president goh: welcome back. we are calling items 6a-6i.

the appellant is sheila murphy. dba is trabacco ristorante. and 107 is john isaacs, dba as ziggy's burgers. 109 is dba portico restaurant. 112 is carlos aguilar.

these are -- the addresses are, protesting the issuance granted. the permit number is -- all nine matters were heard and are on for further continuation. the permit holder was to seek certificate of sanitation for the second street vacation. i am going to give the parties a chance to speak of the wish on that item in particular. starting with the permit holder. two minutes each. the subject is limited to the

introduction of new evidence with respect to the certificate of sanitation. >> i did review the issue and read the recorded transcript. i am prepared to listen to today and rule. >> good evening. i submitted a bathroom form. with bk industries. i submitted the bathroom form for this location. i wanted to say that we did not intentionally withholding. it was not my intention to waste your time by having you have to postpone until now. we thought there were separate

so we knew we had to obtain the bathroom forms before we would operate. we thought this is a dpw. we wanted to make that clear. >> i know the date of the signature was december 29. this was not even executed as of the day of the hearing. >> that is true. we're here today because we could not uphold the location because we have not submitted a bathroom form to you. we're supposed to submit it to the health department. we thought there were separate. >> do you have the form you submitted prior to the hearing? >> we did not submit one. we thought it was separate. a separate process that we had to do before we served but not

relative to the dpw permit. >> there has been some confusion about the process for when the permit is issued and when the subsequent verifications are submitted by the permit holders. it is understandable there might be confusion about when this document was required. >> thank you. >> i had one question after listening to your representative and one of the statements made, you stated they were at the table. were they there for purposes of supporting the legislation or at the table for supporting this permit? >> what he meant is they were at

the table when the legislation was crafted. >> do you know the position of the organization on your permit? >> on our specific permit? they were here the other night so they would -- >> as golden gate restaurant association? >> i think he was. maybe he was not. >> i do not believe so. >> there are members from the appellants that are members of the association. as a group, if they came out in favor or against. we're trying to clarify some of the more ambiguous aspects of the legislation. >> i am talking about your permit. >> i do not know he has an opinion. >> my understanding was that golden gate restaurant association was at the table when the legislation was proposed and were not opposed to

it. the individual who represented golden gate rep -- restaurant association is no longer with them and now robert black is there and in some cases they might have had a difference of opinion about some issues having to do with food facilities. >> we will hear from the department. >> good evening. as noted by the applicant, the department received the bathroom information and we forded that two members of the board for review. this would satisfy the department said tension -- sanitation requirements. there is some confusion even

within the department of the timing, as it relates to the timing for this board to heal any -- hear any appeals specifically. there appears to be some confusion. we have since remedy that situation. i am here to answer additional questions you may have. >> does this location have the same problem as the other, withdrawn permits having to do with parking issues? >> currently, there is a working group being established from supervisor wiener's office. >> that would be in the future. i was wondering if right now it will be in violation. >> there has been no objections or comments related to the parking issue.

i stated previously by the department, the permitees will follow all regulations and specifically parking in traffic. it might be a window that we allowed the operate -- applicant to operate. >> as far as you know, there is not that issue in this one, or there may be but mta's position is the same? >> currently we do not have any information that this parking is an issue specifically. mta stated again and again they will enforce all parking regulations. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the appellants in order if they so choose. starting with the appellant for appeal no. 103. 104.

105. 106 -- 106. >> hello, i am here on behalf of 106 and 109. i wanted to make sure we were clarified. also to thank you. i will not be here next week and i am in all of the people and amount of attention you are able to give. i have always appreciate your attention. >> thank you. is there anyone who would like to speak for appeal 1 07? 11111 or 11112?

the matter is submitted. president goh: is there an moshin? >> i have a comment. the reason i asked about the park at -- parking, although it would not have swayed me, there is no opposition. with no opposition i would leave it to mta and to the permit holder in this case to work that out and for his sake, i hope this works out smoothly. and he has a very successful operation at 651 second street. i would move that we approve that location. >> i echoed that address.

625. >> since i spent time reviewing the tapes and mynas will say something. i am a proponent of global food facilities. i appreciated the comments of the permit holder and rep and i thought they were compelling. i also found for the particular permits that were in my absence , i thought the people who came to testify, they had significant issues and i appreciated that everyone was able to articulate them. this is -- presents an interesting development in our city. i am very hopeful that the project or whatever we can call it, these food facilities get a

chance to see if they can actually do something for our city. i'm not inclined to deny -- uphold -- i am not inclined to grant the appeal. there is no objection to that. >> to uphold this permit on condition that the location at 50 california 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 it would have lower operating costs, it would put the other operations, the brick and mortar operations at an unfair disadvantage. those were my considerations. do you want me to phrase that more tersely? >> i can give it a try. on the basis of -- the last thing you spoke on. insufficient evidence that the

lower overhead of the food trucks would give them on -- an unfair competitive advantage. >> there was insufficient evidence 9. >> that it might give them, yes. >> right. >> it also did not -- the findings went to the fact that in revitalizing the streetscape by having mobile food facilities, it would then improve the overall business in san francisco. and i find that troubling. i do not know if we had any evidence that was necessarily in that particular part of town or that they would necessarily do that. and not to be critical of dpw. i found the hearing, the minutes

from the hearing, the representation of what went on at the hearing lacking. >> the mobile food trucks would vitalize those areas. does that work? >> perhaps the more general finding that these locations is not in the best interest of the community. article 26, discretionary. >> i would get behind that. i am not certain i would get behind the more detailed recitation of reasons. we did hear a lot of evidence. >> we were responding to the criteria upon which the permit was issued. the issues upon which the department looked at in terms

of clearances around in terms of walking. >> i am comfortable with the more general statement as articulated by our city attorney. that would not be in the best interest of the community. >> absolutely. i like that better than what i felt was the recitation of reasons for my opposition. >> the motion is from the vice- president to grant this appeal of holding, modifying this permit on condition the location at 50 california and 61 bill -- beale be struck that food trucks

are not in the best interest of the community. commissioner fong, aye. commissioner hwang, aye. this is upheld. thank you. president goh: we will move on to item seven. protesting the issuance on october 282011 to the viet duong company, ltd. mobile food facility permit. we will start with the appellant. is the palin here? yes. thank you. you have seven minutes.

to present your case. >> i am the vice-president of general manager, located at the corner of bush and samson. i am here, i work for the agent representing, the owner of the building. located out of frankfurt, germany. i am here today to protest the issuance of the permits to the company. at one bush.

despite the fact that this is not our building where the permit is being issued, this is the reason i brought this poteau. to show you -- it is hard to see because it is small. this corner right here is the corner where the permit has been here. president goh: a wonder if you could slide the picture over because you are off the screen. >> the other building is -- that is where it will be located? >> i believe so. we have two mobile food trucks. permits have been issued for our building. the other is right here. we speak from our concern we

have. we speak from firsthand experience at the adverse effects we feel the mobile food trucks create in this corridor. we have concerns about our building. we have to trucks there currently. this permits have already been issued but we have concerns about the trucks that are there and the impact it has had on our asset. and the future permits will be issued for any other trucks in the area and the impact it will have. four of the concerns are crowd control, sidewalk access and maintenance, and additional cleaning costs and sidewalk maintenance, and the adverse effect it will have on our retail tenants because we have retail on the bottom of our building. we have a 22-story building. we have retail, wells fargo is located in this location. there branch. we have to other retail spaces on the ground level and there

is a number of other retail tenants in that corridor. that it also impacts. and so the crowd control, i brought some pictures to reference. >> you can swing the mike to make it more comfortable for yourself. >> this is kind of foggy. this is the san bueno, one of the food trucks that has a permit there. right outside the wells for aerospace. you can -- wells fargo space. the krona blocks the sidewalk access. we have also seen where people with disabilities have trouble getting around this crowd which creates issues for us. it is a path of travel for us. that is sampson, this is bush in

front of our building. this is directly in front of our building. we colored this curb white to make this a 15 minute parking because this was in front of the entryway. they have moved to this corner. it blocks the access. president goh: can erase the projector so that the fuller picture shows? is there anyway -- >> the other thing would be, this is a photo of the wall around the building on the corner where they park. this is, if you went out and look at it, this right here, we

spend 15 20,000 -- $15,000 to $20,000 a year to maintain this of -- sidewalk. we have to keep it clean. we are spending $15,000 to $20,000 a year to clean the walls because people are standing there in line and waiting for their order and they have their feet against the wall. and now it is to the point where it is damaging our walls and we are doing at $11.40 million restoration project. we have clean the building and here we are again dealing with this damage to our cookstown. we're not quite sure how we're going to get rid of these stains at this point. i wanted to show you after we cleaned it. here is another picture. this is the sidewalk. you can see the stains. if you're there is more pronounced. this is when it has been cleaned. it looks even worse than this.

this is one of our ledges outside one of our prime retail spaces. this used to be bank of america. they moved out when the lease expired. this is how the alleged looks. look how dirty this is. this is only a small what you will see -- we stop this during the day. they're supposed to take care of this and the tenants have to man the sidewalks and these pledges to keep the trash up. picked up. this is -- these are the same concerns we have for the neighboring building. this picture shows where the truck is parked and their parked at the meter and that meter is never fed. that is -- there there three

hours when they are there for lunch. which is almost every day. we have ups trucks, federal express, the post office, we have our contractors that are supposed to be parking in these areas and all those people have to pay and they do pay the meter. so, the other concern we have, and this last week, how it negatively impact our tenants. we are concerned about -- we do not feel the city is meeting the requirements and if they're getting permits their needs to be strong enforcement to protect the owners of this building and make sure the owners can continue to market their space and to bring tenants

and businesses to that area. people do not want to be where it is dirty. they want to be where it is clean in a business district. thank you. commissioner fung: do you know when the permits for those trucks have been issued? >> it has been over a year. these are things that are ongoing. these are true life issues we have experienced. >> you are on the southwest corner. >> that is correct. right outside the muni. commissioner hwang: this operation is on the southeast corner. you are separated by samson. >> it is across the street. >> i understand. let me go where i'm going. you bring up the issue of elevators. >> there is elevators on our sidewalk.

not that i am aware of. i walked at the other day and i did not see a sidewalk. not in that area. commissioner hwang: there are no elevators there. ok. that is all i have to ask. thank you. president goh: didno, this is o. we were disappointed. we are going to be coming here. we will be here from the very start. we are going to be on top of this, and we will have representatives going forward. it is of gaining an -- an ongoing process. >> the you want me to pass over her pictures an