we would come back here for this hearing, that the matter would be resolved and if you heard from mr. sanchez and mr. stores both, and there is not a further process related to the subdivision map and i think that everybody agrees that process will land in front of the board of supervisors and so we just encourage you to continue the matter again, so that we have the opportunity to get the subdivision map approved to get an answer from the board of supervisors and the planning department on a no build continue before we are back in front of you >> how long do you think that this process will take? >> we are prepared to refile the application tomorrow and it will be for them to tell us how the city typically takes to process. and two months on top of that

for an appeal. could i hear mr. sanchez what your time estimate is? >> generally, these matters can be dealt with fairly promptly and i mean that this is a simple referral from the department of public works i would want to add abundance of caution and take the materials and the history related to the case i would not want to approve it as soon as we got it, would i want to take a second look at the materials because it seems to be the condition of a approval was this the slline a condition of approval and we don't have any evidence at this point to show that the dsl is a condition of approval that was approved by any particular body. to me in my mind that is critical in making a decision

on the subdivision, is this a condition of approval. was this approved in 1962 when they approved the subdivision and we don't have any evidence that shows that that is the case but i would like to take a look at the records to see if we don't have any evidence that supports that. looking at more information and so i would hope to have an action on this by the middle of, within a month i would say, by the middle of december and then i think that once we get it back to dpw the turn around is quick >> we can here from the appellants now. >> >> good evening members of the board and staff, i'm donald bait man, the co-chair of the east side alliance and i will skip through some of what i have prepared here because you heard smufp of the history already. for what mr. sanchez said about

pro-approved the building set back it was the board of supervisors in 1962 who approved the subdivision map that contained the building set back lines. in terms of additional history about who required it, i think in july you heard from robert pass more and we heard from robert in order to reduce the density at the time, and the city worked with the developer to require these open spaces which row vied the views across the bay and the streets and the lower twin peaks and the solid walls the building permit application was applied for in 2009 and the permit holder not

apply for a subdivision although they proposed to subdivide and dfrl apply until this year. and i believe that was a tactical move on their part because in 99, they applied for subdivision first and then failed with the subdivision for other reasons and building set back lines but i think that it was tactical to issue on the day of the hearing to say that you can't build there where is the building set back lines and set the rules and delineate the open green spaces for the september 11th, the issue that says the same thing we will subdivide but you can't build there and he pondered it for another two and a half nights before this morning. we were stunned to say the least because we found out

about this, this afternoon. and the board, gave discretion to continue the rehearing request, pending the subdivision out come and we have a subdivision out come two and a half months later, the city turns out and which decisions can we rely on? and in this matter. and well, therefore, i would ask that you not continue this matter, and we are hearing the request itself and we believe that you should continue to hear that matter, and take a vote, thank you. >> thank you. >> oh, i am sorry, i have a question. if we were to continue it, is there any prejudice to your side? >> a lot of sleepless nights and to continue for the processes.

>> do you have an interest in all departments reviewing this thoroughly? >> i am not sure what you mean. >> well, you heard mr. sanchez say that he wants more time to look at it closely and to see what the intent was in 1962 and review all of the historical documents, don't you have a interest in that type of a review? >> i think that we do. and i would agree that kind of close look that the building set lines will allow you to process as a whole. yes. >> even though, it is clear who approved them, the board of supervisors. >> okay, thank you. >> so commissioners we need to take the public comment, could i see a show of hands of how many people plan to speak on public comment on this item? >> okay. we can take it, whoever wants to start. >> and i thought that you were

a paid consultant associated with this, so you cannot speak under public comment. >> i'm tim the executive director of the san francisco action coalition and on behalf of our organization, we are engaged in the advocacy for creation of well designed and well located housing at all levels of portbility in san francisco. we don't normally do projects this size but it seemed like a good one and adopting the landscape and the maintenance plan we endorsed it. >> our organization is concerned about the city housing afederable crisis, you can't get away from it. it does not let us alone, the policis that we are adopting has consequences and we are concerned about the threat that it poses to the city. we are failing to produce adequate levels of housing at all levels of portbility that

pushes the demand father out into the neighborhoods, according to the planning director, 80 percent of the city's development is taking place on 20 percent of the land and that raises serious issue abouts the fairness and now the density is distributed in the city, it is imperative that we start to think more creatively about how the land is used and we believe that this is a good project and if the city is serious about addressing this crisis, and that we face in our housing supply, we are going to have to figure out a way to adopt and build, many, many, many more, projects, of this type, and it is thoughtful and there is a full of the type that we need. and we believe that strongly that turning down this project hurts the interest of the city,

and we believe that approving projects like this, that take it and take the advantage creatively of the available land is strongly in the interest of san francisco. >> thank you. >> next speaker please step forward. >> we were wondering what rabbit they would pull out of their hat but we never guessed that they would get the whole approval canceled. what is going on here, they could have appealed to the board of supervisors in september. why didn't they? does anybody ask them why didn't they appeal? and all of a sudden there is a question of whether the bsls were part of the original subdivision that is what is in the recorder's office. who do you think put the dotted lines there? >> second of all, they did not have it until we gave it to them. we sent it to storage and dpw and we sent it to planning. they never even have it.

they don't look at anything. and then all of a sudden it does not go the way that the powerful in the planning process and this is what you get. this is really discouraging. >> do you want to state your name for the record? >> nancy oryan. >> and is there any other public comment? >> okay, commissioners the matter is yours. >> so just to understand this procedurely, you have a question, before you vote whether you want to continue this, what you would be continuing, is the rehearing request, okay? you already made the underlying decision to deny the permit for the reasons stated on the calendar and i am happy to read them to you if you like. and so the question is do you want to question the rehearing request or do you want to proceed with the deciding of the rehearing request, you have already held a hearing on that. >> well, i will start. i would not feel at all

comfortable hearing this at this juncture. if we continued it in the hopes that this issue would be resolved and it clearly has not been. so i would be much more comfortable with continuing to continuance. >> i think that is appropriate. >> yes. >> okay. >> do you have a question or further comment? >> i agree with my fellow commissioners. >> okay. >> i will move to continue this to the call of the chair. >> and that is to wait until the lot split issue is resolved? >> that is correct. >> or the city's process. >> or all of the city processes. >> okay. >> do you want any briefing when it comes back to you, as i said the rehearing request has been briefed and heard and normally it will come back to you with nothing, but you know, it would need something. >> given the time frame. they should be allowed both sides should be allowed the full briefing.

>> as per, our departmental standards. >> okay, so briefing it for a rehearing request. >> okay. >> then the motion, go ahead. >> and we have a motion from commissioner fung to continue this rehearing request to the call of the chair to await the further subdivision issue to be resolved and the additional briefing is load and the rehearing request is that the six pages per party. and on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> and honda. >> aye. the vote is 5-0 and this is request is continued to the call of the chair. >> we will go back to item 4 a which is another rehearing

request, 2801 leavenworth street, the board received a letter from shasha lewis, requesting rehearing of appeal 13-085, decided on october 23, 2013, at that time the board voted 4-0-1 with president hwang ab accident to up hold the denial of the mobile food facility permit on the basis of lack of evidence of continuous operation during the required period. this is mobile food permit number 13 mff-0082. and i believe that president hwang has had an opportunity to review the proceeding? >> i did review it on the video and i reviewed the materials as wem. >> okay. >> and so we will begin with miss lewis who has three minutes to present her case.

>> thank you the appeal board for allowing me to be here and i will deliver to my case. >> i am refuting that i never operated that mr. hwang stated on record and even though he never investigated my operations themselves and dpw provide solely on the work associations interpretation. of whether i am operating or not. and i also want to show that the position to my permit has always been just the word association, and using their associates and mr. hwang to under mine and revoke my permit unfairly, the manifest in justice is that after three years of operating and trying to operate and paying for all of the fees in san francisco, my permit is thrown out of the door for no fault of my own and over a lie which is i have never been operating.

there puts me into poverty for no reason and it allows this work association to combat, and to have an anti-trust and anti-business activities against me and my business and i consider them business bullies, they try to really under mine my business and my integrity and i think that it is wrong. first of all, this here, and this is a letter that i received from the dpw. and it says that i received the initial and i followed my initial application on april 29th, and on january 30th, they received from the association, to revoke my permit. and so the work association wrote a letter to the dpw and in their letter, they stated that we would like to make you

aware that since 2012, that we not witnessed it and since july 29th that they did see me operating and which completely revokes and it is not my paper it is theirs that the notion that they did not see me at all. and this is from the real estate manager and also, here is my 2012, equipment for there. i have one that i operated there as well. and the fisherman wharf association, with dpw, just wants to make sure that i am not there operating, not because of any areason, but their own. and i say that this is what they sent me, after i was

approved the first time. and these are cases that they launched against me as i am trying to operate my business and these are dated like this one is 8-22-12. and so these are the things that i have had to deal with, and in order to start my little push cart and so i think that it is unfair and i also submitted to you that i am a queen of my industry. and that we were here trying to assist the young women and girls from being brutalized in the area and get the business through... >> thank you. >> we can hear from the department now. >> the department want to

reemphasize that the department did receive a request from the merchant association and neighborhoods saying that they were not and they do notify miss lewis to be operation. and based upon that, we did hold a public hearing informing mr. lewis of the action and of the allegation and asked her to provide the documentation that she was in operation and she was unable to provide such documentation in a director's hearing and based upon that, the department chose to deny her renewal and she appealed to this board initially, and and during the hearing. and that it was stated. and what we are looking for is that a proof that she was in operation during that time frame. >> the board itself provided miss lewis an opportunity to provide that information, which she was unable to provide on

the rehearing. she is continued based upon the rehearing and she was able to provide the documentation and she was in compliance of the code which was to go into operation, for at least some duration. we don't believe that there is a manifest in justice or additional information that is provided from the hearing request, and that it would be in the accepting ai rehearing request, and the same questions that you may have. >> can you remind me of the time period that we are trying to establish the operation. >> and it will provide a stop in november of 2012, i believe and it was during that period that she could have been in operation up to november of 2012 and she was not able to provide any documentation.

>> okay. >> any more questions? >> no. >> i believe that i might have misheard the statements tonight and we saw some documentation on the overhead, have you seen any of those documentation about the rental of the equipment on the dates within that time period. and that was never provided by miss lewis, until this package arrived. >> tonight. >> yes. >> okay. >> and until the written submission is what you are saying? >> that is correct. >> and upon seeing that, what do you think? >> would that have been evidence that you would have put weight into? to determine whether she was in operation? >> this acknowledgment of rental, but, again, i am not, i am uncertain whether that would be deemed as operation in this case. >> so what, full disregard of that information that has been

submitted at this point in time? is that how you treat it? >> no, i would suggest that in the p three months that she was in operation there should be at least one or several sales that could be documented in some way. >> so, the critical missing information is the documentation of sales? >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening commissioners my name is doug las robins and i represent the fisherman wharf community benefit district xtonight miss lewis has the principle of has discussed everything except the issue here tonight, whether there is

any new fact or circumstance that would have changed the out come of the two prior hearings. except for her or for arguably a single day in late june or july 2012, there is virtually zero evidence of her ever operating her food cart. there is no evidence of any operation and no evidence of paying a single dollar in sales tax and no evidence of any operating expenses. and no evidence of employee payments, or a single financial sheet showing profit and losses. tonight, miss lewis presents to you a single uhaul of documents but the question under that document, and whether or why that document was not provided earlier a lack of diligence is not a justification for a rehearing, and if she had rented a uhaul it does not prove that she used it for any

operation in leavenworth and does not prove that she operated in san francisco and or what she did with that truck at all. >> more over the testimony on this is radically inconsistent and she admitted that she did not operate at all, she said to the dpw, and not only that, i did not actually sell coffee, which i didn't have to, okay? i was there, representing my business. and i didn't see anywhere, where i had to sell something because i didn't. and then, before this board, on the october hearing, counsel wrote in a brief that it was operating for 3 continuous months. this is what they argued to you. they said, she began her daily operations at some point in august of 2012 and continued operations until october of 2012. but, when miss lewis came before this board in october of

23, 2013 they had the following exchange with president hwang, the president said, what were the dates of your operation? were there concern periods? miss lewis says just in july. >> the president say, just one month? >> and miss lewis says, juflt one month. after i got it approved. >> and then, in the subsequent hearing, i am sorry that was the september 11th. >> i was not here. >> and then in the october hearing, miss lewis shifted the position yet again and now saying that she operated for 6 straight months. miss lewis said the dates that i was operating was after i received the permits. >> excuse me, please. >> this is his time. >> go ahead, please? >> you have a few more. >> okay, this is recorded on the video time on the board of appeals website and you can look yourself. this quote is found at time

code, 25:55 to 14. >> and where she says that the dates that i was operating is the days that i received the permit and what time period was that. >> and that was july. and commissioner fung says july. and she says, and june, 2012, june and july all the way up to about november when it started to rain and things like that. >> okay. now your time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, then commissioners the matter is before you. >> there is somebody. >> i am sorry. >> did not see you there. >> hi, my name is dianne carpio and i have actually seen this on sfgov tv, and it is kind of like a soap opera. but it begs, it actually further makes the point that

you know, dpw did not get any, you know, the penalizing her for not submitting a sales receipt in a cash business and yet, company, big companies are getting away without submitting anything. and so, it is interesting to me, and concerning that it can sway and it is up to the discretion of the dpw on ho how and what they collect and you know the testimony, at any hearing, and so it is not specific dates, she is an individual starting a food truck. i mean, for the love of monkeys. you know? and she is trying to do her due diligence and she is getting hit with lawsuits and you know, essentially attacked. and so, give me some weight as well as we are not attorneys, by trade, we are, you know, trying to do the right thing,

she got her permits she has paid the fees, she is rented stuff and you know, it is a profit, statement, is not going to happen. it is going to be a loss statement, you know? and this is, and it needs, some sort of i don't know, i don't envy you, you have a hard job and thank you for your time. >> any other public comment on this item? >> okay, commissioners the matter is now submitted. >> comments? >> okay. >> we know that the information, and there was new information and however it is dated 2011. and the other new information and they had no date. and so the issue is still one of trying to ascertain exactly what occurred and i see no new

information that would change my opinion from previously. >> okay. >> any further comments? >> no. >> we will entertain a motion? >> move to not accept the rehearing request. >> okay, thank you. >> on that motion, from commissioner fung to deny this rehearing request. president hwang. >> aye. >> hurtado. >> aye. >> lazarus. >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> and thank you. the vote is 5-0, this rehearing request is denied. and a notice of decision and order shall be released. >> okay. thank you. >> item 4 b is next, this is another rehearing request.subject property at 100 garces drive and 417-435 gonzalez drive. letter from julian lagos,

appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal nos. 13-107/120, lagos vs. dpw bsm, decided october 23, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-1-1 (commissioner hurtado dissented, president hwang absent) to uphold both temporary occupancy permits on the basis they are code compliant, and with a recommendation that dpw reinstate the execution period for the permits. permit holder: arborwell inc. project, 1st permit: crane, truck and tree chipper on south side of garces drive between grijalva drive and gonzales drive; permit no. 13toc-2034. project, 2nd permit: closure of right lane and sidewalk on north side of brotherhood lane; will have tree trucks, chipper and equipment occupying this lane; from 9/10/13 to 9/20/13; permit no. 13toc-2237 >> we will have 6 minutes for mr. lagos. >> and i want to state for the record that i was absent and i reviewed the material and read the materials. >> thank you, president hwang. >> good evening commissioners i am lagos with the safe commission of lake merced and

one of the focuses as a community group to bring various injustices that we find in our community to the attention of government bodies like yourselves. and that is why we are here tonight and we were here on october 23rd, to bring to light, hopefully the fact that there was an injustice made in terms of a permit being issued to arborwell. and the issues regarding the safety. and other work and we, and this board, denied our appeal at that time and we would like to request a rehearing because we believe that there were misstatements made by the respondents that we believe had been more straight forward, with the facts, regarding this appeal, they might have been a different out come. and that is why we