>> president fung: good evening. welcome to the august 8th 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the board president will be the presiding officer tonight. he is joined by his commissioners -- commissioners. to my left is deputy city attorney, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the controls as the board's legal assistant. i am julie rosenberg, the board's executive director -- director. we will be joined by city residents are of cases before the board this evening.

we expect joseph duffy, the senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and the urban forest or of a public works. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. we request you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes five at rebuttal. people affiliated must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. five at rehearing request, the requester or responding party and responding department are are given three minutes with no rebuttal and members of the public have up to three minutes to address the board. to assist the board an accurate representation of minutes, you are asked to submit a speaker

cart to board staff when you come up to speak. they are available in the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are condiment -- customer satisfaction survey forms on the podium five at your convenience. if you have questions about getting a rehearing, speak to board staff during the break or call the board office. this meeting is broadcast live and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 pm on channel 26. dvds of this meeting are available four purchase -- five up purchase at s.f. guv t.v. please note, any member of the public may speak without taking an oath, pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at, and wish to have the board give your testimony, police stand if you are able, raise your right hand, and say, i do, after you have

been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to get will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. ok. we will move move on to item number 1. which is general public comments. this is an opportunity if off at anyone who would like to speak within a matter on the board was just jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment. no. we will move on to item number two. commissioner comments and questions. ok. seeing then, we will move on to item number 3, which is the adoption of the minutes before you, commissioners, for discussion on the july 25th, 2018 board meeting. >> president fung: are there any corrections? >> clerk: we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to

adopt the minutes. seeing then, president fung? [roll call] >> clerk: that motion carries. the minutes are adopted. we will now move on to item number four. this is a rehearing request filed by the subject property at 281 gary street. the union square business improvement district as requesting an appeal. in union square business improvement district versus san francisco public works. decided july 11th, 2018. at that time, they voted 5-02 grabs the appeal an issue the apartment. they restricted the size of the proposed volkswagen van and the sunday hours be limited from 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm on the basis of the permit was properly issued and there are restrictions i will concern -- address concerns of congestion in the area.

the appellant is with the union square business improvement district and the permit is conditional to request a mobile food facility at a location east of the palace street and gary street intersection. this is permit 17 m. f. f. we will hear from the requester first. i just would like to say, i don't know how many, show of hands, how much public comment do we have on this? ok. everyone will need to line up against the wall. there are -- to fill out a speaker card. we will start with the request requester. >> just to confirm, i have three minutes? >> clerk: yes you have three minutes. public comment, given the volume

of the people here for public comment, it will be limited to two minutes for public comment. feel free to proceed. >> thank you. good evening. good evening president and commissioners. i'm the executive director of the union square business improvement district and i represent the stakeholders in and around union square. i want to thank you for taking the time to consider this rehearing request. we spent some time on this already and we do appreciate it. this is a request regarding the food truck permit for 281 geary street. i do want to say we do appreciate their concessions that were considered for at the volkswagen bus and moving it when space at a time. we do appreciate that. we still feel that it is not the right place for a food truck, essentially, because of the congestion concerns, which is clearly outlined in the legislation. we are asking for this rehearing request based on new information. we understand that public works

and working with m.t.a., does do pedestrian counts. there was one done in 2011. in this case, if you were to do it accurately, there should be a pedestrian count down. i understand my colleague has spoken with mohammed nuru recently, and they are open to doing this. we have counters in the area, but it is not exact. they are a block away. it is very, very congested. i would argue that the proposer wants to go there because there is foot traffic, but we have serious public safety concerns about this. we request for at this rehearing and, you know, above all, we feel like the legislation says food truck should not go in areas that are congested and underserved. union scare -- union square is well served and very, very congested. if you did a study, you could certainly show that. and the time we started this process, another ice cream store opened. and we also have additional restrictions on geary.

we have a construction date that has gone up. it is adding to increase congestion they are. we hope hope you will consider that. above all, we don't want the city to be open to any legal challenge as well. the legislation clearly states it should not go in congested areas. thank you for considering this rehearing. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> hello. i own san francisco's hometown creamery with my brother. there has been no material change in facts. this this information does not shed new light or more accurate assessment of sidewalk

pedestrian congestion at a location of our apartment. there are several reasons why the information the appellant wants to raise is not only misleading, but immaterial and irrelevant. figures gathered by intersection pedestrian counters are rough estimates, not to be taken as a loan source for accurate information can do to vary aspects that are flawed in a technique. pedestrian traffic studies, mid walk counts, we are 80 from powell and more than 200 from stockton. we require additional forms of simultaneous date yet -- data collection because numbers end up in considerably different from intersection counts. intern, making errors. let's take a look. the intersection pedestrian count takes into account all pedestrians walking in every direction on powell and geary. the number of those passing through our location are just a fraction of those at that intersection count. additionally, people familiar with that area know that the

majority of the flow traffic go up and down powell, not across geary. making it more difficult to determine how small the fraction is that passes by our permanent location over here. the same issue applies to the account at geary and stockton. but another major conflict in variable. many pedestrians moving on geary, from stockton enter the biggest draw on geary street which is the macy's mall. before they ever reach our location. them all is over here. our location here. our location is here. the enter through macy's and exit out on exit streets because they have other exits that go out there. an additional variable of why this data cannot be relied on is the issue of double counting that occurs with pedestrian counts at intersections. because every time a pedestrian goes and changes from longitude to last aleut -- latitude or vice versa, they are double counted. on top of all these variables that destroy the credibility of the data as it relates to pedestrian congestion at our

permit location, the data is from nearly a decade ago. a lot has happened since then. with the most glaring fact being what the opposition admitted themselves, at the previous hearing, which is an increase in online sales has had a negative effect on people showing up and going around to the retail shops. meaning that the traffic has gone it down in the last several years. they are drawing from an inflated figure. they are using outdated sources to create an inaccurate depiction of congestion. it is dishonourable and wrong. they are trying to make their argument irrelevant to the poi point. that is all. thank you for at your time. >> clerk: thank you. is there someone from the department? >> good evening, commissioners. i am representing the department of public works. a mobile food facility permit --

for the creamery was heard on june 30th, 2018 and then on july 11th, 2018. the board to conditions the permit and reduce the hours of operation. the appellant's rehearing request, the pedestrian counted in 2011 was provided for at the nearby street intersections of geary and powell and geary and stockton. although pedestrian count information is not required as part of the application submittals, nor is it part of the review criteria, having the information is important. the pedestrian count data would have been referred to sfmta for review and analysis because they have jurisdiction authority and technical expertise to review traffic studies. if sfmta provided a recommendation and public works would have taken it into consideration when making a determination to improve, conditionally approve or deny

the permit following the hearing. the appellant's pedestrian count, notwithstanding, the department stands by their decision. thank you, i will be available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you. we will now move on to public comment. if you can approach. if you have a speaker card to. you can give it to us afterwards. why don't you go ahead and start your comments and save a lot of people. thank you. >> good afternoon. madam president -- o. god. i can't wear these glasses. mr magoo. thank you. crazy. hello. i am a resident of oakland. my wife went to law school and she works in the california state building here in san francisco. we used to live here and i love

these streets. i love union square. i used to love in union square -- used to live in union square. i am here to support san francisco hometown creamery's bid to deploy their beautiful vintage van here. i just think that -- i mean, my real feelings, and i will say them -- save them for the very end, my initial feelings as there needs to be finality that this permit was already granted. it is not fair for young and struggling businesses to not be able to rely on governmental decisions. i think finality is very important. i don't think dredging up pedestrian traffic counts from 2,009 qualifies to exempt, as a special new circumstance. it is a 2009 study and it was not even mid block. so it seems like this is just, you know, sadly a game and i would like to say to the

developers, i've seen this game before, the landlord's. i think, having a quality ice cream product in a vintage van near your facility will increase business. are you crazy? that is what people come here four. in san francisco, they want something organic and native to this place. you go to macy's and everything is made somewhere else, practically. this is a homegrown project. is started by scratch and organically sourced. this is what people come to san francisco 55. union square is all the bells and whistles of fancy buildings and cartier and, you know, different brands of stories. they can go to any mall. what is unique here is what these young men have done and created a business. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. thank you. >> thank you.

hello and thank you for taking my comments and in support of the homemade creamery, hometown creamery. i've been a resident of san francisco for 40 plus years. my husband and i have owned a small consulting company for over 35 years. we feel very strongly about the sometimes difficult positions that small businesses find themselves in. this is a very heartfelt issue for me. when i became aware, i have followed through the various hearings what has gone on with the permit process. i find it absolutely appalling that the permits were approved, and then through a slight of hand, which has been previously cited on 2009 and 2011

pedestrian studies. might i point out, if we are talking about longevity, that, in fact,, macy's doesn't have a lot of food. >> please direct your comments to us. >> macy's does not have much longevity in the country right now. all you have to do is read the times or the journal to see that their financial situation is waning. we are trying to support a small business, which we are losing. so please, i urge you to stick with your original decisions and approve the permit thought about this truck. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. if you all want to sit, that is fine. when it is time to move up, please move forward. thank you. >> evening. i am a barrier area residents.

in my opinion, this is simple. two brothers apply for a permit to serve ice cream in union square. group opposes it. that permit is granted in the same opposition group files for an appeal. an appeal of hearing takes place in that appeal gets denied. the brothers have now earned the right to move forward with their vision. i can't see how anyone can look at that and say there is an injustice there. at least not with a straight face. i also can't see how someone would have the audacity to try for a rehearing after that unless they thought they were so powerful that they could pull strings and get whatever they want all the time. i, five '01, hope that corruption does not exist in san francisco. the fact that these two men are having their dreams and goals questions but potentially discarded and swept aside, after they have already gone through the proper channels, by the book and have won this discussion twice already, is absolutely unjust and incorrect.

however, i know a much better and accurate word to describe the treatment that they are being subject to. cruel. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello. i am a bay area resident as well. after hearing what the opposition has to say, and learning about what is required for a rehearing, i don't see how the commissioners could see it in any other way which should even entertain the idea. the permit and the legitimacy has been hit back and forth multiple times and has gone in favour of the hometown creamery. today, i believe they smell like small children willing to arrogantly throw to stamp out the wonderful small local business from making it in the spotlight where they deserve to be, and it wastes all of your time and ours, and three, i hope you do not see a clear

inappropriate application of rehearing rules just to get their way. it is like someone losing a game, and after each loss saying, les du toit two out of three or three out of five, and so on. learning about what is needed for a rehearing, even as a a rehearing, even as a layperson, this is not an extraordinary or complex case. there have been no clear injustice done in terms of the decision made. there is no information that acts as a game changer requires more investigation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can i state clear, the door needs to be clear. the fire code states that it remains open. thank you. >> hello. i have lived in the sunset for 18 years. i have seen their business grow so much since they opens. they aren't a chain. they are brother and brother. they embody what i love about san francisco. they make their ice cream on site. they are artists. union square does not have this kind of homemade ice cream.

the legal system is a game and the opposition should be embarrassed by their actions and wasting of taxpayer money. i am proud of how they have earned their success, the right way, which should be commended and not stripped away. please deny the request for a rehearing. thank you. spee -- >> clerk: thank you. >> hello. i want to support entrepreneurship here in the city. i came to the city ain't 92 with a stained glass business and i am still employed in that business. i met these guys doing glassworks off at their shop and want to say that we need to support young people coming in with an idea and running with it and doing well and a good job. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello. this is the last time. how is it going? so i have been in the city for

about eight years now. it is not that long but, you know, i have seen a lot of it change. personally, in my opinion, i really want the creamery in the downtown area. i don't go there often. i'm not originally from here. i am actually from l.a. and i don't even bring family there. when people asked me, where do i want to go, i go to the inner sunset and i do not go do it to downtown to ben & jerry's or macy's. you can get that anywhere. so i will not say anything mean it like i did last time. i just want to tell you guys, you know, your decision was right the first time, and hopefully it doesn't change for foot traffic. this would be better if off of the city. ok. by. spee seven thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i have lived in the city for about ten years. not a super long time.

i am here to show my support for at the hometown creamery. i think the decision you made originally was the right one and i hope you stick to it and deny a rehearing. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker. >> hello. my name is marcus taylor. i am a new kind of person engaging with the businesses that they have. it is an amazing product. it is a very unique and smallbatch. it is very san francisco and it is major. what i am here to talk to you about today is, over the past 20 years, i have lived in san francisco since 2002. i have worked at three flagship stores in union square. and the and the degradation and the erosion in traffic has been crazy. college amazon, call it online shopping, call it whatever you want to do, the traffic is not

there like it used to be and it is really affecting the brick-and-mortar industry. including union square. i don't know that tourism has been affected as much because we are an international destination. but day to day traffic, san francisco traffic has definitely been influenced by that online traffic. so anything to pull more footsteps into union square, and to keep it uniquely san francisco, i think is very, very important. i would definitely check traffic numbers because they have dramatically changed since 2008. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a fourth-generation san franciscan. i have been following this appeal closely and felt a renewed sense of optimism in the city's institution when this board made its tough decision to uphold this permit.

considering the discourse of this appeal, it is troubling to me that the opposing side feels that they even have the right to ask for a rehearing. it is important that the commissioners consider the positive impact this permit would have on the community, even if it displeases a powerful special interest group that represents the select few. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am a resident of san francisco. i feel the need to invoice -- voice my adamant objection to this rehearing request. this is an abuse of the system. we should not be reversing justice. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello.

i am a resident of san francisco, as well. as you know, there are many pressing issues in the city that we must deal with. they take up a lot of your time and energy. i do not think this is one of them. i do not think a rehearing is something we should be pursuing here. it is a waste of time to try to prevent a popular, positive in local business from growing and having a beautiful ice cream truck in union square. it is a van. a small vampiric the decision has already been made by this commission to allow this a screen van. i see no new convincing information. the study seems outdated. as everyone else has seen, in it is inaccurate. if i were a commissioner i would see this as completely selfish and a waste of time of city money. the request for a rehearing is it challenging the rules on the laws of the city. with no regard for the interest and regard of the community. san francisco should support and

promote the local businesses, especially those especially those that have proven themselves in this highly competitive city. do what is right and deny the rehearing. >> clerk: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i work on third street in the financial district. i have been following this case. it is important to me. i have been a bay area resident my whole life and i have family in the north and south bay. typically, if it is a birthday or anniversary, many times we have spent it in union square. as i follow this case, the request for rehearing seems to be less and less about public safety, and pedestrian congestion, and it seems to be what some other folks think. i will echo this. it seems more and more to be a game, as far as a larger

established group simply trying to prohibit a small, younger group from operating. and another reason i believe they -- granting a rehearing would be a step back, as it's board of appeals had a unanimous vote, as well as the department of public works, already approving the project. enough people have spoken on that. and my last would be, as far as there being manifested justice or this incredible evidence that would merit a rehearing, i simply don't see it manifest injustice. an example would be an elderly couple being evicted from their home -- home because they weren't able to provide ownership and then later finding the deed. with all that being said, i respectfully ask you to deny a rehearing. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you.

>> how is it going? i am here to reiterate what everyone else is saying and say that it is heartwarming to see everyone come out and support a hometown creamery. i want to say that this is indicative of how it will be accepted downtown. i just wanted to say that this permit was already voted on and granted and the appeal denied. i wanted to say, unless there is overwhelming evidence otherwise, just deny the rehearing. that is all i wanted to say. >> clerk: thank you. >> evening. i live and work in san francisco. i am reiterating what other folks have said. it is not new evidence. this is a study from 2011. it is very difficult for me to understand how that will be grounds for a rehearing. i hope you deny. i think that these guys have a

great shop. we have heard so many great people talk about this. you guys didn't stop the first time that i was here. there were 25 plus people the first time and we have more than that tonight. the most bizarre or interesting thing that has been brought up is this actually might be the best thing for union square. i don't know what they are acting in, but they're not acting in their own best interest are the best interest of the city. we are dragging some guys through the mud. not in the interest of residents or it may be their own best interest. it will bring more foot traffic. -- passed macy's when foot traffic is declining -- declining. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i cannot express enough how much against us rehearing request i am. they have proven they are not only dedicated to bringing extraordinary ice cream to the city, but also tirelessly

working to comply with the appropriate guidelines and to work within the system. this is not an easy process before them. they are dedicated to seeing it through the right and honest way. to approve the rehearing request would be incredibly disheartening to everyone. it sends a message that hard work and merit are meaningless in the face of big business and deep pockets. as a native san franciscan, this is not the image of the city i grew up in. what makes san francisco special is a local businesses and cultures. the stories of the individuals who took risks and pushed boundaries. the voice of the individual has always been exceptionally strong here and there is a long-standing belief that one person really can affect change. to approve a rehearing is not the prolonging -- not just the process of an -- sends a message businesses no longer have a place here. the hearing has been clear so far. the permit was granted and they agreed to new conditions and it yet, still, here we are again. at what point do we take a

stance until business -- big businesses that money is not enough to change the decision? >> clerk: thank you. >> hello. i am here in support of the ice cream van. i think it would only improve the pedestrian life that is already there. i think it could add and help the sterility of the area and give it more of a true san francisco feel. i am from the east coast. i have lived in boston, new york, and l.a. and i have been here 55 few months seeing if i want to live here. i am a little discouraged by what seems to be the game if the occasion of your time and the political system. i want to make sure that, you know, no more wasted and back and arguments that happen. it seems like pedestrians are already there and it seems like that is not the true issue. i am curious what the real problem is. and i hope that we can move

forward with the van. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i had a prepared thing but i just want to -- this hearing is not about an ice cream truck or one ice cream business. it is about the rule of law. and the rule of law is not just set to confer justice upon some -- up on some citizens, but to protect all citizens against the vagaries of government. there was an ordinance. ordinances do not exist in a vacuum. they have a purpose. the purpose was to comply with the state of california requirements and control pedestrian issues on public sidewalks and in busy commercial areas. and the findings set forth that. and then from that, there were actions that were supposed to be taken. one is the new applicants were not supposed to be in overly served and congested areas, but

in underserved and uncongested areas. the bid came and the first hearing, i have to disagree with mr cohen, at the very first hearing, we brought our numbers 53.8 million pedestrian visitors to union square. but what we were told was that it is not public information. that his private information. they can't really use that. this board heard at the last hearing there was an interchange with the d.p.w. about that if they wanted to find real pedestrian numbers, they would have to do traffic studies with sfmta. after that hearing, we found out that at a stakeholders meeting that sfmta and the d.p.w. came with numbers from s.f. data.gov. so we brought to these numbers to you. there are 60 million pedestrians in the city statistics in the one block area around union square. and there are 38 restaurants where other permits have been

denied pop up far less. this is not in underserved and not a congested area of the city. it is up to this board to decide if we will ignore that part of the law, or if we will enforce it the way it was intended and written. that is what this request for a rehearing is about. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. i am stan's wife. i would like to discuss another business, actually. i would like to discuss the business of a food truck called spice affair who was denied a permit at 46 geary in union square. i would like to talk about it because he applied for a food truck and was denied both by the public works, and this board. in 2012, the file is included in

the bid brief as exhibit g. public works cited the ordinance findings on it. i want to include this for all of you. two, three, five and seven of their brief, stating that the mobile food ordinance is created to provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting food consumption opportunities pop up mobile food facilities in underserved and less congested areas of this city. that is what they used to deny him a permit. the test that they use for whether a location was underserved was the number of restaurants in the surrounding area. for spice affair's public works to determine nine restaurants near 46 geary street disqualified it from being considered to be in an underserved area. fifteen nearby restaurants disqualified others and 13 restaurants disqualified 214 battery street. at 3 38 restaurant surrounding e

current location did not result in public works disqualifying this location. >> clerk: thank you. >> good evening. i'm a san francisco resident and happened to be their daughter. i will continue where my mom left off. public works has stated that the spice affair application was denied because they applied to be in yellow zones. that is not what the documents show. there were a two independent reasons for public works denial, clearly stated on page 2 of the brief. number 1, spice affair was denied by the city engineer because all three locations are in close proximity to existing restaurants. number 2, in addition, parking a truck in those areas for these long durations will contribute to more traffic congestion. both of to more traffic congestion. both of those are

"-right-double-quote. on page 5, public works states the two separate reasons for the denial. for a quote from the city engineer, the they recommended r proposed new location in other underserved areas with less restaurants and away from major streets that experienced traffic congestion. it is in good's -- inconsistent with public works' position in the current application. the test of existing restaurants in their case was not applied at all in the current case. 281 geary has more than four times a restaurants. it has 38. yet 281 geary was not disqualified. second, in the spice affair's application, geary street was considered to be a major streets that experiences traffic congestion. while traffic congestion at 281 geary street, cracks -- across from union's character square

was neither defined nor mentioned in the current public works approval. we ask the board to rehear this application for the law it -- so the law can be applied fairly, consistently and rationally. to do otherwise is to choose favourites between applicants and equally important citizens. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. next speaker, please. >> i am here in support for hometown creamery. i want to bring the attention back to the topic of san francisco hometown creamery. i have been a fan of this ice cream shop ever since it opened. i have gotten to know the owners very well and you would be hard fought to find anyone more hard-working, creative and have margaret. they created a beautiful product that people love and they are

enterprising individuals who have found success in that they are trying to expand. this board has already found twice that they are proposal will be accepted for the permit. it seems like there is no new information here from a 2009 traffic study. it seems to me, like this has already been decided. i would love to see these two hard-working entrepreneurs be able to see their success grow. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i've lived in the city 29 years. i am against this rehearing. i feel if this rehearing were to be granted to, it would be a sad state of affairs and a horrible depiction of how this city runs. this particular permit is something san francisco should

be cheering for. this city needs more success stories like these two brothers coming to union square. the last thing that we need right now is a decision that exacerbates a sense of distrust and and an equal playing field. granting a rehearing under these circumstances would be an outrage. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. pardon me. i am not feeling very well today. but i thought it was very important to come down. this is my first time testifying in any public venue. i have been living in san francisco for almost 30 years. i wanted to talk about something that i haven't really heard. as a medical epidemiologist. we need to compare apples to apples.

as a representative from a family, i consider us local experts on ice cream in san francisco. we need to compare a scream to ice cream. there are no homemade san francisco organic ice cream shops in the union square area. when i heard about the plan, i was so excited. i am not a shopper. everyone else in my family is. i would go down there to that truck to get the ice cream and i will pay for all the things everyone wants to buy in union square for my family. to me, it is a win-win. there may be other ice cream places, they are not the type of calibre of ice cream places. they are scattered throughout the city. this union square area is underserved in terms of excellent top-quality ice cream. thank you, very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i also spoke the last time we

were here. i want to say that this is really frustrating. if this rehearing goes through, it would directly add to the narrative that powerful organizations are able to lobby government agencies for their interest regarding -- regardless of how the public feels about it. if a less influential group brought this argument forward, it would be denied because the data is outdated and does not tie into the issues they are raising. by this point, i am sure it is apparent to you that they are good people and a positive influence on their community. i implore you to end this stressful and upsetting back and forth and grant s.f. hometown creamery at the rates we all know they deserve. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am going to echo all the arguments you have heard already so i can be quick. i grew up in the bay area and i

have been here my entire life. i lived in san jose for 20 some years and lived in oakland for the last five and in s.f. of the last six. one of the major things i love one of the major things i love about san francisco was the sheer number of small businesses and unique perspectives that brought the city. in the last 20 or so years, we have seen that change to, generally impoverishing the city's unique culture. i think the people of san francisco care about this on a visceral level because it looks, sounds and feels like an attempt of sabotage on the smaller businesses. we have seen this over and over that people at the top want something and they get it. it breaks the public's trust. i firmly believe that san francisco's hometown creamery should be able to operate in union square so we can better enable future entrepreneurs to reopen san francisco to small businesses. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

>> hello. i am a bay area native and i am now working and living in san francisco. i think there seems to be a pervasive belief amongst those with deep connections and money that they can get away with what they want by taking advantage of their elite networks and friends in positions of power, by circumnavigating rules we have in place. they just outspend the underdog. to see this happen to a company like san francisco's hometown creamery is a very upsetting. i feel it necessary to be here today to express that to you all. when i first heard about the case, i thought it was understandable. i understand why you have to go through this process. but to hear now that these two young men who have demonstrated how they strictly stuck to the city guidelines and have been approved, not once, but twice and are still being undermined by special interest groups that does not represent the greater public, and it is furthermore

trying to deny the upward mobility of the type of business growth that we want to see in san francisco, is beyond me. there should be no rehearing. this is absurd. thank you fa fight your time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i have been an s.f. resident for 21 years. and i have been going down to businesses on ninth and irving for pretty much the whole time i have been in this city. and what these two brothers have brought in, not just in a single ice cream shop that keeps to itself, they actively try to benefit the community around them. they actively partnered with a couple businesses around the area in the process process of creating their ice cream and allowing other businesses to

share and giving their ice cream to different groups. they have also donated certain slavers' profits to different charities in support of a number of different causes. if you ever go visit, you will see some of their slavers and no that it isn't a big corporation that is trying to put 100 trucks on different streets. they are small business that is just trying to help expand the downtown area ' a culture and, hopefully, bring back a lot of people to the downtown area, which has been severely harmed in the past decade. not due to pedestrian traffic, but massive amounts of construction, which pretty much

makes all of the pedestrian data that has been gathered since about 2007, skewed and unrealistic and the use of it. because of that construction. and we need to more businesses like this down in that area. it is not a food truck. it is a little bit of san francisco trying to give to the old community. including -- >> clerk: i appreciate it. your time is up. thank you. next speaker. >> hey. the department of public works signed off from the head of the department and approve the permit to, location and operation of hometown creamery ice cream, a van at geary between powell and stockton. the first hearing resulted in one opposition. one absent commissioner, one

commissioner and complete -- incomplete favour of the hometown permit and two commissioners in favour his condition -- if conditions to the permit were made. the first hearing was solid by an extra month of deliberate -- followed by an extra month of deliberation and including revision for the objective information and evaluations of various vacant -- variables pertinent to the case. at the continue tearing, the decision to stick with the original decision of allowing the hometown creamery the location, was still made. to further accommodate the opposition party, accommodations that were unnecessary, the commissioners made substantial changes to the permit. in particular, cutting down the hours of operation. preemptively making the small business owners agree to less revenue. they accepted, gracefully. not only is the opposition party here, not bringing new information, which i just sat next to the labour and patient

and had a walkout to keep getting blow-by-blow of what information was being presented, it is in fact, bringing in less accurate information. it is outdated. clearly lacking the evidence needed to justify a rehearing. and not meeting a rehearing requirements. granting a rehearing would be a slap in the face of justice. it would demonstrate that going through the proper channels, and playing by the rules is all meaningless. if there is someone powerful enough allowed to bend, that does not want it to happen, because everyone will just be shut down. >> clerk: thank you. >> good evening. unfortunately, i represent macy's. >> president fung: sir, are you part of the union square b.i.d.?

>> no. >> president fung: you are not? >> my company is a member of b.i.d., but i work outside of this. >> president fung: ok. >> ok. i'm sorry. anyway, despite what some of the opposition says that perhaps we are failing, we are doing well enough to provide over $500,000 of contributions throughout the city too many programs. most recently, there was a moratorium initiated by the city because we are in the process of converting the area. we have a larger footprint. the idea was to sustain the brick and mortar retail in one of the most important retail centres in the united states. we are trying to build a new storefront right at that spot. people are acting like we are

against the creamery. i support its. it just does not need to be there. anywhere in union square, they are going to be successful. they have already called and asked for additional spots. we have offered spots and they said no because this is the most congested spot. it is common knowledge. this is a most congested spot in union square. now, i spoke to the head of public works just the other day, to ask whether this was reasonable to ask for a pedestrian count. he agreed. absolutely. there should be. i can tell you that. again, we are not opposed. we are not trying to stop anything. we just think there are better places within union square for this truck to be situated and quite frankly, i believe they will be successful in any spot. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

's or any other public comment on this matter? ok. seeing none, commissioners, this is submitted. >> president fung: commissioners? we got way off track here. by the way, i think no new information was presented. i get what my endgame is. no new information was presented today. therefore, therefore, i will make a motion to deny the rehearing. but, i will look at d.p.w. you are looking at a board that is caught between antiquated -- ambiguity. you will make a presentation in front of us in a couple of weeks on the hope you have observed this ambiguity. you have a statute that you have to deal with which came from the board of supervisors and there is no definition of what is

underserved, what is over served. there is no definition of what is congested to, what is not congested. this is not about these two gentlemen who i applaud, and i said this last time, you guys are great. the spirit that you bring to the community is great. but, the whole discussion of whether you are in a congested, over served area, places us in a very difficult position. we have made a decision, i feel and therefore that is why i am moving to deny the rehearing. d.p.w., please be prepared in a couple weeks to address that which you are setting us up for on this court, which is the ambiguity related to the legislation. we need to know. by the way, for members of the public who talk about these two great gentlemen who are starting their business, come last week.

we had to watch what others who are equally entrepreneurial and to have equally risen from putting their own money into their business and their own creativity and risen to put in food trunks pick -- food trucks. it happens every week. every week, we have the same discussion. what is over served? what is underserved? what is over congested, what is under congested. who is getting in who's way. their entrepreneurs who have brick and mortar and they started in the same way you did in your brick and mortar out in the inner sunset. they need to be protected too. they are small businesses. that is why we need d.p.w. to review this please when you come back in a couple weeks and take it back to the board of supervisors. not to change directory legislation, but to clarify the legislation so we don't have these discussions based on ambiguity and stuff.

congratulations. i hope you do really well. that is my motion. >> president fung: why kuwait -- you know. i will probably disagree with you a little bit. the appellants that brought forth two major points. one is dealing with the issue of congestion and that they have documentation that they brought forth which was not available. the other issue was dealing with whether this board looks at findings as a part of legislation. i don't think that was necessarily a question in my own mind. i have looked at it. multiple ordinances, i have always found the findings are part of the ordinance. so that's not the issue. but the question of whether there was any real information

on congestion levels, was brought forth as part of the appellants' brief. anecdote elite, previously, most of us probably guessed that this is the most congested spot in san francisco. if this is not a congested spot, then why is that language in the ordinance? [please stand by]

-- we put our conditions on that so i would have voted against you if i had been here in my physical being allowing me to be here. but we passed it. and i agree with commissioner lazarus and i agree that commissioner fung that is the most cop jested area and if you walk down fisherman's wharf in the middle of the summer but at the same time this information was available and it could have been presented. and so the issue related to a re-hearing, as much as, again, i'm sorry that i would have wrote it against you in the first place, but i don't think that there's any new information that justifies a re-hearing. and that's -- so i hate to

differ with you but i kind of side with commissioner lazarus on this one. >> clerk: so we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the request on the basis that there's no new evidence on that motion. president fung? >> president fung: no. >> clerk: commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> clerk: so that motion carries. we need three. >> president fung: let's take a two-minute break. >> clerk: welcome back to the august 8, 2018, board of appeals meeting. we are now on to item number 5. this is appeal number 18-078.

dino and james goossens-larsen versus the department of building inspect whereon with the planning department approval and it's located at 645-647 valencia street and protesting the issuance on may 25, 2018, to dennis ring of the site permit and preserving and renovating a two-story commercial structure and a new three-store vertical addition to it, for a to theaal height of 55-feet tall. it has ground floor commercial and entry and parking for some of the units with access from sycamore street. the upper four stories will house seven units. the proposed work will have the additions of kitchens and bathrooms. this is application 2016/11/14 2016/11/14/2504. and we will hear from the appellants first. you have seven minutes. thank you. >> hi, it indicates minutes? >> clerk: you will get a chime that indicates that you have 30