and they're going to go to the food trucks, and the food trucks is going to have some extra impact, and there is going to be more guarded on the sidewalk because there are not a lot of containers available on my client's property. the fact that you have got within a few blocks of this location, as we show in exhibit b in our brief, there are almost 20 brick and mortar food service businesses. can we turn that on? thank you. you, within that radius, the number of businesses that are operating. starbucks is already in my client's building but chpotle is coming. you will have caught a short distance from the food trucks, more food service businesses

that will compete. we have got a situation where somebody can identify a commercial parking space that is limited to a one-hour restriction and use it all day based on the way this current was issued. if you read the dpw brief, it seems like the mta is going to enforce those parking restrictions. that is a conundrum to us. you have someone who will occupy this space from about 9:00 a.m. -- from about 9:00-4:00. and the parking officer will come by and asked people to move them around. you will hear from skyline and some of the dollar appellants. last but not least, they have five other locations where they can operate outside the downtown

area. all of them would allow them to earn a good return but not have the competition and the adverse impact that will be created here. the last point i want to make with regard to the dpw failure to utilize its discretionary power is the only finding the was made by the hearing officer after hearing our protest was that it encourages the youth and vitality of the san francisco neighborhood. there was no findings about any of the factual issues. what is interesting is this is what language was lifted from the intent on the permit. it does not appear in the ordinance, just the notice of intent. if the officer did not hear the testimony and decided to approve this location without giving any consideration to the protests that were raised at the hearing. i would like to give the rest of my time to my client, sheila

murphy. >> my name is sheila murphy. i am the property management, the person on the ground. i make sure the surrounding sidewalks are clean, that they are repaired, that there is no trip and fall hazards, that the landscaping looks nice, that security is provided, that the seats are clean and tidy. i am the one who knows it is a very busy plaza and sidewalk. at that stretch of sidewalk that they are showing, it is only 6 feet wide, when you take into account the trees and the hoop for the bike parking. there are only two or three people that can pass by there at one time. i do not understand how this added congestion could be seen as not a nuisance to the area.

i would also like to say there was no outreach at all from the truck owners for what the needs might be of the tenants of the building or that area. there was no discussion about the plaza. no discussion about restrooms, trash pickup, nothing. in fact, when the original notice came out, they mislabeled be addressed. we were not 3 noticed at that time. we had a short time to pull together our comments to object to the public hearing. i felt like anything we said was not being listened to. it is a very congested area. but but we often have situations where people are bumping into one another. we regularly have a security guard go around to pick up little items that have fallen. the parking out there is very

limited. tenants would like to see more parking. we do have chipotle moving in. there will be 132 feet from the truck window. starbucks is approximately 190 feet. the entrance to the building is only 130 feet away. i would like all of these things to be considered. thank you. >> we can here for the appellate from the next appeal, number 104. >> hello. my name is karen smith. they stole a couple of my items, so i will try on bill -- i will

try and killed on them. my client has for restaurants within 300 feet of the proposed location. with any dpw guidelines, the issuance of a permit states that the officer may consider the following -- similar service, a type of food, and like food. i have a picture so you can visually see -- maybe, here we go. this is a 50 california and this is davis street here. he wanted part here. this is the radius of the 300- foot radius. this is my building with the four restaurants. since the application was filed, chipotle has signed.

here is their menu that shows that they sell burritos. right here. and here is the truck menu that shows that they sell burritos. i do not know if you can see that. and this is in direct conflict with the dpw guidelines. next, and davis street is a one- way street. when i submitted my brief, i was unclear on the exact location of where they wanted to be. this truck is parked a few free -- parked a few feet in front but it is going down a one-way street and. in the industry brief, they said they have a truck in the works that will be available in january. i did not see that they had an

order or an invoice for what the location of the opening of the new truck was going to be, whether on the left or right side. i will make it short. this is one-hour parking. issuance of this permit only benefits food truck owners. vk industries will park in prime real estate place for nothing in. they will trust the money out. we urge you to permanently revoke this german and to advise the city administration to revisit this ordinance in its entirety. thank you.

>> thank you. moving on to appeal number 11- 105. >> i am representing this appellant. because there are so many other people who are appealing this particular permit, rather than take up the boards time, we will rely on their testimony. thank you. >> thank you. moving on, 11-106. >> hello. i am here on behalf of appeal

number 6-g. i intend to have my clients the as well so i will keep its grief. i have also over 600 petitions of signatures of people who believe that we do not need the additional vitality of these trucks in the financial district. you will see that there are even more signatures for that. we are here today to try to prevent devastating impact to small-business restaurant owners. it is going to be, even the six months that has been talked about could put these businesses out of business. it is a devastating impact to have your competition, who has much less cost and expenses, hard right in front of you. you can see that from the very

buildings. to apply for dpw, it is staggering to me how they can propose these things. they have said that even though it is cornyn out that the parking or they are talking about doing it, these trucks would violate parking regulations, because there is only one-hour parking allowed and loading and unloading and yellowstone's defined as active as faces, that dpt will regulate that a. why can they approve a permit that they already know is in violation? how can you approve a permit that they already know is in violation of a code of san francisco? with regard to the restaurant requirement that is required under state law to be within 2 1/3 feet of the location. they say that dph will regulate

that. you cannot keep approving permits in the hopes that some other -- what kind of enforcement is that? does that require the appellant to go to every agency and say to them, they do not have these 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 else goes every day. one of the locations are want to point out -- i think this is a classic picture. in right behind where this man is standing in the street is where the truck is supposed to be located. this car is already double parking because of the conditions that exist today under the credit situation we are in today. it requires the dow director to

take responsibility seriously in doing this discretion. i want to point out that i do not want to blame the director of dpw for this a particularly, because this is a burden he has been dealing with and how this is going to be implemented. how this is going to work in the future for severance is go. it is an enormous task. the applications we have seen already -- an average of seven locations for every permit. that is 120 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 city of san francisco is attempting to cannibalize the existing businesses by permitting more of these food trucks to operate with miniscule overheads in comparison to us. yet with complete freedom to cut into our customer base. if this permit or any such permit is issued in the area of the financial district, it will

breach of the basic standard of fairness. this is not what free enterprise stands for, ladies and gentlemen. the principles of free enterprise that our mission -- that our nation is built on do not permit blatant promotion of one section of the economy at the cost of another. i am baffled that all this is being attempted. my question is, is the city of san francisco willing to agree the basic standards of fair play and free enterprise? the city has not conducted any surveys to assess the impact the facility would have on the existing businesses, especially in already saturated areas. it is improper to conduct any business without considering

all of the impact it would have on any endeavor. our customers feel our pain. we have collected 1144 signatures from our customers on a general petition. against permitting food trucks in the financial districts. these many signatures were collected in a matter of six days with only six restaurant owners participating in the exercise. i am confident that, if necessary, we will collect enough signatures to put this matter on the ballot for the next election. the impact of this entire exercise is so huge on our livelihood. neither the applicant nor any

city official can stand here and state that a mobil facility such as this will not impact any existing business. they cannot say that. i stand here and caution the rationale behind permitting mobile facilities in already populated areas, such as this one. and in an ailing economy. thank you very much. >> there is five minutes left. >> hello there. i am the owner of the restaurant -- i am the owner of the portico restaurant. i am speaking on behalf of our restaurant and four other

restaurants on the street. there are five other restaurants on one block. we are asking the board of appeals to rescind the dpw approval of permit number 11mff027 for 61 beale to be rescinded back. we believe the city of san francisco did not conduct sufficient studies on the environmental impact and the economic impact on existing restaurants. as is, the city ordinance for food trucks to operate in san francisco is unfair and is one- sided, only to benefit the operators and investors behind them. we would like to ask the board of appeals to ask the board of supervisors to limit this ordinance and have the existing restaurants represented to be

part of the decision making. their lives are at stake here. 14 years ago, we built portico. we signed the lease and committed a significant amount of investor money. we come before you 14 years later trying to beg for our life. the city is permitted this food truck to park at 61 beale. it is not only that one. there is another one and they will take up five days per week. i would like to show you the income and expenses that they have projected.

v.k. industries wants to part certain days of the week on jbeil street. -- on beale st. each one says they're going to make $2,000 per day. $250,000 per year there would be taking out of this restaurant located on beale st. that is a lot of money. they talk about creating new sales tax. we are the generate that. we have been there for 14 years. we already generate sales tax for them. they talk about hiring new employees. we have to lay off employees.

it is not only these two. i have in my hand 189 permits that are in the works that are in front of dpw or have been already given permits. three or four of them are going to be at 33 market street and beale. that is bombay cafe. dog city. kababistan. they are all going to park right there. there are about six or seven. it is amazing the amount of money that will be taken out of the restaurants right there. if we look at the gross sales that they are going to do an apply all of the expenses that we incur and pass it on to them, the same expenses, if you look at it, if they make

$520,000.72% our expenses, that is 28% net income before taxes. under $520,000 is $145,000. in five days, one truck can take -- we take $900,000 in sales but only 10%, $90,000. we are asking the city, we are asking you, ladies and gentlemen, to please ask the city supervisors to revisit this. thank you very much. >> thank you. 11-107.

>> good afternoon. i have been involved in this area since i was a child. i am a native san franciscan. my father was involved in this. maybe old-timer is no him. he was pretty well-known. there are a number of points. the big issue in this country is jobs. the brief and mortar -- it takes a lot of people to run a brick and mortar restaurant.

our client has hired a lot of people to get it started. a food truck takes one or two people. eight-hour shifts plus health care. there would be no regulation of health care for these people. where are their bathrooms? they make you have a man's and woman's ada bathroom in the brick and mortar restaurants. you have to service them and clean them. you have to provide a number of things for the public. they do not provide anything for the public. san francisco downtown has a bad reputation for being dirty on the streets. i will give dpw credit. in our area, they have tried to beef it up. a lot of trash in the area and this will just cause more trash.

and it will hurt business. there was a one-day trial just one block away. on that day, i think they had six or eight food trucks. not one business on the street did any business at all. everybody was dead. that proves it right there. that proves it and it kills the business. do you want to kill the brick and mortar restaurants? do you want to have employees, young people try to get a start in the city? do you want to have them thrown out of their jobs? do you want to have union construction people? no one is going to want to put a restaurant in. there will not put a casual place in when you are going to have a food it truck in the front. you are hurting the unions, you are hurting the young people, you are killing the district.

i think this whole program -- i am not saying some places, i see food trucks in some of the outlying areas and maybe it is a good idea, but where you have restaurant after restaurant struggling, imploring people, providing bathrooms, providing this, providing that, and you want to kill the whole area. you are going to have vacancies and vacancies draw people, bums. you are going to have a third world area because you're going to run it into the ground and you're going to put businesses out of business. you are going to put young people losing opportunities, it is kind of a cult thing to get into the food industry for young people. you are going to stop that. they're not going to work on

food trucks. if you are going to kill union construction jobs. in the financial area, this is the most ill thought out, stupid thing i have heard of in my life. thank you. >> can we hear now from the appellant for 11-108? >> good evening. my name is muna azzghayer. i would like to start off and say that my family are one of the original food services on drumm st. my father opened drumm liquor and deli and each of our locations are at 15, 21, and 91 drumm st.