>> the program is such that because of the fees that are collected it is more of a complaint-driven situation whereupon complaint we will investigate. okay. >> is your compatriot... >> i have the health department here to provide... >> okay. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen and i am from the san francisco department of public health. and i am the person handling the inspection program and i am here to respond to your questions, and certainly did my events that transpired and you know, that surrounded this coffee and tea operation.

>> thank you. >> i think that we have questions. >> no. >> i don't see any questions, but thank you for your help with this case and responding to the board's questions, in writing. >> okay. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> that is okay, don't worry. >> good evening, troy campbell with the director of the fisherman's wharf and i represent 350 businesses around the wharf and one thing that is that it did not start with dw it started with sfpd who came out and measured the area for the cart and conducted their own out reach and they denied the permit and stated that no locations on the sidewalk of the 2800 block were allowable

and this permit was given it was denied and we maintain that they made the direct decision, it should never have gone before dpw. in the previous hearing, with the coffee beans, only and tea boxes that are african. and now it also stated that she sells coffee and tea, in addition to these products of which she was denied for the permits by both locations she applied for, one on taylor and leavenworth, they upheld the decision on tailor street because of the cafe, but the argument for the water front bakery was disregarded and down playing the amount of coffee and tea. her argument is not what the business is about, but it is about the beans and the tea, when asked what percentage of sales, she answered, they represent 90 percent, we asked her about what else she sold, she answered pastries, i think that muf fins.

if someone wants coffee they get a muffin. the problem is that the legislation was for the consumable. it is commodity, and it is a pedaler's card and, it should be liked the vendors selling the goods and the merchandise and the goods for commodity, which coffee and tea, sugar and salt and things like that are soft commodities. if she was selling the products and in our he estimation, regarding the first that was approved was the paint, toilet at (inaudible) and this legislation called for the bathroom in 300 feet of the cart and this was 1534 feet away, and they pulled the permit and this done correctly, she what not have had an issue. the second permit was issued and red flagged because it

issued from the fish shack. and they were and opposed to the mobile food carts in the district and the public relations to help to work to change the vague, original and legislation, we said to the owner and said that he was not fully explained to him, but, and the person that understood and signed that and whether they did it or not, they were not authorized to signed and the owners were unaware that this would happen and contacted dph. >> thank you, any other public comment. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is lewis robins and i represent the fisherman's wharf community benefit. and you will remember from last time that we argued that it was

to discontinue for operating it for six months and that this was a violation of law. we submitted ten declarations from the people indicating the same, they had never seen her operate her food cart. and in argument, i expressed to the board and there was zero evidence from miss lewis that she ever operated her food cart, and no in her arguments and that is what we got to in the argument where, one of the commissioners said, let's hold on and maybe the operation at some point, and please, and that is why you continued this hearing until today. and this is to give miss lewis an opportunity to present some evidence, any evidence of ever operating her food cart. and three months later she has submitted a declaration and still, no evidence of her ever operating that food cart in san francisco during the period of time that is in question.

the real issue here is not having to do with miss lewis and the african teas and coffee and any personal attack that she believes that she has been subjected to. the real issue is that miss lewis is a bad corporate citizen and has made numerous misstatements and the highlights of them are first having to to deal with the franchise, a california superior court indicated that she had violated the franchise law in california. when asked about that, in front of dpw, she first down played it and said no idea what we were talking about and didn't even know what the franchise was about and when we pointed out that the order was in her name and addressed to her address, she admitted yes, i remember that, that was a long time ago and that had to do with my husband and my boyfriend and not me. but it turns out that the violation was in her business's name, and her husband, mr. hasan has the same last name,

on this appeal, it is her husband not her, she told the board that she sold the coffee identities and tee boxes a few years ago and now instead she has reversed the position and said that she is just selling coffee and tea, and you will remember from the last time when the board asked her specifically, when exactly, did you operate your food cart? and she finally admitted that she only operated it for a few months, according to her testimony for a few weeks in july of 2012, tonight she has reversed the position and now she said that she was operating in july, june and all the way through november 2012, all of these misstatements show that miss lewis is not a good corporate citizen and violated the law and it is time to affirm the dpw's decision.

>> any other public comment? seeing none and then commissioners the matter is submitted. the miss lewis, i see no definitive responses to the questions that we raised, and the information that we required, and at this point, i have to support the department, and in their desire. >> i too agree with commissioner fung as a prior business owner, and i think that if you are doing business you would have sales receipts of the time that you were there and that was a specific request of the board. and i would also, support the

dpw's decision. >> i agree. >> yeah, unfortunately, i will have to move that the dob be denied and that the revocation stands. >> do you want to state a basis? for the lack of... >> the lack of evidence of continuous operation during the period that was required. >> okay. thank you. >> are you ready? >> we have a motion then, from

commissioner fung to deny this appeal and up hold the denial, and this is on the basis of lack of evidence of continuous operation during the required period. correct? >> yes. >> on that motion, to up hold this denial, president hwang is ab accident. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4-0. and this denial is upheld. thank you. >> so you have reschedule item 13-102 to november 13 and this so item five and so now we will hear 6 a and 6 b which is appeal numbers 13-107 and 13-120 both of them are protesting the issuance of temporary occupantcy permits, and the first is located at 100

garces drive and on august 19th and for the crane, truck and tree chipper on the south side of the drive between grijalva drive and gonzales drive and the second one was for the closer of the right line and the north side of brotherhood lane and to have the trees, trucks and chipper and equipment, occupying this lane from 9, 10, 13 to 9/20/13. >> we will start with the appellant. you have 14 minutes for the two of you n >> good evening, commissioners, my name is julian lagos, and i am a resident and i am a founder of the coalition of the safe park merced and one of the things that we are concerned about in our neck of the woods so to speak is health and safety, when we have a

contractors from that do business with the park merced and they come out and do work in our neighborhood, and that they follow certain health and safety rules and we believe in this particular case, the tree, and the maintenance company that has been hired by the park and has not been doing that. and, that is why, i am here tonight, to and i have filed this appeal, is to argue, that this company, is not a very professional company. and they do not follow very good training standards, as you saw, in my brief, they were fined and they were cited this year, by osha for an accident that took place on my street back in january. and they do not follow the osha standards and so that is the one of the reasons that we are here tonight and another reason

is that we believe that they are unsafe and the way that they operate, and on public streets and public sidewalks, is unsafe and i am going to demonstrate that tonight, and i am going to do the pictures that i am going to show you that this company is not have much very regard for the public safety. also, they have a tendency to flaunt the law. we taught them on august 13th, of this year, operating on my street, without mer permit and they were cited on august 16th, by dpw, and the dusm, and the street, and the street mapping for not having the proper permits, but for four days, she operated without permits. and after the permits were suspended, and they came back, and they got permits again and that is why we are here tonight and they were suspended and they came back, to my street, and the brotherhood way and

continue to operate, without the permits. and we had to call the police, several times, and the police chased them off and they would come back and they would sneak in with two-men crews and cut the trees on brotherhood ways in a dangerous fashion while the people were walking down and while the cars were passing. and very dangerous. and that is one of the reasons why we were here tonight because we believe that they are a lawless company. and on top of that, they are hostile to the neighbors, they are hostile towards me, and to a number of my neighbors. and they use a number of epitats towards me and on one particular occasion. and so we believe that the permits should be not only suspended but revoked. and under section 724 of the public works code. and i would like to show some

pictures tonight of what has been transspiring along the drive. my clock was one:23. >> 10:23. >> i would like to do a little, give you a little background information, and back in july of 2007, me and the neighbor confronted this company, along the circle. and they were cutting trees along the street, without permits. we had to call the police on july 7, 2007, and to get them to stop cutting these trees, these were significant trees, and they had no permits the police came out and told them to stop. but by that time, they had cut down three significant trees along the circle, which is like

a mini park in the park merced and so that is the first time that i have had a personal dealing with this company, and we have had several since then. so let me go through some of these pictures with you. and as i say, a picture tells a story, or every picture speaks 1,000 words, i think that the cliche. and we have been complaining about the way that arbor wall uses a crane operation in our neighborhood and here is a picture. and i don't know if the... this is a crane that was used outside of a carport along garces drive and as you can tell there is no traffic supervision, they are required by law to have somebody doing traffic supervision, and there was no traffic supervision and we have people going in and out

of this carport every hour of the day and there was no supervision. and there is no regard to public safety. here is another picture, once again. of the current operation along garces drive and as you can tell, there is no traffic supervision they just have it coned off in the middle of the street and you have pedestrians walking by and motorists and you have a number 1 7 muni bus line that rules through there. and we go to the next picture here. and we believe that it is unsafe for arborwell to be cutting trees in the middle of the street. they were doing that and this is a black and white picture, i am sorry that it is black and white, but they are cutting trees in the middle of the street while the people are

walking by. and there is probably a better picture. of them cutting trees, and you know, they are cutting trees and then, they are feeding it into a wood chipper. and the wood chipper is a very, dangerous piece of machinery. and that, the workers and handling this type of equipment, need to wear protective, and they have to wear the protective wear. and here is a picture of them using a wood chipper on my street. without regard to the public safety. and then they have after they have run the trees through the wood chipper, they use a leaf blower to blow the chips into the air on the street.

and now, i want to show you a picture of how much space that they took up in that week in august. and here is a picture of one of the trucks, taken up a good view of the street. >> and here is a picture of a muni bus passing through. so, i think that you get an idea of how much regard that they have for the public safety, when it comes to public passenger vehicles. now, i would like to move on to the brotherhood way issue if i may. on the brotherhood way issue, once again, we have the permit suspended because we believe that arborwell does not operate safely. and once, again, after the

permits were suspended them came out to the brotherhood way which is a highly trafficked street in the area and they continued to cut the trees without permits. and no regard to public safety, and here is a picture that i have of one of their employees cutting a tree overlooking the north side of the brotherhood way, and there are cars passing by, and no regard. to public safety. here is another picture. these are two-manned crews to cut these trees, ask here is a picture of the tree actually being cut, and going down. and so i think that you have an idea, as to how this company operates, and i think that is going to be enough pictures.

and they are very hostile. and they are very unethical. and they are unprofessional. and we believe that their permits should be revoked, out right. because they have no record for the rules. and in terms of california standards for labor, labor standards and safety. and for the permit rules. and now, we believe the department of public works, bureau of street mapping, knew about the accident, back in january. and it continued nonetheless, to issue this company permits. and, we believe that they were wrong, in doing that. and i don't know how they can argue that what they did was correct, but, we believe that

dpw, made a big mistake. by issuing this company permits to work on these two streets. now, regardless of how we feel about the trees, and whether they should be preserve or not. we believe that park merced should hire contractors that have high regard for our safety as residents of park merced and those who visit and we believe that this is not the case with arborwell and if they are going to have someone come out and cut the trees they should have the regard to the public safety and the law and so we believe, and we will leave it at that. and we will let the other s speak, but we believe on those grounds, that these permits should be revoked and i will let the others, speak. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> so, if there is someone here

from arborwell the permit holder, please step forward. >> thank you. i have the opportunity to talk and i wanted to go through some of the dealings, and the comments. >> would you state your name for the record? >> that is all right. >> i am niel (inaudible) and i am an account manager and i work for the company. >> please go ahead. >> okay. >> so produce a lot of detailed document about what you are unhappy about with us and i just want to answer some of those accusations. primarily the first four resolve the first comment that we are unsafe working around the pedestrians and cars and everything. and this is totally untrue, we work to industry standards and we perform all of our work in a safe and orderly manner. it is always the case, we never allow anyone to enter the work

zone and continue to do what we are doing, we always stop if someone ignores our barricades or the grounds man and walks into the work area. the same with the vehicles as well. and we just don't do it, we can't afford to do it, it is stupid and it is dangerous. the second one was traffic control. you know, like i said, we don't do it and we don't have the people trained to do it, well, again, that is not true. and a company that is extremely well trained, and each of our employees has 50 hours of training per year on a weekly basis and given the safety meetings and taught how to deal with the traffic and electrical hazards and numerous other hazards and, if the tree work it is so dangerous, it just is. and then, on these specific notification about the accident

that occurred in january, the quotation that he has quoted from cal osha is not the final discussion that they passed down and so i don't think that it is admissible at this point because it is not their final decision. secondly it talks about the work of the civilian employee and he was not, he was released from the hospital that day, a worker was hurt, a branch fell on a work and her gave him a contusion and a shoulder. but he was admitted and released on the same day. and again, when the cal osha final decision did come out, it clearly stated that arborwell was not a accident and, we were not responsible and it was deemed an unfortunate accident. the part with the training, again, there was not an accident, cal osha did

investigate but they did not practice for any housekeeping issues of failing to train these people in a correct and orderly manner they didn't because it was not there and they are keen and looking for that and looking at a company and they want to see that you have done everything possible to equip and to train them to not have what happened happen. lastly the pictures that he has shown, he takes a lot of pictures and he has taken a lots of pictures for years and a lot of pictures from enough angles you can basically argue anything that you want, i, contend that none of those pictures show anything out of the ordinary and we were conducting work and in a coned off work zone and in a safe and orderly fashion, the safety equipment and the crane operator's license and the vehicles and the one picture of the vehicle in the middle of the street was a vehicle leaving to go and dump a load of chips, unfortunately i think that i am being used for the greater issue here is the issue

of trees. we have done no work without a permit that is why we are here tonight because i am being protested for the permit. all of the removals that we have done as they have told you that they are outside of the jurisdiction and that is why they are coming down. i am sure that you will remember is that a woman was killed and a tree fell and killed her in the car and that is what started this whole process. i am sorry that the residents say that we are unsafe because we certainly don't want that. and that is it. thank you for your time. >> i believe that it was stated that you are operating without a permit and the police came and made you stop. >> so we were cited once for parking on the street and that is correct. but in terms of the police

stopping us, no, for the various issues they have come they have put their hands up and have not cited us at all. but we were giving a parking or a parking department, did cite us for parking on the street without a permit. >> you had a permit to cut the trees down but not a permit to park. >> if i tree needs a permit, we have the permit. and in front of you. the trees, that don't require permits don't have a permit and we are going to cut those trees. who is the contract? >> it is with park merced. we are just trying to do our job. okay. >> good evening, the issue here is really about two permits

that the department issued by the very definition, temporary occupantcy and that is for someone to occupy the portion of the right-of-way, for the construction or construction-related purposes. in this case, the applicant came to us to acquire the permits to block off, the parking lane, and part of the sidewalk, that we issued a permit for. and from what i recolect they went to the department to get what is called the special traffic permit to close the sidewalk in these kinds of cases and it will be to the department. and the pictures i did see, that was presented by the appellant, appears to show traffic controlling this case, and it was coned off and the traffic and to delineate where the vehicles need to go. and so i don't necessarily see the specific issues to that, there are allegations of

posterity from the contractor, of unsafe practices from cal osha that the department was not made aware of. those are handled for the specifically stated by the cal osha and there is a finding from all indications and as it relates to the contractor being hostile, and that is something that really is between the contractor and who hires them, along with the neighbors. that have the issues and there is nothing that the department can do from that perspective, to dictate that aspect of the issues that is being raised. but we can, again, say that it is that, the permit that the department did issue was to occupy, that portion of the right-of-way and usually the parking lane and in some cases the sidewalk, to provide, for the construction operation to the arborwl