you would be located between the walgreen's and the federal reserve? >> yes. president hwang: i think i know what you mean, thank you. >> d.o. currently operate at other locations? -- do you currently operates at other locations? you mentioned the howard street location, do you operate there now? >> yes. 400 howard. i believe it is 2.5 blocks away. >> how often? >> thursdays and fridays. my proposal was to operate at 60 spear on tuesdays and wednesdays. vice president fung: how do you handle mta's regulations on

parking on the street? >> i have to operate as if i were parking my car there. i have to pay the meters just like anyone else. president hwang: thank you. we can hear from the department now. >> good evening, commissioners. the department really does not have much to add to the dispute between the applicant and the appellant in this case. a point of clarity, it appears to be how the notification was made. as is noted within the public works code, when it is a mobile food catering truck, the notification point is the midpoint of the block they are occupying.

in this case, it was a mobile catering truck. therefore, as noted by the applicant, the notification from the business -- we found the middle of the block as the notification point. that is the definition under the current code. had the grill been within the 300 feet, the department would consider the sliders and the burgers as similar food and would most likely denied this. in this situation, it appears that the department follow the process as established under the code properly. notification was based on an affidavit by the company that was hired to provide the

notification. there was no reason for the department not to believe this notification was incorrect. we believe we processed this in accordance with procedures and approved it appropriately. i am here to answer any questions you might have. vice president fung: can you clarify about this radius requirement? when we looked at one of your previous cases where it was on port property, wasn't it measured along the sidewalk? >> correct. this is a process which is based on the coach. when we calculate, we used a map to determine the walking a driving distance from the location where the truck is to be located versus the property

corner or the entrance of the building. as a definition. typically, the notification -- it would usually results in other businesses beyond a 300- foot walking distance to be notified. vice president fung: if you were to go from the midpoint of the block, the actual location is based on the address, which may be at a corner or may not be close to the midpoint. your code is based on not? >> that is correct. -- your code is based on that? >> that is correct.

president hwang: thank you. we can take public comment now. i want to make sure that individuals -- if you are here on behalf of the restaurant group, you are not eligible to speak in public comment because you are represented by an attorney. if there is anyone who would like to step forward, please do so now. >> i am the property manager at 1 market plaza. i wanted to put in our 2 cents. our food court people could not get together to come here tonight and organize the appeal. i can represent some of the viewpoints that are concerns as

property owners, managers. primarily, we are concerned with the alteration of the street front esthetics without due process. should the building owner change the look or feel to construction or change the facades, and it involves an approval process at the building and -- the building departments. this can be very frustrating, at times, but the serbs to benefit san francisco by maintaining -- but this serves to benefit san franciscans. owners and operators of food carts are not required to abide by this process. their trucks and carts are large and designed for maximum marketing impact, ultimately, they obstruct the street, changing the appearance of our neighborhoods. concern of incorrect use of parking and sidewalk space is.

the trucks often blocked sidewalks. it impedes progress and creates hazards should building need to be evacuated. the side of patrons also tend to over utilized sidewalk trash cans. overflowing trash facilities lead to more refuse things build an accumulated on sidewalks. parking spaces in the vicinity of almost downtown buildings are at a premium. food trucks often use multiple parking spaces. these are necessary to accommodate vehicles servicing tenants and residents of the financial district. the utilization of these parking spaces would constitute an necessary purpose. this is not the case. there many existing food establishments to serve the residents and markers in the financial district. i would like to say we feel it

is not fear a advantage over brick and mortar casual eateries. many traditional brick and mortar type eateries have committed to the downtown economy by agreeing to enter multi-year leases. it is not our intention to discourage free enterprise or create an approach -- were all things equal, low startup costs and you'd stick -- street front marketing presence enjoyed by the food court operators present an insurmountable disadvantage for the typical restaurant operator. thank you. >president hwang: next speaker. >> i am the ceo of mixed greens. we operate 05 restaurants in the financial district. one of the restaurants,

according to google maps, 256 feet from 60 spear street. we received no notification of this food trucks presence. that is why there was no appeal. this operator looked to a location that had considerable foot traffic already to basically poach customers my location serves almost 700 people in 4.5 hours. having a competitor come in and tried to poach that is unfair competition. dpw does 0 on enforcement or standards for what they are. mta does not have any authority to move these people when they're in the wrong place. they look and say, i have a permit and i can park within a

block of this. if you ask a truck operator or their permit is, they will say, somebody has parked in my spot. the argument that rincon grill -- slider shack is not in the location where there permit is. the truck operators do not put money in the meter. there there eight hours a day. they will wait until they see a meter maid and then they will put some money in the meter for tenor 15 minutes. i can attest that i have seen that happen at slider shack. these food trucks cause unfair competition and dpw has no authority to police them or enforce them. this restaurant was set up to post a large customer base that is already existing in this area -- poached a large customer base that is already existing in this area. president hwang: next speaker.

>> i'm currently the assistant property manager for rincon center. i am not party to the proceedings. but i do support it. is that allowable? president hwang: your property has a representative today, correct? >> the restaurant group does. i am speaking as the landlord. president hwang: acceptable. >> i wanted to mention the nature of the center. we do occupy one entire square block. all of our restaurants are in the interior. they do not have any windows, in the storefront. to allow a food for its -- a food truck that is operating and advertising, takes away from my tenant as they are not allowed to advertise. these are tenants that pay high rents, real estate taxes.

i wanted to reiterate having to debut 0 mobile food facilities competing with these businesses. -- two mobile food facilities competing with these businesses. we'll start -- >> we will start with a bottle. you have three minutes. >> -- with a rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> it is true that our clients did not receive notice. they were not would then -- within that space. we do not believe the statute says that just because he happens to be just outside the circle and, it does not mean that the?jaz8[m automatic -- tht would not have been issued due to the most important factor. the menu competition. my client when the to point out

that -- the competition is a real. thank you. president hwang: thank you. >> thank you. three trash cans are provided at all times during my service hours that run from 11:00 until 2:00. it is not eight hours of service every day. i have never cut off the meter maid. i do not have time to look for meter maids. there is too much going on, serving food to people, to pay attention to meter maids. to be honest, they are brutal.

if they have started to write a ticket, they are not going to stop. it has been my experience for 18 years of driving. the notion that i am looking out for meter maids, i do not have the time to do it. i wish i did. this might be the dpw's area, i believe the mixed graineens was opened after my notifications went out. i started this process back in november and i do believe there were three or four restaurants in the process of being built and opened on mission street. i do not believe they were open for business at the time the notifications went out. i cannot speak to that. that is all i got. thank you.

>> good evening. department of public works. the statement by one of the general public related to not be notified is very similar to the situation that happened several months ago for the mobile food court that was placed adjacent to the etrade building. the department notification for this permit -- it is a function of when the restaurant opened. that would define whether they would have been notified or not. other than that, the department has nothing to add that is germane to testimony by the appellant and the applicant. >> the appellant claimed if they appealed, i know that you cannot

predict, but what would dpw have done if they appealed? >> the department is required to evaluate a variety of things. if it was within 300 feet, it is highly likely that this department would have denied this location to the applicant. however, in this case, based upon -- it was slightly outside of 300 feet. approximately 400 feet away. that is beyond what we believe to be -- what is defined under the code as it is established. president hwang: what does the code say?

i did not see it anywhere. >> notification is 300 feet or the length of the block, which is ever -- which ever is more. if it is a mobile carts, it is from the address to 300 feet. if they were offering -- operating during regular business hours. anyone in the area can object. it is a case where the basis upon how the code is set up indicates that is what the department should concentrate on. president hwang: makes sense, thank you. vice president fung: length of the block is the diameter of the circle? board becomes the radius, whichever is longer? >> -- or does it become the

radius, whichever is longer? >> if the block is more than 600 -- >> as the radius? >> the full length of the block. vice president fung: you also have restrictions were mobile food facilities are in proximity to each other. that would be correct? refresh my memory. >> typically, as part of the evaluation process, we evaluate the various brick and mortar businesses in the immediate vicinity, but also whether our any other food trucks operating within the radius of the application area. president hwang: the matter is submitted.

>> i can get is pretty straightforward. -- i think it is pretty straightforward. i am familiar with this area. there is a lot of competition for the lunchtime clientele. to me, what is determinative is the code. the distance requirement for giving notice makes sense to me. you cannot have a blanket ban on like food indefinitely. you have to have some sort of distance within which you want to protect existing businesses from competition from these type of food cards. this situation, it is pretty clear that the like foods is outside the radius. to me, that is determinative. in my opinion, and i've said

this before, if businesses are in disagreement with this permitting process, the proper avenue to address that is to the board of supervisors to change the permiting law. that is not our role. for that reason, i would uphold this permit. vice president fung: i am in disagreement with that position. we have had these food carts cases where people have tried to come in and take somebody else's location. therefore, bill licensing as a correlation -- the licensing has a correlation to a specific location. most of the notification processes relate to an address,

and therefore, the property. the building department and planning department correlates to a 300-foot radius from the four corners of that specific lot, which is then governed by that address. there is a disconnect between taking a simple mid-block radius when the location is further down the corner. i would except that the rincon center falls within the 300 foot radius. i would also make the location that they are similar food. president hwang: i think your point is well taken. i found that to be intriguing as well.

in trading or perplexing, odd. -- intriguing more perplexing, i did you ever, that is what the code -- odd. however, that is what the code calls for. >> there needs to be a new look at the code and legislation. we have seen instances like this where people can make a good case for not doing the proper measurement. i would have to agree. >> i would make a motion to uphold the permit. based on the reasons stated by dpw and based on my comments as well.

>> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado. correct? on that motion -- thank you. the vote is 3-line. this permit is upheld on that basis, thank you. -- the boat is 3-1. this permit is upheld on this basis, at thank you. >> we will move forward in calling item #7. patrick buscovich versus the department of building inspection. we will ask you to please leave the room quietly. we would very much appreciate it. the subject property is at 69

montezuma's street. this is an appeal the denial on january 26, 2011, of a permit to alter a building. when the appellant is ready, we will start. >> he does tend to be some diagrams and pictures of what he is going to show. president hwang: i think that is helpful. i assume the other side has received these. >> i tried to give it to him

earlier. he gets worried when i hand him stuff. >> you do not have a laptop? >> [inaudible] i think i have seven minutes. give me a second.

thank you for allowing me -- my name is patrick buscovich. this case is pretty straightforward. if you break it down to what is about. i need to apologize. they have made mistakes here. the project opponent has made mistakes. all these people have made mistakes. this is a very complicated case where the original developer lied to the city. if you except the mistakes, how we move on? we're asking the board to make a decision. in -- the original developer came to the city in 1982 and said there is a 12 by 20 garage

on my lot. he was trying to get a second car to get a second unit. we have testimony from the neighbor. he filled out an application and he also gave a disclosure to the city that this is 12 by 20. there is a garage. because of that, the planning department made some mistakes. everybody in this project made mistakes. they thought there was a garage. during the actual project, the developer changed his mind because of the neighbors dr'ed it, and came up with another story. it is a mass. when the drawings got to the building department, the building department allowed someone to exit through a garage, which you cannot do. how do i know there is not a

garage? if you go [inaudible] that is the garage that everyone is centering this case on. that garage, you can look at it and realize the dimension of that structure is not the 12 by 20 the developer said. it is 10 by 12. when you look at the brief by the neighbor, he said it is 10 by 12 and he rented it. wire all these documents that come after this say that it is -- why are all these documents that the map to this say that it is a garage? i showed this being built in 1915. in 1928, the owner of the land decided that what was their -- he needed a garage.

he pulled a permit in 1928 to tear this thing down and build a 25 foot by 25 broad. 500 square feet and replace this barn. for some reason, he decided he did not want that. what was left was this course barn. as you go through time, this urban myth that there was a garage there is all fallacy. how do i know? there is the map from 1920. you can see that little dot. it is about 10 by 12. in a 10 by 12, i researched every car that was available in the 1920's. the smallest car is this roadster. it is over 13 feet long. what was there was not a garage.