the department would issue a permit had within 90 days from the permit issuance, the applicant needs to acquire all of the approval before they can operate a. one of the reasons is because, when you purchase a vehicle, you need to reconstruct and remodeled it in order for it to operate. at that point, you need to go back to the department of health and make sure that the vehicle is satisfactory and the fire department to make sure the open flame source requirement is satisfied. there is a therelag time for people to purchase these vehicles due to the cost of these vehicles. there are comments as they relate to people parking the wrong way. again, traffic regulation does not allow people to park in the opposite direction of traffic flow nor does it allow people to double park. ultimately, it is left to the mta and police department to enforce double parking and parking the wrong direction. that is beyond the jurisdiction and the control of the department. many of the discussions by the appellant were policy issues, specifically as it relates to the riding of the legislation, which, as

it refers to the two by four wall constructed at the rear side without a permit current there was a permit for the underpinning. the two by four wall was part of the shore information that was done when the project was originally underpinned. i have a copy of an e-mail from the department of building inspection. if i may submit copies to the board. they confirm there are no shoring issues at hand. i refer you to the department of building inspection. they confirmed that to me by e- mail that only talked about removal of some pieces of wood. absolutely. in terms of the history, some of the complaints he mentioned about the damage to the property, damage to the decks, there was an agreement in place with her father, the prior owner, a license agreement to allow access to the property. there was an underpinning agreement signed. a long series of negotiations with the prior owner. $40,000 was paid to the owner to do the work necessary to construct the project. the developer did not come on and start ripping out? without permission. this was fully negotiated. if you have copies of those agreeme

it is 1 per met with several addresses and the permit is in front of us. we have jurisdiction and we may intend to keep jurisdiction. it is causing me to think that we should keep jurisdiction, commissioners. commissioner garcia: i agree with that, i am just wondering if we are better serving everyone involved if we were to continue the matter totally. i don't really know how i feel. >> we could certainly do it and the best case, we would end up where we were in the last case to have in front of us, the health department and restroom facilities certification query -- and certification. for a couple of weeks, it will perhaps agree on carving up california -- out california. president goh: i don't know, but it's an idea. >> and the appellants that are only concerned about those locations would be free to withdraw their appeals. commissioner fung: commissioners, we have a process and we have an appeal. a one issue that i was trying to give -- and to get at, all of the forms are submitted. it is not fair to provide an indication of where the board is going to

i think that the permit holder was looking for the board to actinide and uphold the permit on condition that those two locations are stricken. is that correct? >> if it is possible to do that what went wrong, -- with the withdrawal, i think that would be better for us working with dpw. director: it is suspended. if you wanted to do that, the board could continue the case to allow them to withdraw their appeals, and in the permit to be modified by dpw, but only when the appeals court lifted. >> just for clarification, it would need to come back to the board? no, it would not proved director: -- it would not? director: no, it would not. >> we can sufficiently do that with the other parties. commissioner garcia: i am confused as to what you think that is a better process them what was first described by art director. >> with our fees and our potentiality for other locations throughout the city i'm sure that light could be shined on in the future. i do not know if we need to take the time to make sure that is a benefit or not. i just want to get this thing solved so it does not take more of

we issue a new permit, i assume this is denied. the notification requirement will be considering a new permit, or are we just modifying the permanent and the specific case? third, one applicant is allowing a maximum of seven permits. there become the issues where the of the applicant is asking for several different locations in several different permits. there are nuances as this legislation is established that will create challenges in the interpretation and execution as we move forward. commissioner fung: given the indication that this board has made what they would like to see happen, what with the department recommend as a process? >> if the action of this board is to suggest -- the department can either revoke the sperm that, making the understanding that it is still the best and permit. they will issue is as is, they will provide us with -- commissioner garcia: we can continue it and you can work it out. in whatever way must the benefits of the appellant and serves the purposes of this board. is that possible to have that in

the permit is upheld

applying for a permit and getting a permit granted is different. it is the job of the dpw to ensure that there are not 8 food truck on every block. that would not be good for anybody. i wanted to make that point. i wanted to bring up something on the parking issues. there is a discrepancy there, whether it is a time limit for the yellow zones or something else. this is not a new thing and it is a good opportunity to try to reconcile those things. historically, this has been the case under the police department permit, the same discrepancy existed, and it was up to the mta to enforce the parking meters then like it is now. now, the process is becoming more public carry it is a good opportunity with the group of commissioner wiener to understand there could be a medallion program or something that could bring those together. it does not -- it seems like something that can be worked out. really, we are coming to you as small business owners, asking you to uphold our permits. we did our best to choose a spot that adheres to the law. we put time and mon

beyond that, my intention is to not support this permit and to recommend -- and to overturn this permit. president goh: i think the trucks are a really great idea. i am with the board of supervisors on putting this legislation in place. i think it is the wave of the future. it is exciting. it is what young people want. i am not so young -- it is what i want. there is something appealing to it. it is quick. the tech craze, the things mr. paul was speaking about. and yet, in the application here and the way it has come through dpw, i agree with vice president garcia that we could not approve it tonight. because there must be current compliance and there is not. i think we do not have a choice in that regard. in this particular area, maybe the hearing officer could have looked at mitigation measures around the area being fully by elisa, density considerations, ms. dick asked the question how many is too many? maybe there are too many here. the economy has a lot to do with it. we have heard from one appellant owner that all of the money is made in 1.5 hours. i believe that. it makes sense i

the permit has both addresses on a. again, it is simply going in to remove some pieces of wood that are no longer doing anything, just sitting there on the property. it seems silly that we are here arguing about a permit to remove some pieces of wood. that is what we are doing. all the prior work, the construction and underpinning work, that was authorized by the prior owner. there was nothing inappropriate done. agreements have attached to your brief period in terms of the new work, the request for information, we talked a year and a half ago about a possible settlement and ways we could resolve this issue. a cash consideration, getting work done. i am still trying to find out answers to his questions. i have asked for it -- ask for copies of their estimates for construction work which i have not received. that is not the issue here. we are talking about a single permit. we're not going to go on the owner's property without permission. this permit does not give us the right to do that. we need their permission or need

applied for their permits. as you can see -- where sf state is, city college, ucsf, the hospitals, st. mary's, they are in residential areas. it is hard for me to pinpoint it out on this map. president goh: i understand your point. thank you and. vice president garcia: when i read your letter, i was struck by the 1,500 feet radius and no consideration given to whether the school had an encampment. do you know what the radius has to be for an mcd? food is far more dangerous to kids than drugs. [laughter] >> that is one of the reasons by the working group is interested in re-reviewing this. >> thank you for your patience. go ahead and myriad >> thank you for your time to be here. i am ken cleveland with the building and managers association. i am disappointed to see the small business executives here tonight to side with one set of small businesses against another set of small businesses. i am here supporting the appellants. there are tenants in office buildings and as has since stated earlier tonight, they emplo

permit. president goh: that's understood. and you have those for each of those locations? >> yes. commissioner garcia: we have seen the one for the next case, can you furnished the one for this case? >> we don't have the restroom form, and before they would operate, they would be required to have that forms signed atdph. -- at dph. so this is the global food facility permit issued by the department of public health. there is a separate document that supports this, that we don't have to provide to you today. >> we can hear from the department now. >> of the department has submitted a brief to you earlier. i don't want, necessarily, to go back and repeat those items. there is testimony that the department would be to respond to. one of the appellants question to the environmental review as it relates. we had checked with the planning department, have the environmental review officer stated that each permit in this specific case does not require ceqa review. the program itself went through that

what is particularly striking about this permit is the fact that it is a discretionary permit which is appealable to the board. and yet they fit -- they failed to exercise discretion. that allows the permit holder to fill out the form, pay the fees, and even though a protest hearing was held with all of the objections you're going to hear tonight, the only condition that was on the permit was to allow them to operate at this location conditionally for six months. if you read the legislation or the guidelines, they allow for the dtw hearing officer to exercise discretion in regards to the process. the issues that stand out are the impact on other food service businesses. the guidelines in the code were very clear that it was not just limited to the kind of designation that dpw adopted in its guidelines. there were other considerations. as we stated in our brief, there are lots and lots of a food- service businesses that have take away food and food that is not necessarily even in a sit- down situation. the economic impact that arise from that are tremendous. there are a limited number o

applied for their permits. as you can see -- where sf state is, city college, ucsf, the hospitals, st. mary's, they are in residential areas. it is hard for me to pinpoint it out on this map. president goh: i understand your point. thank you and. vice president garcia: when i read your letter, i was struck by the 1,500 feet radius and no consideration given to whether the school had an encant

permits. they cannot park there. how is that going to be working? that should not have to happen. there are others who will speak about the economic impacts about these things. in one of the points i want to make is that we are not against food trucks. these businesses can locate and have submitted permits for other locations in san francisco. that is fine. the financial district does not need new vitality of food trucks down there. my office is in the financial district. i am walking down the streets and we do not need additional activity there. i want to point out -- i am here opposing beals street and california street, those two locations. beale street, besides the violations that exist, just a pragmatic look at the existing conditions, you will see reported four construction activities on the street. there is construction activity proposed until december 2014. permits being allowed for that. this is also the block that goes directly to the transit terminals. where buses and everything els

permits. this is crazy. to do this right, it requires a lot of attention. it does not require this kind of attention from downtown. the downtown financial district is not the place to do this. i'm going to leave some time, probably nine minutes for my two clients for the two matters. >> you said you represent two clients? you each have about 4.5 minutes each. keep that in mind. you start at 9 and i -- and at about 4.5, you should be done. >> i am the owner of the subway restaurant and also the 7-11. for myself and my fellow briton and more restaurant owners, i ask you to decide what is right and what is wrong in realistic terms. as the livelihood of people like me may be impacted by this decision. i am one of the 32 restaurant owners operating within walking distance from the location. i am referring to 50 telephone -- 50 california st.. we are fully rested in san francisco and has contributed our fair share to revenues. we have numerous employees who are dependent upon our businesses. the cit

why is this ordinance allowing permits to be issued without all of the proper permits? why are the -- what are they allowing these conditional permits with these sign-offs to follow? thank you. >> ok. appeal 11-105. no? 106? >> i will begin with trying to address some of the comments that were made. it should be made aware that i did challenge the environmental review issues that were raised earlier. i got one of the most curious opinions i have ever seen from the city attorney's office in that what they have said is that the ordinance itself was not a project and therefore the discretionary acts to approve the ordinance did not require environmental review. that was not so much as curious as the second part of the opinion which said that each one of these permits that gets issued does not need an army to review. because it does not need in our mentor review, there is no way to appeal it. we tried to appeal it before the board of supervisors. i am hoping to avoid litigation on this issue. i would rather see this get done administratively. but there are environmental imp

if it is administrative procedure and we apply for a permit, and the permit is granted, of course, we would do that in a heartbeat. it just puts us in a difficult, catch-22 situation. we do not want to weigh the arguments and exemptions. if it is an administrative matter, absolutely. >> our director said that it was as simple as getting a kitchen remodel permit. you are following the rules of the department by doing that, as is my understanding. >> ok. any other questions? >> i do not have a question. >> i would like to make a motion. >> are we finished with the bottle from both sides? >> is anyone going to speak for the rebuttal? >> i would like to make a motion that we continue this for 30 days by an order for you to get a permit, get this signed off. if not done in 30 days, we will act the way that the department recommends. >> i am not going to second. i think that we should uphold the order of abatement and give them -- and give them 60 days to resolve the issue. >> whatever you want. >> is there a second? >> first, we have to take a vote on the first motion. and if that fails, w

their permit. their permit is filed for 50 i will have to file a separate permit. i am sorry for the misunderstanding. president goh: we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening president goh and members of the board. i am with the law firm of rubin and junius in san francisco. i appreciate your time tonight. he made a few statements that i think miss characterized the status quo of the project and what has been happening over the past few years. first of all, the permit that we are talking about is a permit to remove some pieces of wood that remain on 15 guy place property. the person who called in to the -- who called in the complaint as a means to leverage, we do not know that for sure, but we were simply trying to respond to the notice of violation. he says that there are some shoring issues, the debt is not stable, the whole thing will come crashing down if we do not -- if we allow this permit to proceed. a couple of points about that -- if you look at the notice of violation, and

are -- [reading names] this is the protest of the mobile food facility permit. president goh, i believe the permit holders agent would like to address the board. >> thank you. on behalf of the permit holder of these locations, i have been speaking with the appellants and would like to ask that this board, without a public hearing, save us the time and difficulty of that, to proceed to disapprove hora pulled this permit, disapproving the two locations at beal and california street and to uphold the other locations of the permit. commissioner garcia: mi ssission and washington? >> i have spoken to the appellants and they agree with that. >> should we ask for the appellants to address the board as well? we'll do that, starting with the appellant. this is in specific reference to the proposal, 97 minutes of testimony. -- not the 7 minutes of testimony. >> and karen smith, i understand the question is if i would like the permit application to remove or withdraw the location at high street -- at california street. they are withdrawing those locations. >> are you in su

that is permit 0027. we are going to be speaking again on 0029 and 0027 so next week is fine. >> is next week the same facility? >> is there an appellate here that would like to speak? >> hello. i am debra sellers. i am fine with next week if we can schedule at the same time. if we have to schedule two different times on two different days, it is difficult for us to always appear. and here we are today and it is after 5:00 p.m., it is going on 6:00 p.m. if you are going to schedule a you can schedule it during business hours, that would be appreciated. >> the board only meet starting at 5:00 p.m. >> if we can do them both at the same time that would be preferred. i also have something at would like to submit. can i do now or later for your review? >> the time for some middle is passed. -- past. is that on the merits? perhaps that should happen when the merits are heard. >> thank you. for this appeal,. >> i am the lawyer for 101 california which is one of the locations that is subject to this appeal. there

the permit fee. we suggest a permit fee of $150 to start out with, to encourage buy-in from the dog-walking community. safely restraining animals. this requirement is rather vague. we think it need to be spelled out. but we would suggest that it means that the vehicle inspections would require a non--skid surface of rubber or rugs in the bed of the truck, that windows will have a strong screening, like, for example, hardware cloth to prevent escapes. that a vehicle with a soft top might not be acceptable, and that requirement for cars and advance may be different than from trucks. any requirements that dogs be in crates and vehicles is not feasible due to the variety of sizes of dogs in vehicles. educational requirement. this is incorrectly stated, but then he fixed that. it should be "or." displaying a permit. we have concerns about displaying the permit, because it can get tangled up, if it's not, and we often have so many different layers of clothing we're always taking on and off. it would be muc