically they had no comment except for pay your fees, we're denying it based on these

businesses that were contacted by the police through their association. that is ultimately how i found out that i wasn't going to be able to move any further. i don't know how you would feel if you were in my shoes, but to me, it was quite a blow. because at no point did anyone tell me that i had the have the permission of the police department. they said i had have permission for my hours, and he noted they are talking about half of july -- in june 20. my notice was not sent out until the twenty second. it was because of the communication within the police department and the adjustment of my hours that ultimately thought there proved. we went forward with the n >

.o.i. >> this is adjustment of 6am to 3am. >> they spoke to me at length about it, and he and i and the police department, my understanding was that that was the compromise. that is why he went forward. i do have the original fact that was sent to me on the twentieth and given to me on the twentieth by dpw. president garcia: the hours you submitted are exactly what? >> 24 hours. president garcia: i thought it had been amended. >> at the very beginning. >> what are the hours that were submitted for this particular permit? it can't be 24 hours if it was changed. >> six to three.

president garcia: those are the last hours we had. thank you. >> [inaudible] president garcia: it might be the other microphone? >> in this specific case, it was very telling. it is starting to make sense. what happened was, the individual that initially started the process left. that was one of those situations where things were less well documented. as were we to investigation and follow-up on this. one of the challenges that we continue to face is that this came at the beginning of the program. it started in march, when the

notice that we sent out was in june of the same year that was almost immediately at the time of the application. we contacted the police department, and they knew specifically what the intent was. the language that was in the new legislation came directly from the police. again, as it relates to ours, there were objections as it relates to the hours of operation. we contacted the police department, the continued to say that it was not appropriate. in the meantime, we did the notificationte that next step, d have resulted in determining the additional appropriateness of this permit. again, this was the beginning of

a new program. over time, we can better understand the process to better the minister is. this was challenging and interesting to begin with. in this specific case, we did try our best to follow the attendance that was established under the law. and of like to apologize to the appellant that if her understanding was not clear from one of our staff in this case. commissioner hwang: would you have any insight as to what hours the police department would have the appropriate -- found appropriate, and their

disapproval would have been put forth? >> i would venture from the morning, and the clock for 9:00 possibly until 5:00 or 6:00. they were specific as it relates to public intoxication. >> if the police department were flying with the hours, would you hold a directors hearing? commissioner hwang: based upon what was received, yes. it would state that the police department determined that the extended hours was appropriate for this location. and there would be a determination, and additional the termination of like foods based on public testimony and the appropriateness. we have situations in residential areas at a late

night operations were permits were denied pacifically because of objections from the neighborhood. >> the police way in, and if the police say no, you denied a permit. in this case, as opposed to the other one, there was no directors hearing? >> correct. >> the matter is submitted. commissioner hwang: this case is actually in my opinion, different than the previus case -- previous case for two reasons. one is -- one of the emails from

staff indicated that there were no complaints. there might have been complaints coming in subsequently verses of the previous case. in this location, there were zero complaints, and if one looks at the language, it is not 100% in the affirmative. there is a slight bit of a difference to its that would have led the appellant to believe she was going to receive for a permit. -- receive her permit. i guess the other issue is the question of liek foods -- like

foods. it was not clearly made that it was the determination, although it was stated that way once. they were prepared to go forth, and so my concern here is a little on the due process side, and in addition, since the police information didn't really come to us, and not prepared to give a lot of weight to that other than the fact will -- the fact was that they did recommend disapproval. i would be interested in

supporting the appellant in this case, but i would wonder whether we can draft a different time period. versus s6:00a.m. to 3:00 a.m. >> i agree a set for the last fang. i think things are out of whack in my humble opinion. i appreciate the comments by the appellant in her opening regarding having new issues thrown at her, even today to have to respond to without an opportunity to consider and absorber, research, and present to us. at every turn here, in this case, where so than the last, there has been a changeup. i think it is patently unfair,

and this appeal should be granted and the permit should be allowed. there is nothing in the record here to indicate that dpw has done its own investigation. with respect to the like food which is the only basis that i could read in the denial, and does nothing showing, in fact, the finding was made that those entities have food similar to what i believe to be a very distinct type of product that this appellant is attempting to sell. >> i would agree that the process is confusing here, and in the letter, there corresponds with the police officer. it was brought up with close

proximity, there is not a lot of detail to support any of that. i am somewhat uncomfortable making a decision either way based on the information we have. i would support a continuance to try to get additional information. i don't know and i can support -- we have to make a decision, but it is confusing at best based on the things we have in front of us. >> based on an issue of due process, i would be inclined to grant the permit, and the think that based on what i have in front of me, my interpretation is that it was denied and based on it being a like food the have expressed my opinion that i did not believe that it was the case

here. and for those reasons, i would not consider the evidence about public safety because i don't find that it was the basis of the denial. i think that is what the appellant was prepared to respond to here. it would be a violation of due process to throw and the kitchen sink at this point. for those reasons, i would vote to grant a permit. >> if i can respond to commissioner hillis's suggestion we continue. i think the burden is on the department had they failed to meet the burden. president garcia: we have seen the the amount of money spent by the -- the appellant, and while it might end up with ms. lewis

having a business there, it is doubtful that she will. to continue its is to have them continue to lose money for the investment they have made so far, and get no return on that money. this was a truncated process, truncated because once the police weighed in, the process that should have taken place did not take place. it is really problematic. what i would want to do is some sort of hybrid whereby she gets to operate their, because there are real concerns. just like down the block, there is a waterfront bakery that can be heard by this. while we are all anxious to do something to help miss lewis because it is a bad situation, we don't want to help her by hurting someone else. also, we have not been presented with in the proper information,

the police might have real safety concerns that are directed to the operator. we don't want to put her in some situation where she would end up being robbed or hurt. what i am very comfortable doing, i am willing to overturn and allow the department to straighten this thing out. i think that's absolutely the issue has to be straightened out as to whether or not she needs a police permit because she is a vendor or because she dpw needs a permit because she is operating at whatever the category is, a mobile food facility. there is also the idea that while it gets straightened out, we have the right to demand and i will certainly -- the police get together and finding a

location for this operation. in the cost of notice of intent that has to take place, and what businesses and a certain radius have to be notified, i would ask -- i have no authority to demand, i would ask him them to resolve those costs. anybody paying attention to this, anybody that sees the materials and has paid attention to this hearing would have to agree that this is been an incredibly confusing issue that has cost to people that are struggling. i'm not trying to create sympathy for the appellant. there is a description of this family of four children, i am assuming the husband and wife, doing without christmas gifts, not buying this and not doing this activity. because all their hopes and

dreams and finances are wrapped up into this process. it falls upon us, this board, to do whatever we can to try to ameliorate this situation. i dunno if we can do it properly with the law or not, but short of being able to, i'm not sure how we can get the things that they asked for, i am going to overturn. but there are real issues having to do -- i will vote to overturn. there are real issues having to do with the waterfront bakery, having to do with whether or not this operation needs a vendor's permit from the police or an mff permit from public works. i guess iwhat can happen, she an can start operating, and because of these problems, they can come and revoke.

i would hope that rather than revoke, and they tried going to ward at some of the things that we are requesting -- that i am requesting, pardon me. having to do with absolving whatever costs are practical and that these two people can operate their business. i will make a motion, to overturn the department. the reason for the denial as we learned tonight, it is not clear and appears to have been a safety issue. nothing has been presented to us for us to understand why a kitten is a problem. -- why it is a problem. it has not been substantiated. the findings are not there to support he denial. i move this board overturn the

department and grant the permit. >> with in the hours on the permit application of 6:00 a.m. until 3:00 a.m.. president garcia: and we run the risk of something happening to miss lewis. commissioner hwang: the department has reviewd thed the hours on a six-monhth or twelve- month basis. >> she does not have the operate between all of them, she can make that the -- a decision. on that motion? commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: no. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> vote is 4-0, motion carries. 4-1, very sorry. the permit is to be granted.

the permit is to be granted. president garcia: 02 apologies, >> we will start with the appellant, you have seven minutes. >> president garcia, commissioners -- >> if you will pull the microphone, we will use that

one. >> sorry. i'ma member -- i'm a member of the chinese-american voters education committee that is seeking a reversal of the entertainment commissioned of the decision to grant the applicant in after hours permit. the entertainment commission's position must be reversed because it was impermissibly in effect and with procedural irregularities and is totally unsupported by the records. stipulated fax including the high volume of volume associated with this neighborhood restaurant [unintelligible]