operating expenses, so on and so forth because everyone is aware of that. i'm talking about bias in terms of sanitation, in terms of restroom requirements. none of these people are truly audit audited for use of a restroom or if it is still correct. a lot of the so-called approvals are either fake or just walk up to some of the employees, not to the owners or managers, and get them signed. and there is absolutely no oversight over that. absolutely no oversight.

we as brick and mortar operators are continuously monitored by the health department. we have a piece of paper. if hand towels are missing in our restrooms, we're in trouble. i have co2 tanks that are so secured that if one of my 7-eleven locations, you need a jackhammer. how come these people are allowed to have propane tanks, i mean bombs, on the streets of san francisco, where you have children and public at large roaming around? why this bias towards us? it's a little question for the city attorney's office. why this bias? i need an answer to this. the litter that they create. there is a mess on the streets. these people add to it.

thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. are there any other speakers? >> good evening. >> welcome. >> my name is patricio. and 21 drum street business. i'm -- my main concern is, well, we have a humungous overheads that we all go through in the business. i'm not going to name all, because i'm sure you are aware of it, what a costs to run a business when you have rent, building, water, electricity, etc., but my concern being a

culinary worker, but my concern is the safety in our area. these carts, where is the restroom? where do you wash your hands? how do you sanitize? i have a picture here -- i've seen how they operate. most of the places i see are carts surrounded by birds. they're feces, their drippings, are dangerous for humans.

how do they deal with that? here is evidence of how they operate. >> overhead, please. just face it how you would look at it. thank you. >> thank you. >> and it is pretty disturbing to see something like this when we're being inspected by the health department. we just got an audit. we had to train people. we had to become certified. i'm and certified executive chef. and the gentleman was saying, they have a menu with breakfast and so on. we, do, too. we offer ice creams, and shakes, and i believe that san francisco is flooded with the cart vendors

and street food vendors. 2,000 people die from street food. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi. you will have it excuse my voice. i'm just getting over a cold. i'm allison with the california restaurant association, government affairs director. this concerns us at the cre due to the fact that the mobile food carts are selling similar foods outside of the oasis grill downtown. foot traffic in san francisco and especially downtown, as we know, is a huge component in the success of our local

restaurants. restaurants are struggling to succeed given the pressure of health codes, on top of rapidly increasing minimum wage requirements. they provide jobs in food service, but also construction workers, pest control, architects, the lists go on, as you've heard already. if they're going to give work to everyone, service workers, they need to be on an equal playing field themselves. the economy and food service communities will not be c congruent with one another without that foot traffic. so having the costs along with

the costs of a brick and mortar restaurant is unsustainable to maintain the employees that they do have and in order to grow, they need to hire more people on. having that fairness and equal playing field is so important in keeping this community alive and able to thrive. so we ask you that you can consider these implications on the local businesses and create an environment that's fair and equal. >> may i ask you a couple of questions? >> yes. >> so the problem with your argument, which i'm sympathetic to, it's innuendo and hearsay. has the california restaurant association or like association come to san francisco, done a study that measures from one point to another, let's say 2011 to 2016, the number of food carts and food trucks that have

hit the streets. and those material impacts that you allude to but you can not give me a number in this particular dissertation? have you, one, done a study that next time you come up here you can come and say, they've added 10 food trucks and the impact was x number of dollars? and have you gone to dpw and said, okay, you started this program. can i have some help? when did the food truck program start? >> 2014. >> 2014. have you gone to the governing bodies with respect to food trucks and asked them -- obviously, there's been a change. there were zero and now there are a lot. and whether they've reviewed the impact of those and if they're

in a position to start changing their legislation or their -- the rules. >> yeah. >> have you done that? >> to answer your first question with the study, california restaurant association and golden state restaurant association do similar things. i handle the bay area counties. when things like this come up, unless you golden gate restaurant association is not getting involved, we would step in. attempts to reach out and be a part of this were not getting along, not happening for them. she called upon me last week. i was really sick last week, so i was only able to talk to her on monday. as far as approaching the public

works department and discussing this, this is something we've discussed in our offices that could be useful later on. my personal knowledge was a few days ago. i don't have any specific numbers to provide to you, which you are right, that would be helpful. but in this case, i wanted to come and represent the cra and say it's perked up our ears and something of concern to us. >> and, therefore, have not gone back to the city and asked them for a review of their legislation? >> no. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. any other questions? >> no. thank you. >> any other public comment? please step forward. sir, if you are going to speak, if you could step forward, great. if there is anyone else, come forward and stand on the far side of the room. we're running out of time

tonight. >> is there anyone that's going to speak after this gentleman? okay. thank you. if you are going to speak, line up to the left here. thank you, sir. welcome. >> i'm the owner of oasis grill -- >> sorry. your business with the appellant? >> yes. >> you can use rebuttal she will have, but as a member of the same business, your time to speak is then. >> how about to correct some information. >> in the rebuttal if she wants -- >> if she wants to allow you to use her time. come on up. welcome. >> my name is joseph abugosh. i own a small business.

we share the same issues and the same problems. i think that they covered everything they need to cover on the issue. the food carts are able to offer cheaper prices and it makes it easy for the customers to choose the vendors at the food carts over us. that went to the point. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, we'll have rebuttal from the appellant. 3 minutes. please step forward. >> mohammed zagir, owner of

oasis grill. so i opened this business, it was a 300-square-footrest rant called oasis grill. it's at 91 drum street. after huge effort, we became very, very popular at the embarcadero. people love our halal food and we provide super friendly service to the people in the embarcadero. i feel that my business is being targeted. they want to do exactly the same way we do it. same menu. same style how we do our wraps and this kind of stuff. so they came at 425 market, two blocks away from us. and we felt like, okay, one

halal cart. we can deal with it. when we find out that they want to surround us everywhere, north, east, west, targeting us from every building that our customer will come. for example, he was not right at all about the distance. 10% of my business comes from one market, which is very close to us. he's in front of one market, which the distance is a half block or one block maximum. and on this block, there are three operations. there is one that has gyros and

falafel. and another, kabobs and chicken. 90% like the menu. he's at 425 market, which is two blocks away. he's at bush and california. not sure, but he's around there. two blocks. maybe bush -- why, i think bush and california. and he tries to be just right in front of us, which is one california. it's on one california and market. and drum. he tried to be there. if he succeeds, he will be in front of my door. and he has more plans. he wants to surround me with 50 starts. this is the only carts that come. i never see hot dog carts. >> thank you.

your time is up. thank you. >> we can take rebuttal from the permit-holder. please step forward. >> hi. the appellant said that i was wrong. >> overhead, please. put it down above the picture. thank you, sir. >> you can see that here is the one front street and this is the distance. it's like 5 miles from there. the location is 711b -- >> sorry. >> i'm sorry, please. nobody can speak from -- unless you are at the podium, please. >> so this is the location, 711b market street, to our location

at one front street. and the other is 532 market. that's almost 1/2 miles away. and we're not trying to surround anybody. we're just trying to do the business in san francisco and i don't think our menu is similar and it will not impact them. and the distance is not that close. i would like to request the board members to uphold our permit without any additional conditions. thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further from the department? >> president brent cone, public works. i wanted to clarify a couple of things. one thing is, regarding the restaurants and the review, and

that they have to have verification for their employees to use within a certain distance. and the other thing, when the ordinance or code was enacted. prior to 2011, san francisco police department permitted the food carts. i think the latest one was 1975 or so. and then in 2011, they -- the city handed it over to public works to permit and code was revised in 2013. i think partly because of the like-food concerns. 2013 is the current code that we're reviewing from. >> can i ask you some questions or maybe raul wants to step up. you're so shy back there. i know you are an outstanding

speaker. is there a detailed guideline -- the question was asked, where is the nearest food truck to this or how many food trucks are across the street or down the street and the answer was, unclooe. is there a specific guideline, a specific map, that identifies exactly where the food trucks, food carts, can be located or is it willy-nilly, helter skelter and you say yes or no because the story's good? >> good evening, folks. this is multifaceted question. i will try to answer it as best

as i can. we do have a current map that identifies current locations of food facilities. the locations of them are stipulated by article 5.8. and they're in commercial zones, not residential zones. in terms of the maximum number of food trucks, there's no specific guideline on that. however in 10821, if it -- it states if it goes to a hearing if there are three or more food carts within the same block -- >> food truck and food cart the same? you said food truck. >> food facilities.

location guidelines show the sidewalk widths. it's larger for food carts. so they're constrained by that minimum width as well. other than that, there is no maximum in terms of the food trucks that can be on a permitted -- permitted on a block, but there's a consideration taken into account. >> next question -- i heard a little bit of pass the buck. so you authorize permits and there's a propane tank. it's not your problem. it's the fire department's problem. the health efficiency of the facility is questionable. that's not your issue. it's the health department's issue. is there any consolidation of

effort or coordination of effort to ensure that when an individual wants to put a food cart on a street corner that maybe you all come together as opposed to the separate -- well, the propane is not my issue, even though a car could drive into it and it could blow up. real opportunity do you envision that that might be an idea and forthcoming? >> that's a valid point, commissioner swig. what we've tried to do to mitigate this is we've worked with the applicants and the office of work force development and small business office, excuse me, to try to -- health department, fire department and public works coordinates to get the information at the fore front before application.

we're trying to do that as a preliminary step to this. from our understanding, the mobile foods are regulated -- standard are set by fire and health. i'm jumping around. let me start over. these facilities from our understanding are allowed to have propane tanks as part of -- as long as it falls under the definition of mobile food facility. in that sense, our understanding is that all of these can have propane tanks as a method of heat. therefore, there's not much public works can do to push for different methods. it really just falls under the defined use of the facility and

what is found under that defined use. >> between 2013 and 2017, there's been a proliferation of mmfs of all kinds. with that, next time maybe you can come up with how many we had in '13 to now. that with be interesting. with that, the pressure on the restaurants, which are brick and mortar, the pressure has grown, lets face it, or we wouldn't be here talking too and having an appeal. when do you anticipate that dpw will be reviewing this issue so that it will be clearer and setting guidelines so it will be

clearer to individuals looking to apply for mmf and their expectation of getting it granted and protecting the brick and mortar guys that are feeling the heat, every pun intended? >> sure. i'm not -- i cannot pinpoint a definite time. we can good to our leadership team and see if we need to set more criteria. the ordinance urges public works to take things into consideration. we'll go back to our leadership team to discuss how it should be consolidated. until a revision of 108-101. >> i cannot speak to policy or

for my fellow commissioners, but although we love to see you on a constant basis, it would consolidate our issues together to make it a smoother path for applicants and constituents in the marketplace. that's my feeling. >> we do understand the hardships incurred, but we're following the guidelines. >> understood. and to reiterate what commissioner swig said. i've been pretty consistent in my message in orders to brick and mortar versus food truck. especially after hearing tonight the inequality of safety, health, it's a double standard. and to me it doesn't seem fair.

when we talk about policy and laws for mmfs, is it the same for food truck and food cart? >> i believe this is better suited for health department, but that said, i believe there are different standards, because they do have different facilities and power sources. and the carts have different power sources, different ventilation and sizes. >> at this point, i personally cannot speak for my fellow commissioners feel that i will not be able to render a decision or vet on this. >> duly noted. >> your permits are conditioned on receipt of the certifications from health and fire, correct? so there is coordination on that point. >> correct. we go through our process to

determine if the location is suitable. once that's done, the permit-holder has 90 days to secure the permits. if they're not able to do that or not able to get the verification, when it's denied automatically. >> do you have the information tonight on other food carts and mobile food facilities in this area, let's say, owithin a one-block radius? >> we do not. we can bring it back. >> perhaps we should continue this case. >> at one front street, there's one approved mobile food facility within 300 feet. and at 532 market street, there

are five approved mobile food facilities within 300 feet. >> it would be helpful to have a radius. >> sure. >> we can work on getting that information. >> and a map. >> maps. >> maps are really good. >> especially for us old folks. >> not a problem. >> thank you, mr. shaw. >> could i ask, what is the radius you would like to see? >> from the corner is one block. >> so one block, a standard city block? >> yes. >> okay. >> okay. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i would like to hear from health and maybe even fire. would you like to make a motion? >> i'm going to vote against that. and i think this permit was

issued with current regulations. if we have concerns about those, think it's a separate issue. it's in our jurisdiction. >> it's not in our jurisdiction to change it, but neither party -- i don't even know where the the registrations say now. >> the point is, they cannot get the permit unless fire and health sign off. >> i want to see the regulations so i can tell what criteria they're using and whether the permit was properly issued. >> i agree. it's the a variance. you don't meet the five criteria, you don't get the variance. we don't have clarity with regard to the deal points and couple fi -- criteria. >> i will move to continue this case, involving the health

department to join us, with the information on the radius and other food facilities and a copy of the most current regulations. >> vice president, do you want to specify what the want the health department to address? >> ask them to present their review process for mobile food facilities. >> and i would also like them to contrast the different standards that they apply to a brick and mortar -- >> it's his motion. >> that's fine. >> thank you. i'm sorry. >> a friendly amendment is fine. >> as a friendly amendment, i would like them to address the different standards and potential imbalance or balance for the criteria between an mmf

and brick and mortar. >> health department? >> yes. >> okay. do you have a date? >> what would you recommend? january 10 or 31? >> that is a very full calendar, but it is at your discretion to have a long meeting. it's -- after three weeks off

we'll do a long meeting. >> you are due for a long meeting. >> okay. >> i will move that we continue this to january 10. >> okay. >> so the motion then from the vice president is to continue this item to january 10, 2017. can we check quickly -- 2018. can we check to make sure that the parties are available? >> yes. >> any issue with that date, permit-holder? >> wednesday, january 10. can you be here? >> and the appellant, can you be here? okay. and we assume the department can be here. and that's to allow time for the department to submit the regulations that are used in evaluating the permits and the department to submit other

information about mmfs within a one-block radius and department of health to attend to explain the review criteria they use for mobile facilities and brick and mortar. >> with the department department review. >> i think i got that, right? on that motion to continue. >> commissioner lazarus: no. >> president honda: aye. >> commissioner swig: aye. >> that motion does pass. >> i am going to stick it out one more case. my wife may kill me later, but we'll try to get this done. isn't that the last case? >> item 7, jurisdiction request. 1801 mission street, mission economic development agency

requesting board take action over 2013/10/03/8419. it was filed november 9, 2017. permit holder is 1801 mission llc, erect seven stories 17 dwelling unit mixed use. we'll start with the requester. >> i'm staying late, you should come to the podium. thank you. welcome. >> good evening. i'm peter papadopoulos. i would like to take you through the issues as to why we feel that you should exercise your jurisdiction and hear this case of 1801 mission street.

if i could show you the overhead. i would like to take you through what some of the cases are here. that we believe that the community was inadvertently caused by the city to miss the filing deadline. community volunteers are tracking this, as you can see, it's 1801 mission, they say, but no one had ever seen this before.

and we need to make improvements for that process to the access and alert systems to allow more community participation. as you can see here, the dbi system still only allows you to follow two project areas at a time. this is my personal account right here. you can see that i'm maxed out on two other projects. a community volunteer was trying to watch this project. we still don't know much about this project at all. so you can see mission street

is, as we know, an advanced case of gentrification. if you look here, you look at the 184 units and the vicinity of luxury. and there are many other projects going on around this. you should have a half dozen more letters and now it looks like folks will not be here now since we're ahead of schedule, but people wanted to testify. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening. welcome. representing the permit-holder, request to take jurisdiction you need to find that the city

intentionally or inadvertently caused the delay and that's an extraordinary case. it's far from extraordinary. it's very ordinary. permit application was presented in 2013. notification was sent out in august, 2016, which would allow for discretionary review to be taken. there is an environmental review going on. the permit itself was issued and expired on august 16. this is not a case of missing the deadline. it is no excuse to wait this long if they wanted to seek jurisdiction. the city did what they needed to do to involve the neighborhood.

a lot of the neighbors are concerns about the empty lot, which has been empty for quite some time and would like to see construction begin as soon as possible. i'm available for questions and the architect is here as well as the property owner if you have questions for them. architect was primarily managing the process and would know most about the history, if you have questions about that. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, anything? >> thank you. scott sanchez. personal sit for new construction of residential units on a parking lot. it was submitted in 2013. neighborhood notification between july and august of 2016. no discretionary review were

filed. and issued by the department of inspection and that's it. i don't see any errors on the part of the city. there is some history where this site may have been linked with another parking lot further down on the same block on mission street and that would be the difference to 1863. that was a separate project. it's clear that there was notice on this application that it was done properly and the permit issued. the second inference, building i. and that is at the board. that that will give certain notifications, but i don't believe that it does notification of permit issuance. i think it allows them to know when new permits are filed and submitted, but i would need to

talk to the tech staff further. i looked on the website and it says, new permits. didn't seem to be able to request that notification. so i'm happy to talk to mr. p mr. popadopoulus. i don't see how that's an error on the part of the city. >> this building is 17 units, correct? >> yes. >> 2013 to 2017 that's a long time for a parking lot. >> i can't speak to that. >> what meta be an organization that was sent that notification? >> it's my understanding that

they are on the neighborhood group mailing list. that's my understanding. i can confirm that. >> thank you. four years, wow. >> what was the site again? >> the corner of -- >> not the physical site. the screen shot -- >> it's a service called building eye and it's something that the city contracts with a provider and they create maps based on open search data from our website with regard to permits. >> are they for-profit or -- >> i don't know. >> they're not official city -- >> they're a vendor. >> they're a vendor. >> it's not a easy -- it's not a a city. it's a service provider that we contract with and they offer certain services including this mapping. >> okay. is there any bbns on this? >> no. as you know, is a separate

notification process that would get you that notice reviewed, "who's hot, who's not" -- but not issuance. people need to track it at the website. >> anything, inspector duffy? >> we'd like to give you equal time, too, inspector. >> oh, yeah, i don't have much to say on it. it's an issued site permit. on the notification, d bi i would issue notices for this. i did not check on this, but i would be shocked if we didn't send that on radius once the permit is issued. i think we do that -- i assume it was done. >> how many people plan to speak in public comment? one person.

step forward. >> sorry it's a late night, but this issue is important to us. i prepared a statement, but i can also just read my statement. i'm florica. and i'm a resident at 1845 mission street. i resign there with my husband and my 4-year-old daughter in a measure that is 625 square fight. it was my understanding when we moved to this neighborhood we would be moving to a high-density neighborhood in the sent ever of the city close to transportation. i'm a san francisco native and my mother and father are in hayes valley and i want to be close to them. we have two empty lots. 1801 and 1863. i cannot understand what is served by the lots being empty. the quality of life on our streets is abysmal. there are encampments, illegal

vending and trash. i've been working for nearly two years since we moved to this apartment in 2015 to help improve our neighborhood and make this an opportunity community instead of an industrial dead zone. i've about working with neighborhood groups and nonprofits, including meta, and feliciano vera came to a meeting with carolyn guzman from our district supervisor's office in our building at 1875 mission street on february 13, 2017. and i've been in constant communication with him including today when i asked him what made his interest in this case. i've been reaching out for anybody to understand my plight and commitment to my hometown. i've come to realize early on that things would not improve

here until there are more residents on the street and these empty lots are filled. when i heard about this hearing two days ago, i jumped into action and of my own volition contacted the developer and asked him if i could create a petition in support of this project. in two short days, i have 100 signatures from neighbors on our block that feel the same way that i do. we desperately want these lots to be developed we want more neighbors. we want solutions to the housing crisis and you can do the right thing by moving this project forward. thank you for listening. >> thank you. >> here's my signatures. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> any other public comment? okay. seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the question is whether the

city created the inability for them to file appeal. and i don't see that. notices were given. it's not always easy to track everything in the city, but the question is whether the city created this issue and i don't think this is the case. >> i agree. i think the bar is pretty high for jurisdiction requests, so i agree with you, vice president. would you like to make a motion? >> move to deny the request for jurisdiction on the basis that the city did not create the problem. >> okay. thank you. on that motion from the vice president to deny the request, commissioner lazerus? >> commissioner lazarus: aye. >> president honda: aye. >> commissioner swig: aye. >> i will do the last case. who is the dedicated person here?

>> item 8 is rescheduled. we'll good to 9, chris do, department of building inspection. and inspector duffy has something to say before i stop reading the caption? >> 21 rosemont. someone didn't know it was continued. so i don't know if he's a neighbor, but he didn't know it was off. sorry. i thought you were going to take a break. >> no. it was rescheduled at the beginning of the meeting. yes. the members volt -- voted to reschedule to december 13. >> yes. >> can you share what the original motion was? >> are you talking about the rosemont matter? that motion was to move the item

to december 13. that's what happened. the parties requested it. they're talking about resolution. and we gave them that time so they can continue to work out a resolution. this item is not on the calendar right now. >> the person doing the talking for them is least impacted. can put up some shades and think -- it's in my backyard, where i'm getting a sinkhole in my backyard. it's dropped like 1/2 foot. >> sir, i -- >> it's four houses down. it doesn't even do anything to the property. they're stepping off my deck on to -- >> sir, i'm sorry, but the matter is not being heard tonight. if it comes back next week with a settlement proposal that they ask the board to adopt, you can speak to your concerns at that time. >> the issue, sir, is the appeal was brought by that party and not you. what would probably help is if you filed a separate appeal or

spoke with the departments, inspector duffy is indicating that he will chat with you. like i said, it doesn't affect them as much as it affects you, but that's between that party and -- >> the complaint is like a block away from the problem. he needs some shades. he's fine. i will get a sinkhole. >> thank you, sir. i'm sorry you were here and not able to participate. so i will finish calling item 9. project at 3815 18th street protesting issuance on september 18, 2017 to peter

>> however, he didn't respond until january , at which time, the city then issued a notice of abatement, and it wasn't until june of this year that he removed the planter. however, in so doing, he also removed mr. do's wall, about 20, 25 feet, at a length of 25 feet. mr. do then made a claim to his neighbor. his neighbor refused to repair it. he made a claim to his insurance company, and now, we're at a situation where his neighbor finally repaired it

but failed to get a permit, and when he tried to get a permit, he said it was $500, when in fact, he did probably about $25,000 worth of work. the bottom line is right now, mr. do has been through two rainy seasons. the last one left seasrain ints basement, and we have had three rains since that time: and i'll ask mr. do to fill in some of the details, but here is a -- kind of a proposed picture here. >> overhead, please. thank you. >> it's from -- it's from zillow, february of this year. mr. do's property is to the right of this tree.

there's the planter, and in that planter is his trees, and this is his neighbor's property. >> hi. my name's christopher do. i just -- i wanted to speak on the fact that, you know, i've read mr. louie's rebuttal, and i want to clarify some of the things. like, like, some of the things that were disconcerting for me was he makes me out to be, like, big developer or guy with all of these connections and -- in city hall, and i'm not that guy. this is, like, my first multiunit in the city. like, i use the money that we derive from this to sit there and pay my rent.

i'm just looking -- like, i'm just looking to get him to allow me to fix my wall. like, i figured let the insurance companies duke it out, but i -- i just am asking the -- since he went through the -- the process without permits, i'm just asking the board's help to kind of sit there, just help me -- let me fix my wall. like, basically, this -- this was his side. this was the party wall, and this was my wall. and i lugged this -- so this was my wall, my wall, party wall, and you can still see some of his brick siding.

this is just my concern, also is -- my inherent concern is there's a lot of work. like, the footing is this building is sitting there, and a lot of this work was not done. >> commissioner perez: -- per permit, and this is one of the biggest assets of my life. i just want to make sure the building next door doesn't collapse on my building, so kind of nervous. i apologize. did i forget anything? >> yeah, you forgot -- >> thank you. >> what mr. do forgot to say was all he wanted was access at this particular point in time, and it's the patio that mr. louie has. the last thing he said was, well, perhaps i'll let you

litigate it. just put a tarp up. it's been a year, and it's been open for seven months, and although the rains won't come to the 21st of this month, there have been three rains on it. the building is open, and rats come into the building, and his tenants are complaining about it, and they run through the inner walls. this is a health and safety issue. this is an issue of which simply a neighbor won't allow his neighbor to gain access to repair his own property and i think that that's the essence of this basis of the appeal, besides of other issues of which we believe the building department has substantial evidence of violations here. >> are you finished? >> yes, i am. >> mr. chin, how does our action on this permit affect any of the things that you are talking about? >> well, the actions on the

permit do affect it from the standpoint that if -- if the permit is -- is not upheld, they will require that the rebars be placed in those units, but at the same time, mr. louie -- mr. louie has indicated that if he clears his violations, he'll let mr. do repair it, and that's what the problems are. he has told me today, as well as on monday at a five-hour mediation, as soon as he gets his permit passed, he'll allow mr. do to come in. but there's no reason to hold that up. >> okay. >> and so we need to get this thing resolved. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. do. >> okay. can we hear from the permit

holder. >> welcome, sir. >> commissioners, members of the board. i'm peter louie, the respondent. i'd just like to point out a few things that i failed to do in my brief. this is the -- the notice of violation that i first received after the appellant's complaint, and it clearly states on the corrective action that a permit is not required and so that's the reason why a permit was not taken in the beginning. i would also like to show this picture. this is the appellant's property, his wall, right here.