wasn't in their system. i could not operate. these people were watching me so hard that i dare not to or else i would be revoked. so i just can't even believe what's been going on here. i was never given an opportunity to state why my permit and dph and i were working together because as soon as i started operating, they came back and said that permit, you are operating on is revoked. i went and worked with dpw, they said i can operate but to wait for melodya, she is on long-term leave. i told stacy and told me that melodya was out. now they are trying, this is all while they are in the background having this telling the wharf association to bring more letters and get more people and get this thing going. they never talked to me

once. so what i'm saying and i will make it quick is that i'm an african american. they don't want me there. it's very clear. i have been bullied by them, you have been bullied by them because as soon as you gave me an authorization, they filed a lawsuit. that's why i'm with my pro bono attorneys. i would have operated. the day i signed up for the permit at dpw, i went to dph with my cart and they said they wouldn't do it. i have the back up here that says so. >> i think your time is up. >> you have further questions? >> i would like to see. >> miss lewis? >> yes. >> you have written documentation from richard lee

regarding? >> yes, sir, right here. it says i told sasha we would get her -- turn it, please. i told sasha she would get our approval to operate 1 hour at a time. i told you melodya and i would discuss a variance for 2 hours. that's dated 11/30, right before december break. i wasn't aware melodya wasn't around at that time. >> is there an official form. >> i got this from the health department before i came here. this is from their files. this is from melodya's department. this is the history here which shows that i had the health department. they came in on 7/24. they e-mailed denying authorization. i had already

started and i stopped at this point. and here 10/21. i admitted to propose the solve the restroom problem. i was being bullied. richard lee approved the operation of 1 hour at a time and it goes to 6/4 because melodya was out and nothing was done until i went to department of public works and i said melodya is not here. they are saying i don't have a permit. so this is their other information too. from richard lee. let me just get you this

one >> while you are looking maybe i can ask your attorney a question. with regards to the permission to use the restroom facility at the fisherman pizza. there is contradiction on those, first it says the authorization is given and at the bottom it says not. >> i can explain. melodya walked around with me at both locations. when she walked in with me at the pizzeria, somebody else management was there and the wharf association had already contacted them and when melodya said i have this, he lined it out and he said, no, i don't want that permit. and she walked with me to the location and he said i had the

permit. a mao later we get call that it's disapproved. so i said, fine. instead of -- because there is only six buildings in my area. they are responsible, the others are owned by the city, the others are owned by this association's group. >> you were saying you were initially given permission and subsequently revoked. that's what that notation is at the bottom? >> yes. melodya said she would work with me and got in touch with her director and told me to talk to her director about the changes. when they found out about the changes they counted exact to the six 6 months to the day and started this process. no one else called me. i had talked to dpw several times because i had

been calling them about the renewal and i was shocked when i got the notice and i had been working diligently. i had taken my cart there on several occasions and they were not able to bring an inspector down for whatever reason. the last straw is that i was not in their system. this is in march 2013. this is from the gentleman that she mentioned. let me just get it here. so i tried, but if i had pushed myself and went out there, i would have been really harmed by these guys. so that's why. >> i understand. i think we have what we need.

>> miss lewis, i would assume that the health department would have had some formal documentation allowing you to utilize the public toilets. >> i didn't hear you, i'm sorry. >> i said the health department would have had some type of formal documentation allowing your satisfaction of the requirement for the toilet facilities. you show me two e-mails. one chronology not formally done and one e-mail. is there a document? >> there is a stipulation that was attached to an e-mail sent from sasha to mr. lee. it's attached as exhibit 1 to my declaration. >> i saw that, but that to me is not a city department formal

approval. >> it doesn't seem like this is a typical process. sasha worked with mr. lee and this is solution he came up with and he seemed to be okay with it as he documented in further e-mails. oor there is no date on it. >> the date is on the e-mail. >> the attachment is the attachment to the e-mail. the letter is a word document attached to the e-mail. >> she should be able to rely on the communication. >> there is know mail. >> i'm sorry. i can grab the date for you. >> i don't have the date of the e-mail. >> 6/14 it was still noted by the tax collectors office that i was not in their system and at the time even up to june of

this year. when i went to get approvals, this is what was in their system. melodya wasn't around and there was no one to fix that. that was when they gave -- told me if i operated prior to melodya's approval, that i would be in violation because i was not in their system. >> and this has melodya's name at the bottom. >> if you could, so i don't have to look through all the paper. what are the dates of the permit that was operable prior to your non-renewal? what were the dates? what period of time? >> may, april was the hearing and it was approved in april. i

got my permit from melodya. >> i'm talking about the dpw permit. what are the dates of the permit's operation. it was may? >> july 17, 2012, to march 2013. it's on the order. >> then there is a question about your operation and whether you actually operated and there was a representation that you did. what were the dates of your operation. were there certain periods. >> just in july. 1 month because they took the bathroom permit. there's no one else because they control all of the businesses. >> okay. those are the only questions i have.

commissioners, you ready to hear rebuttal from the department? >> sure. >> okay.> commissioners, we do empathize with this case. it was stated that she could not operate because of the department of sanitation that she couldn't work. again we are struggling that in 1 case that we have individuals stating that she was not in operation which is an allegation and then you have the applicant that has

no documentation to even refute this. so if there was just even a sales, some kind of operation that could be documented, we would not be in this position to having deny the permit. again it was a matter of operation. when you have a permit for mobile food there is the expectation that you will operate instead of holding a permit. >> are you saying that she can submit some evidence of operation in that 1 month? is that what you are saying? >> yes. >> so still were revenues? >> something that demonstrates operation which is a reasonable request. >> so what about the bathroom permit? >> the bathroom permit obviously if we knew about it we would have suspended it until it would have been resolved and would let it to continue with the process.

>> bathroom is a problem because if we take as true statements by the appellant that no one is going to prove one after the wharf association calls them. what alternatives are there for her? none? i'm just asking? >> well, public works cannot dictate -- >> if there are no entities, no physical bathroom nearby. >> unless the health department will grant some kind of variance. >> i thought he was requesting, it's her indication of the long time period is to go from an agreement with a private bathroom to be able to use public toilets in some locations as long as there is a time frame condition to it. that's what i heard.

>> i believe the ultimate stipulation and i'm not certain because i don't have that documentation in front of me was that 10 minutes of every hour that the applicant need to stop in order to provide a possible bathroom break whatever it might be. >> the question then is what does the health department normally provide you to indicate that they have conformed to that requirement? is it a form? >> the department of public health would give us a certification. they would give it to the applicant to give it to us because that's part of the package. >> okay. >> there is no documentation from the applicant that she was in operation during that time. based upon that information, the allegation and the lack of information that she was in

operation for that 9 months or for 1 day, we would revoke the permit. >> okay. >> so that's what i was trying to get at is the e-mail that was attached to this approval for every 10 minutes if you have that. otherwise there is no dates on this stipulation. >> also, do you have any evidence of revenues from the 1 month of operation? >> i believe she can provide some evidence of sales, right? >> yes. >> well, i'm talking about actually operating as selling

the products, running the business, not just getting the infrastructure. >> you need to speak into the microphone if you are going to answer questions. >> i have my -- from my credit card company that shows that i was operating, but it doesn't breakout san francisco's charges from other charges. so, i have my business -- well, let me say why that's very unfair. because when you are asking me for a ledger or whatever because i was only able to operate during that 1 month anyway. i have everything mixed in together. it not separated out. i didn't need to separate it out that i would have ever

imagined. so all i have is just the full sales from my credit card purchases which include some of the sales that i have made since as well from customers that have come from san francisco to my location in san jose because i wasn't operating. so the idea of -- >> you have customers in san francisco? >> yes that i established. >> does that show evidence of operation. if you made -- you know what i'm saying? i'm just trying to understand why there has been no evidence submitted of operation when you actually have been operating. >> well, to be honest with you, the evidence of operating is this: when i operated, the water front bakery humiliated a hispanic girl for coming over and talking to me and

threatened her that she was going to be fired if she came over and talk to me at all. they told everybody across the street for the week that i was operating that he would not service them if they saw them talking to me. the person that owns the bar came around and said he was going to sue me because i shouldn't be operating there. now, with all that happening and me ramping up my business after 2 years, that's how i was affected by being there during that time. i could have only had those experiences if i was set up as there. i went to him and asked him. they talked about me setting up my u haul. that i

brought a truck there and spent the night and set up and i shouldn't be spending the night there over night. they are talking about the time that i set up and brought my cart and operated. so police came over and told me that someone had gotten shot because they started a pushcart service and it happened two or 3 years ago. so there was all that and at the time i hadn't set up any systems because i barely started operating before they told me that not to operate anymore. >> okay. all right. >> the only thing i have is the experiences and the experiences at a minimum is that, that they were harassing me while i was standing there against the people that were across the way which were the bus people that talk and do the -- where they

talk about san francisco and the people that work there at not to talk to me. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner, the matter is submitted. >> i have the receipts from the renting of the u haul. >> okay. thanks. >> well, i can start. the issue to me is the bathroom issue and

the operation issues. initially my understanding was that the requirement was operation be continuous for 6 months. so, i'm trying to find the language that helps me understand whether that's the requirement or whether it has to be any type of operation within the 6 months period. that's what i'm trying to think about right now. if anybody has an opinion about that? >> maybe dpw can help. from what i can see in the public works code, the operation for 6 months or more is to be considered when revoking a permit. i think what happened there is a denial of a permit. permits are automatically renewed unless the permitee was not in compliance with the code. therefore the question of

the sanitation certification becomes important because then the issue is the code says, there should be a sanitation permit within 3 months otherwise the permit is deemed disapproved. we are back to this issue of why wasn't the sanitation permit not issued. those are the factors to consider. >> okay. that's helpful. in that case, my opinion is that clearly miss lewis was trying to pursue the sanitation compliance issue and it's clear that there is from the documents submitted that initially the permit was given by these two businesses and subsequently revoked. so that to me lends credibility to her statements at the hearing and today that she's encountered resistance from the merchants

in this area. i recall from the past from where we first heard this case that there is a lot of resistance to this cart being in this area, unfortunately for miss lewis. and so base on that, i find that she was trying to comply with the requirements from public health. the fact that she didn't tell public works what the difficulty was to me was irrelevant. she was trying to comply. the fact that public health didn't community with public works i don't think should be a burden on miss lewis. those things should be taken into account when the permit came up for renewal. i think dpw had the discretion to look at those issues for whatever reason they declined to exercise that discretion. i think under all the circumstances of this case, i believe the permit should have been issued once she showed she

had a stipulation regarding the use of the bathroom. >> i guess the -- it's difficult for me to accept that position for the following reason: that is that the -- if i may go back, the qualitative nature of what we've discussed and the positions that we took when we over turned the department the first time, and the fact was that there were two permits that were turned down and one we did not concur with and one we did. but the quality of the nature that we

took in determining that position was that we said there was a deference between mcdonald's coffee and what she was offering and therefore it was not the same food upon which the original. we are not dealing with permit requirements and i still don't see, you may this i that you are indicating that there was a stipulation, i don't see anything. i don't see any final results of the health department providing that and the timing, you know, i don't need to get into timing. the fact is that there are a number of things here related to highly technical issues. you know, the date of operation, and the health issue. the

health permit issue. it's not a qualitative question. >> i'm extremely sympathetic to the situation and the appellants particular circumstances. i'm of the similar mind as commissioner hurtado. the problem i have is if we can discuss this and have an opportunity to have the person from the department of health come and give us a story, give us a narrative of what happened from that perspective. it would be very useful for me. it would give me a chronology and lend credibility or undermined credibility to the appellants position and the narrative we were provided today. i would

like to take at face value what statements are presented to us here under oath and i would like us to however understand because statements are made from people who are not here. i would like to hear them say it themselves. so if others here in client, i don't know if it's something we can do, would that be acceptable. because i feel like that's a missing piece from the record before us to allow continue this to allow the representative from the department of health. >> i just want to understand that the board is issuing a continuance if it provides additional clarity. >> that's where i'm going with this. >> do we you need the fire department's certification if we are getting the health department? >> i think we are just looking

at the health department. that was the challenge. the challenge that were faced is not a fault of the appellant. >> i would support that because i'm trouble by this notice to notify dpw. i think that was incumbent upon the permit holder. but i would fully support hearing because i think it is a very key element. >> i am more with frank, but i'm open to your decision. i think the suggestion does not make-up in the paperwork be asking for the proof of sales and answer is not being directly answered, troubles me a little bit. but i'm willing to get clarity. >> okay. i'm going to make that motion then to continue this matter until -- i don't know what's a good day.

>> it might depend on when the dph representative can attend or provide you something in writing. we can hear this as soon as next week. >> okay. >> october 23rdrd. >> that's pretty far away. >> there is no meetings. >> october 9th is very full. >> let's do october 23rdrd. i would like the continuance in order to allow the department of health to either submit something in writing to this board to clarify the chronology of what took place with the permit holder. i would also like to have information evidence of the operation of the permit. >> how would that be

determined, sales receipts? >> whatever is provided. i'm not going specify here but whatever is considered. proof that it happened. >> is that simply exhibits or is there a briefing that you want to allow in >> only from the department of health and then let an opportunity to address those at the hearing. >> briefing from the department of public health but the proof of activity would that just be in the form of the exhibit in >> yes. >> that would be submitted by the appellant. >> miss dow, do you understand what the board is saying. >> i can prepare exhibits. >> then the motion is to continue the appeal until october 23rd to allow the department of public health to provide information orally