mr. roth? you have three minutes. >> okay. thank you. well, i'd like to just get back to basics and remember why we're here. this ordinance came about in 2013. the 2010 ordinance was under attack because the state of california had preempted all the pedestrian safety issues and people were threatening to sue the city about the mobile food ordinance because of congestion on sidewalks. so when you read the legislative intent, it outlines what the ordinance is trying to accomplish. it's trying to accomplish complying with the state of california so the ordinance can't be challenged. so if you look at this picture, this is where you're putting the food truck. i know it probably has some glare, but this area right here, this is exactly where the food truck would be. and miss wilson -- commissioner wilson, we always want to attract people to union square. but -- but to attract people to congest the sidewalk when my fear is this ordinance is going to come at it -- if you grant a food truck in this heavily congested of an area, how will anyone d

thank you. >> so mr. roth, a point of clarification on your distances. you indicated that the tree -- free furniture was 4.5 feet from the curb, and later you said that left 8.5 feet. >> because you have shy distance because that's about what -- that's why street furniture is so detrimental to pedestrian walkways. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the department. [inaudible] >> oh, i'm sorry. the permit holder, yeah. to ru the mayor outside our creamery, and we invited everyone in and had them try our ice cream, which they enjoyed. a few days later, the mayor sent us a certificate of honor, which to this day hangs proudly on our wall. the mayor's chief of staff responded expeditiously with the following: thanks for reaching out, adar. sounds like a great addition to union square. we were just at the museum of ice cream the other week, and a tourist asked us where the nearest ice cream shop was and could only think of the ben and jerry's in the basement of the macy's. i'll mention it to the mayor today. he'll be so e

mr. roth it says yes. miss bass? mr. jeffries? >> i have been asked by the minority and the majority counsel to advise members that their votes will only be counted once. the clerk of the oversight -- >> mr. chairman point of order, on what basis without rule be since each committee is a voting separately on that? >> procedurally we have agreed to one unified vote. the clerk of the oversight and government reform committee will call the role of those members who have not voted. >> mr. gaudi? mr. olmos? miss fox? mr. hurt? mr. mitchell? mr. clay? mr. gomez? >> the gentleman from missouri? the gentleman from missouri votes no. >> mr. clay votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hurd of texas votes yes. >> mr. hurd votes yes. >> the gentleman from north carolina? >> mrs. fox votes yes. >> the clerk >> mr. chairman, lodi -- 38 members voted yes. 30 members voted no. >> the motion to table the chair has been held. >> let me say to the members of the fbi who may be watch

this is permit number 17 wr-0315, and so we will hear first from the requester, mr. roth -- >> richard fau. >> clerk: richard fau. okay. >> as we said, we'd like a rehearing on the request -- >> i'm sorry, could you move the mic closer to you. >> oh, okay. >> you can move the mic closer to you, as well. >> we would like a rehearing based on the article 25 and the complaints assessment. i think we need to vet more facts and leave it at that. >> president fong: thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is the permit holder here? >> good evening. mckenzie and albritton for the permit holder. so the narrow issue before the board today is whether or not the appellant met the criteria for a rehearing. you know what the criteria are, extraordinary cases, preventing manifest injustice, new or different material, facts or circumstances that could have materially affected the outcome of the hearing. as both d.p.w.'s hearing and our briefing shows, they have not met this criteria. by their own admission they're using this as an opportunity to respond to the testimony that was at the may

. >> mr. roth. >> yes. >> does your facility there conform to the current code? >> okay. two things. number one, when i got my permit in 1974, the ordinance said it shall be unlawful to peddle in san francisco without a license to do so. that was the ordinance. we didn't have to deal with this. so i've been grandfathered for 40 years. >> i didn't say that. >> do i comply? yes, i do and the reason i conform is because i'm by the entrance to macy's because i have a 25 foot wide sidewalk. during the holidays, i work with macy's. i have different sized carts, i come out with different size cart, tents, sometimes i don't come out at all. >> when was that photo? >> this was the weekend of christmas, like, a saturday night at christmas. you bet. yes? >> i have a question, as well. so since you've been there 44 years, there used to be forests that were on the corners, and i know that they -- they didn't voluntarily leave. do you remember why -- i ask can ask the department that after. >> there were two florists. >> there was one in front of i.magnin, and one in front of neiman ma

we will now hear from mr. roth, the other appellant. >> my name is stanley roth. i've been in this business 44 years. in 1974, this board actually overruled the police department and gave me a peddler permit, which was actually the first peddler permit in the city. i am the owner of the stanley steamer hot dog cart. i have to agree with karen, this is the wrong location for a food truck. and my job tonight is going to be to try and go into the -- the legislation. i think the most important line in this is line 23, where it says consequently, the location restrictions included in this legislation are intended to -- i'm sorry, the locational restrictions are intended to address these public concerns, and those are the concerns about -- and so the locations that are put together, these restrictions are the foundation of the ordinance, and there's three mandatory location requirements that are violated in this approval, and that's what i'd like to review. so if you'll bear with me, they are -- the location is -- violates the 6 feet from sidewalk furniture rule. it doe

mr. harris, as well.>> live tonight, outside the courthouse, thank you, now to rob roth, in court today, reaction from the victims families, rob?>> ththe families who came to court today, some cried as the judge read the names of their d ones. >> reporter: he heart wrenching day -- a heart wrenching day, family members came to hear the plea agreement for themselves, but david gregory, the father of michaela gregory, one of the 36 people who died, did night -- did not like the deal, nine years for derick almena, six years were max harris, 36 lives. >> what more did you hope for quick >> we just wanted some fair justice. >> what would that mean? >> just not to be four years or two years, with time served, and you know, we just wanted some justice, some fair justice, and we don't feel in our opinion, that was fair justice. >> reporter: the prosecution, a trial would save the family members pain. but others saw it differently. his daughter had gone to the dance party ended up dying in the arms of her boyfriend, but all that happened in between isn't clear to gregory.>> some questions could have been answered,