family has been utilizing this facility and a playground for decades. i am not in total agreement with the nature of the master plan and how it wound up. however that said, the question before us is about these trees, and i am supportive of renewal, not only in terms -- also in terms of the vegetation that frames are sites and are buildings, so i am supportive of upholding the department. commissioner hillis: i would agree with that. i put a lot of stock in the analysis of dpw and carla short. these trees are older than most that we see. it is great to have them in the trees scape.

but it does not seem that there is an alternative to have the library constructed to the property line and keep these trees, so i would agree. i would ask dpw to not demolish the trees prior to construction of the library. i think that is the intent. there is a lawsuit pending. we would want to see it, or i would want to save the trees destroyed only when a part of a larger plan. commissioner hurtado: i put a lot of weight on the testimony in the community, and there was a lengthy process that happened

here in terms of planning for this site and for the replanting of trees to increase the green ness of the playground and besides, so with all due respect to the trees, i do believe that the effort here is to increase the greenness, even though it will take some years down the road. i think it will increase the green in this area and will improve the community's sense of their ability to be able to use this space and enjoy it and also for the kids in the neighborhood. to me, that outweighs any detriment from removing these trees. president hwang: i would agree with my fellow commissioners on all of those points. i think a lot of my questions were answered in the rebuttal.

i appreciate the distinction is made between the street, the significant trees, and also the sort of implications that there was a sudden change in assessment. i appreciate how that was addressed by the department in terms of the structural soundness or the lack there of of these trees, so i am prepared to uphold the department and permits. vice president fung: i move to uphold the department and the permit. director goldstein: vice president fung, is this based on the order? vice president fung: yes. director goldstein: ok. thank you. madam clerk -- secretary

pacheco: we have a motion, and on that motion, president hwang, commissioner hillis, commissioner hurtado. thank you. the vote is a four-zero. it is upheld on that basis. director goldstein: thank you. director goldstein: -- we will move forward with the calendar and good to item number six. president hwang: can we take a very short break? director goldstein: absolutely. [gavel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

director goldstein: welcome back tabora impurity before july 11, 2012. item number 6. protesting the issuance of a mobile food facility permit, the sale of sliders, tater tots, and beverages, and we will start with the appellant. step forward. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. i am counselor for the appellant. the rincon center is all present tonight, and let me just tell you know the restaurants are. you are familiar with them. the catering, mediterranean cuisine, soma chicken, rincon

grille, the cheese steak shot, thai to go, and rincon market, and others, and the property management is also present and in support of the appeal. they are here this evening. one overriding concern i would like to draw to your attention, while briefly addressed, primarily, rincon grill, they would like you to take note of the fact that these restaurants are all part of the food court/retail concept, and they are there to promote a food court eating establishment, and it just goes against the whole theory of that to put competing restaurants in the same food court, and our position is the

food trucks here is so close, and the menu is so similar that it destroys that concept, and that is why all of the restaurants are participating in this appeal. i would like you to direct your attention to our exhibit four, which is on this like now, and start with our first point, which is that we believe that contrary to the dpw findings, the entrance to the food court is right here. that is spier's street. if you do a google map, and you plug in the addresses of these two prospective businesses, you will get a finding that says they are over 300 feet, in fact

404 feet apart. however, the entrance to the food court, it really is as we say in our brief right across the street from the food truck. this exhibit was prepared by our architect, and we think it is the correct way to measure the 300-foot distance. moving on to some of the points raised by the permit holder, we think the fact that rincon grill -- clearly, they compete. the standard is not that some

percentage of the items on the food truck compete. that is not the standard. there are similar items, and that is what the code says, "similar," and here we have identified them. you have a direct competition, identical food items that are within 300 feet of each other, and we think that is grounds to deny the permit. the intent is to protect competing foods. you have a well crafted retail concept here that really gets destroyed by the introduction of two competing food businesses. one person is going to lose, and that is not what is intended by this concept, and that is not what is intended by the statute. thank you very much.

president hwang: i would like to understand a little bit more the entrance of rincon, where rincon grill is located on your exhibit four. >> yes. president hwang: you said yours is more accurate in terms of the distance, the 300-foot radiant -- radius. where is it? >> it is right here. president hwang: and then where is the actual grill itself? >> it is a right inside that door. the food court is right where i am pointing, and the a is where the truck is. we are not having a problem with

the distance. it is just how they measured it. commissioner hurtado: i have a question. where exactly is it located? >> rincon grill, where my clients serves sliders, is right inside this door, 101 spear. commissioner hurtado: and a food truck? >> right here at this a, 60 spear. commissioner hurtado: do you know what that is, 16 psear? president hwang: that is the food truck. commissioner hillis: what is 60 spear? >> it is an office building. commissioner hurtado: ok. president hwang: i do not understand your picture. why is this more -- you do not

deny that it is 440. you have this, and 60 spier -- spear -- >> this is the location of the food truck. if you look at dpw, i believe -- commissioner hillis: is that right? on this diagram, you have the food trucked in the middle. you do not have it on the street. you are denoting the food truck by that the bubble, a. that is inside the building. that is not on spear street. that is what we are talking about. >> i believe it is on speawr street, right where they a is. president hwang: that is on the building. >> that is the address of the building. i am sorry? president hwang: is not the

truck on the street? >> it is. president hwang: so where on the street is it? >> the bubble. president hwang: it is on the street. >> yes. dpw will talk about this, but the radius, we do not think it is accurate. we do not dispute the measurement. we understand you draw a circle around the food truck. which is what our map does. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: thank you. so we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening.

i am the managing member. it has always been a dream of mine to open a restaurant, and last june, i decided it was time for me to stop dreaming and actually make it happen. i spent the majority of last year researching how to make my dream a reality. i considered everything, from buying an existing restaurant and remodeling to running a hot dog cart. i found a number of bird in mortar locations in san francisco that had the potential to be this lighter shack. however, i had no previous business in the restaurant industry and thus had no idea how to properly advertise and market a restaurant to build a good customer base. after months of research, i came to the conclusion that the key to operating a successful small have a will customer base that would bring repeat business and organic growth through word of

mouth. it was this concern of building eight customer base, not capital investment, which ended up being the deciding factor for the food truck. to be on a different location on a daily basis would be a way for me to build that up rather than solely being in one permanent location. after deciding that a food truck was the route for me, i researched places i wanted to be. to start, i never wanted to cannibalize somebody else's business. whether it is a restaurant or a food truck, i think it is a bad business practice. it took me months to whittle down the list to two spots. my goal was to find spots where i could provide food service to people where few other options currently existed. i did not want to be in direct competition with any other businesses. there were only three written objections to both of my

proposed locations, and this past april, there were no public objections, due in no small part to a lack of objections, the dpw permiting us to serve at 60 spear street and 400 howard street. it was almost immediately contested by a group of restaurants located in rincon center. it serves the same food as rincon grill. my map is pretty much the same map that you just saw. the difference is, if you walk into the center from spear street, rincon grill is not inside the door. it is literally across the mall on the opposite side of the food court, so i am not sure if mr.

ryan has not been to the rincon center, but it is not next to the door, and they also agree, and another reason why do not think they were notified is because they were outside of the 300 foot radius, so rather than be labour the point, the dpw code -- rather than belabor the point, the dpw code, i would just move on. 300 foot radius and any radius. within 300 feet of the slider shack location. this is a large building that many restaurants and a common area food court within the building. even assuming that some of 101 spear street is within the 300- foot radius, a conclusion which

i disagree with, and the finding of the san francisco department of public -- public works and its approval of my permit, they also disagree with, -- i lost myself. excuse me. the appellate has provided no evidence that the location of the established business is within a 300-foot residents of the slider shack location. to show that it is here, there map is at best inconclusive. in their brief, the appellate also states that the slider shaq is set up across the street from competing restaurants, especially one with a nearly identical menu and price points. i am a little befuddled by what i just heard, because i think i've heard that iowa identical items, which is plural, on my menu. we have one item that could be

considered similar, which is a beef slider. there is just one item. i contest that might be if slider is 100% grass fed. it is a completely different slider. it could be argued that it is a completely different type of food. excuse me. the slider shaq is between market and mission street on spear street, and there are no restaurants between market and mission streets on spear. the appellate seems to be making -- excuse me. i already got that. it appears from the appellants

brief that the restaurant group is undertaking a collective effort to stop mobile food permits at spear street, and on the basis of the previous stated argument and on the dpw approval of the mobile food facility permit, we request that the board of appeals denied the appeal and uphold the permit in its entirety. thank you very much. president hwang: in terms of deer permits, it is for your food cart to be in front of 60 spear street, right? >> it is the federal reserve parking lot gate, it is the back entrance to the federal reserve. president hwang: