california street, the board received a letter from second street merchants requesting rehearing of appeal 12-126d,b!mh-!m decided november 147mk,7÷ 2012. at the time the board votedl facility permit on the basis that the salekój expresso drinks is not like food under dpw's guidelines. three out of four pÃvotes being required to modify a departmental action when vacancy exists the permit wasu <';oç operation. my understanding is that commissioner honda, who is not a member of the board at thatb time, has reviewed the video and is preparedbq >> commissioner honda: i have reviewed the video and am ready to participate. >> we will start with theé[ requester. threerw >> allison rowe from harvest and rowe. my -- is=bib feet --e review tab 13 of the appeal to see photos that- that -- ism front. 90% of our morning business 5 exactly the same product and we have six direct competitors nearby. it menus are compared to a%5v3fprm0w3 coffee second and fronted are not underserved in5f: primary hot spots and the last thing wenv the mobile!78b.c food law says a permit is valid if the applicant hasá4w3 it(sáq" fraudulent statements of fact. under oath and in writings& admitted maj