an existing permit. i agree with what president garcia's stated about the irrelevance of the negative comments with respect to the businesses, and i think they have no place here, but i think generally my inclination is to overrule and grant the appeal. >> i agree with that for the reasons stated. good >> i will make the motion, but i do have one comment, and that would be, assuming the will of the board is to allow the gentleman to go through the proper procedure, he might not end up with that location, but is the does happen to please work vigorously to get him a good spot. >> the permit is before you. the permit is granted to the individual at that location. >> i would move we overturned based upon the facts that this board or i am making the motion that the procedure was on reasonable to this appellant region would be unreasonable to the appellant and would constitute failure. >> you could say that because of the 90-day period. as soon as he got notice, he promptly applied. >> thank you. >> we can ca

at that point, he applied for a permit, permit number 11 -mff-0169 following the process . during this process the department provided mailing a notification to all businesses within 300 feet of this location, and i believe that was at that point that the current permit holder, leo's hot dogs, ceasar's, he was informed and came to the department asking for -- number one are, objecting to this application and also asking the department to issue him the permit based upon his current -- since it expired police department permit. at that point, the department was placed in a situation where he failed to come to the department within 90 days and by law, he would not be able to renew his permit, number one. number two, we already have in essence a new application for this site that it will be inappropriate for us to provide a level of entitlement given that that entitlement period has lapsed specifically and therefore based upon a requirement under the code we had to deny that location to him specifically. the department did its best faith effort based on the information we were

that is a separate permit. she has people outside on the patio, and that is not a question being considered for this commission but you might want to clarify if she says per se party, what she means so there is the same communication. >> to you have music? >> sometimes they will have a boom box. >> is that considered amplified music? yes, it is. all right, so --- president newlin: you would need a separate permit. >> what about poetry reading stacks -- readings? >> we cannot stipulate to the type of entertainment. the only thing we can do here is conditioned on time, place, and manner. that is what we're discussing. if she has entertainment outside and it has amplification it requires a loudspeaker permit. >> i hear you. bear with me, this will take a second to formulate this motion. i moved to approved the limited supply of -- limited live and strike the conditions of mission station with regard to security , that the office can suspend their commission or the staff sneeze to walk -- staff needs to walk. this

you have all the permits. you cannot be denied a permit for the building. so in that department, i really don't know why but it's up to you commissioners to do the right thing because i'm not against anybody else. it's just that i have the permits and somebody in the city they didn't communicate, the department of public works that i have a permit. this is the whole thing. and i already applied even in november 3 and a few hours i did whatever i have to do because i'm very good in that. i became very successful in business which is i just even want to mention when i moved from north beach to the mission in the 1970's, it was the ghetto, and my business, put the light on the mission district, take a look what i did. now at 19 and mission, this cart has beautiful lights for nighttime, lots of lights, beautiful things. it's not illegal. it's the joy of the health department. thank you very much. president garcia: sir, in your papers you submitted to us there's some mention of the fact that you reached out to your offices. i'm going to assume that's d.p.w.'s of

>> the permit never expired. vice president hwang: the workers' comp and other types of compliance related requirement. >> the permit has -- vice president hwang: huh workers' comp, i think you said workers' comp. there were others. insurance? >> insurance i have. vice president hwang: what is the coverage period for the insurance? >> the insurance come from the city of san francisco. vice president hwang: time period? >> it's every year. vice president hwang: you paid as of the -- >> every year. vice president hwang: what period does it color, calendar year 2011? >> from 2011-2012. vice president hwang: you prepaid it? >> yes. i have copies of it. vice president hwang: i wanted to hear what it was. i don't need it. >> workers compensation. i have everything. vice president hwang: ok. thank you. >> thank you. mr. kwan, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners, john kwan from public works once again. well, the department recognizes the difficulty that mr. ascarrunz has in this specific case.

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

>> if the permit required a permit application on behalf of the molding itself, there are two particular slot numbers a condominium is a post of, and there is a condominium area, and one member does not have the authorities to do work without the authority of the others, so permit should have been issued not just for one lot. i understand they are changing the scope of the work and suggesting they are not going to do that work, but that work is approved by the city and in our view should not have been approved based on the notice in this case. >> was there ever any question as to the area of the work was intended to be done? >> i think my client -- there had been a negotiating between the owners. my client did not understand the permit holder was going to be filing a permit application for a deck where they did not have the authority to do that. the effect was not part of that particular lot the permit holder owns, so i think there was harm to my car -- to my client. we would be happy to bring that before you. >> good evening. i am appearing on behalf of the permit holder. he is also her

the permit is for indoors. and i realize that, but the indoor space, there is only 10 small tables in there. i don't see how they have space for a live band indoors, because i don't think there's not enough room to play and i think -- if it's as loud inside as it is outside, people won't be able to talk and order food. my dad has tried to negotiate with marta sanchez and talked about us getting dual-pane windows and she said she had no intention of stopping the music. and repeated calls haven't stopped the music until she applied for the music. in an attempt to compromise, she initially agreed to play indoors and keep the door to the back patio shut, but as the conversation continued, she did agree that she wants to be able to play in the back yard sometimes. and i don't think the door is going to stay shut. i don't think customers on the back patio are going to want to hear the music. i imagine the door will stay open. and i feel that this has shown a lack of regard for the neighborhood. she knows this is real

my client did not understand the permit holder was going to be filing a permit application for a deck where they did not have the authority to do that. the effect was not part of that particular lot the permit holder owns, so i think there was harm to my car -- to my client. we would be happy to bring that before you. >> good evening. i am appearing on behalf of the permit holder. he is also here in case there are any questions. also, of the permit holder and the contractor submitted declarations as part of the paper work and you have to be for you. i will summarize briefly the arguments that were submitted, but this was a interest fictional request that it be denied, because there is -- this is a jurisdictional request that it be denied because there is nothing but that caused her to miss her deadline. we have provided as evidence in support of the opposition to this request copies of the homeowners' association covenants and restrictions. that shows this is not a common area, that they have the exclusive right to maintain and approve the deck, so it is a disingenuous argument about

and 61 beale be struck from the permit. >> is it uphold the permit? >> grant the appeal. granting the appeal and conditioning the permit. modifying it. >> would you like to state basis for the modification for striking those locations? based on like food provisions? >> if i could refer to testimony and evidence that was given to us at the last hearing having to do with issues in particular for me and others might have different feelings, issues having to do with the fact that a permit was granted by dpw that would put the operator in violation of parking laws is why i was opposed. we're looking for something else? >> -- were you looking for something else? >> the reasons for striking 50 california. >> i was not aware we had overturned. if you want me to get into that, my feeling is the legislation as written and the findings as presented referred to things having to do with revitalization of the streetscape. it seemed to be unnecessary for that part of town. even though not strong evidence was given that a food truck or mobile food facility, because i

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

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

>> this is about a window permit. she got the permit pretty quickly after risch -- after we cited her. this sometimes happens. the window people are not great at getting the permit is done. this is just a lack of construction knowledge regarding the permits. our department is happy enough on that one. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? president garcia: i wish there was a way to accept that agreement. i wish there were a way that we could compel people to come before us. we have had the situation before where, and i'm not saying it is an allegation, but it has been alleged -- we have no independent knowledge. if the contractor did do that, which i believe he did, there should be some sanctions against that contract. if we impose a contract, it would not be against the permit holder. i move that we accept the arrangement made by dbi and the appellant. >> we have a motion from president garcia to reduce this penalty to two times the regular fee. commissioner fung: aye. h vice-presidentwang: aye.

also, if you grant my permit, if i receive a permit, i will take action and make sure [inaudible] president newlin: this is the kind of thing we're trying to promote. a good business. he has done nothing but comply. it has been free of any problems. i would like to see this move on. i will leave it to the commissioners to make a motion. is there public comment? nobody with the public, it is with the commission. commissioner joseph: i believe that in these economic times he should have the opportunity. i move to amend his permit to extend his hours to 1:37 days a week. president newlin: is very second to? commissioner perez: aye. commissioner hyde: no. commissioner joseph: aye. president newlin: no. -- aye. good luck and keep it quiet. we are going to jump to item i, m and n. no. l. for some reason i thought they were the same. is n controversial? n. aslam, jack in the box. extended hours permit. >> i will give a brief introduction how i got here sensed there are three -- sinse ce there are 3 jack in the boxes. all of these businesses have been in place for many years. i will let the applica

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

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

the amplified sound is required to be permitted by a loudspeaker permit. >> you have to have your doors and windows closed, for this permit. all of your windows and doors have to be closed. all of the sound must be contained? >> yes. it requires the containment of sam. -- sound. commissioner joseph: you have to announce it. >> if that is true, hopefully we will have better relations with the neighbor as a good representative. i would hope that it takes to start because i would hate to see a community cornerstone take themselves down. with regard to their patio, would you suggest that she comes in has a conversation with you about how and in what manner she could possibly use her patio? >> she is welcome to come to our office to the clarity. she will probably be coming shortly to obtain a permit. we will definitely work on a communication with the neighbors and do the best that we can. >> i would like to support the comments of commissioner hyde that there is a balancing act to have to implement to keep people who leaked -- love your establishment. i did not hear any unreasonable people

permitted to operate for at least a year unless weekend edition of permits for the duration? they would have to renew, and during that process common you would have to go through the process. >> there are no notification requirements. we evaluate whether there have been notices of violation to this merchant. whether there have been issues of public health, that we determined this was not an appropriate use. the department can revoke and not allow it to renew. >> i did not hear any of incentive -- any bases. i did not hear you say development might not be affected economically by the exis. >> that would be correct. you have a situation of a location selling specific food. then you have a commercial enterprise. i am going to sell similar food and then turn it around and require the department to revoke it. >> thank you. >> the matter is submitted. >> if i can ask the woman who spoke in public testimony to come up, thank you for coming back. i am confused as to the chronology. you started operating, or you applied to operate in november of 2011? >> we started to operate december

iraq's we can hear from the permit holder, now -- >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> i am here on behalf of my partner. we were here last year in august and in september and we were granted a permit to operate a food cart. we received the extended permit , and as you noted, the letter was mailed out on may 5, and we received a letter given on november 14 with the same issue, so i am here to clarify. let me try to show the concern. can you see that? >> i think we have abouthat. >> first, concerned that we should close the station. we believe we require it 50 feet from the bus stop. if you see the picture, we are about 50 feet away from the bus stop and also one or two blocks from our station -- from the bart station. she is also concern the we blocked the building and the sidewalk from trafford. i believe we need a minimum of the sidewalk. -- we meet a minimum of the sidewalk. numbersidewalk elevator access. for your information, our car is located on the yellow commercial. it is not located on the commercial parking zone, and also, in the letter, there is concern about a f

. >> permit applicants here? come on up. >> good evening, i'm the pro bono attorney for the neighborhood association and we are very much in favor of this. we have presented over 600 signatures from customers at the cafe. in addition, we submitted 50 signatures of people who live within one block including the upstairs neighbor. the institution has helped change the neighborhood and create a place for gathering and maintain its economic vitality and we would urge approval. >> i'm the owner of the cafe and i think this will be good for the neighbors. and all i'm asking for is to have jazz for saturday and sunday so people can come in and hang out and end their week with beautiful music. commissioner newlin: any questions from the commission? seeing none, is there anybody opposed to this permit? ok. in the sake of expediency unless someone wants to speak strongly. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner perez. [ commissioner newlin: it's approved. quaintane, chris, e.p.a.y center cafe, 764 harrison street,

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