instead of two. it is a neighborhood issue. it is the business community. we appreciate the people who have come to speak. the people in my office like food trucks, but that is not the point. the point is what is fair to the business owners that. taxes -- pay the taxes. there is no riskier business then signing a lease and opening a restaurant and hiring a bunch of people and paying payroll taxes and property taxes and then to see the city allow -- 700 people in the course of two or three days, that is a lot of businesses that are losing. those customers would go. they would walk a block or two to eat and that is why people have invested in the area. a strip market -- strict market

analysis, if things were so good, why are there not more restaurants in that area? the cost of entry, the risk of that investment is great. and it does not -- that will happen if the market was there. it is not. it is not fair to let someone -- they could compete unfairly. it is an established neighborhood and our duty to protect it. because it goes beyond the restaurants. the people that own those buildings need paying tenants to pay their rent. when the restaurants are not making it, they go out of business. the landlord suffers. the assessor suffers because when the red does not pay, property tax -- rent does not get paid, property tax, everyone

suffers. we don't begrudge the people who enjoy the food. there would be crazy to say that in san francisco. it is a much bigger issue. if you're not going to revoke the permit, which reevaluate them, let's have a negotiation between -- let's reevaluate them, let's have a negotiation between the parties. let's see what we can arrive at. >> a couple of things. we're a city that celebrates competition and technology. in finance and this city celebrates competitions in food as well. we're serving good food in an area where again, i urge you to

hear the testimonials. there is a huge demand for food services that are different and that have diversity -- add diversity. the idea of the statute was not intended to do what we're doing. i was involved in the process of drafting the statute. i can speak directly to the fact that this is exactly what was intended, to bring greater diversity of food options to areas with limited food options and also as far as the multiple truck permit aspect, this is what was intended. in locations where it was supported. there were opportunities for multiple tracks to group together to appeal to people who were disaffected by the same options every day as the people who came up and testified mentioned. those are people who would bring lunches, they're not going out and eating. and to appeal to people outside

the area, to bring them to their. we have a huge network of people and we're not only rely on this area, we are relying on a huge surrounding area to bring people there to support the trucks tried we want to contribute to this neighborhood. i guess the last thing is there is an assumption that food trucks do not follow employment rules, we do not pay taxes, that we do not support a small business and small jobs. we work with over 150 small businesses. each of those businesses employ six to 10 people. we all pay taxes. we verify they have certificates, we verify their operating in safe and sanitary conditions. this is the story of san francisco. the statued -- the intention was to encourage food diversity and small business and this is the exact intention of the statute. with whatever balance of time,

we have someone who works with this so they cannot come and testify but they're based in the neighborhood and she can contribute on this as well. thank you. >> where under retainer providing public relations services -- we are under retainer providing public relations services. i work at wagstaff. as an employee of that business, we were thrilled by the diversity of brought to the marketplace. a wanted to add that i do not perceive a displacement of business from grumpy's to off the grid.

what off the grid brought to the marketplace was an addition that was welcome. i wanted to add my voice to a lot of supporters that are here tonight. >> thank you. i have a couple of questions. i would permit the group or association or consortium. there were 35 trucks involved? >> there are over 100 50 -- 150 businesses on the permit. those are san francisco permit food trucks. this would be the people that

would be eligible to participate. we work with other people who work on private property who do not have -- >> how are assignments made? as to which trucks come? >> what we're looking for is something that adds diversity and there is not the same truck coming back to weeks in a row. they usually have a sense of rotation to this schedule. they will come back every other week or once a month. that competition would occur not every week, certainly not twice a week. we're looking to add diversity, we're not looking to duplicate existing offerings. >> do you hold other permits? >> these are the two that we hold. >> do you hold other permits? >> we work with mta, we hold

many different venues. >> do you have others besides these two? there would be on a rotational business somehow handling most of the trucks, the 35. >> if we went up to the full four then they would. the reason why we chose two is we wanted to see how the neighborhood was and also try to be less threatening. but obviously if we had four trucks their two times a week we would bill dealing with 16 to 20 different trucks that would be out there. they have the potential to be out there. >> one of the -- the core of the concern is competition for the

same food with grubbies -- grumpy's. as part of the materials we were provided. it says to be sold everything except for hot dogs. there is no restriction on the permit itself that would limit the food. >> if i can use the projector i am happy to present you with a couple of different options. this is the permit as it exists right now with what we can do within 300 feet. we would be more than happy to have an accommodation on the permit formally of restricting hamburger sales. as long as it existed. that would be one option.

another option is we can move 300 feet away and be placed on the southern part of the block. with no restriction. we can accommodate the 300 ft. restriction and we would still be more than 300 feet away from subways as well. >> i understand your point. that is not -- half a block down is not going to make the difference. it would be willing to have a restriction on your permit with respect to the -- is this the single truck permit? >> there is -- the single and multiple truck. >> you'd be willing to have that restriction as to that location. those trucks may not interfere with existing restaurants. >> i would have more hesitation

with a single permit. and so that would tie our hands. >> at that location. i might be confused here. i thought the multiple truck per mets -- permits, i thought it was a single truck. >> there is one permit that allows us to operate with four trucks and there is one permit that allows us to operate with our truck that we then went -- rent to demo an idea. >> you would be willing to restrict it on that location. there is the concern that you will not honor your promise not to. >> if the board feels that level

of -- is required, i am fine with that. i would say that if grumpy's was to go out of business, i would bring in more food trucks. >> thank you. there are two separate appeals at this location for two different venues. one is the single track that can serve multiple elements. it is a notification issue. there appears to be concerned as it relates to like foods or similar foods because it is a demo truck. we typically require advance

notice so can verify additional issues. this appears to be a more contentious permit. up to five trucks is requested where they can sell multiple types of food in this case. that appears to be a greater concern. to inform the board that currently the department to take issues and violations of food trucks seriously. we're in process of informing a mobile food permit holder to suspend or revoke the permit due to noncompliance. we do take these types of issues, whatever direction the board may direct us to do pretty seriously. to control issues.

all of those we take seriously. we would take appropriate action on that. >> how many permits are there that allow multiple trucks at one location? >> right now off the grid is the only applicant that applied for one location, multiple trucks. this is not necessarily stop benefit districts to establish their own zones. it is a relatively new application that came in. it used to be just one that was off the grid. the department has gone to multiple community meetings who

expressed similar concerns and a statement from the department is there is nothing preventing a committee -- community or someone to establish a location where they can then have a better overall control of who comes in in those cases. >> if the trucks were gathered on private property, that does not require a permit? >> in cases where mobile food facilities are operating inside private property, there would be required -- they would be required as a condition. that was a separate piece of legislation that was introduced and passed at the same time. >> thank you. >> the matter is submitted.

>> we're going toward the suggestion there be permission on this permit regarding direct competition. i do not think the applicant has an incentive to try to flaunt these but if there is comfort in having it written into the applications -- the permit, it seems that is a reasonable way to go. >> i am not too far off from that. it is interesting the number of cases that have been coming on mobile food facilities. one of the points that was made by the appellant was an interesting idea -- a point where is there a threshold that

an area can support in which case not only are brick and mortar facilities going to go under but perhaps it disrupts the overall capability of that area to support multiple the news. i am thinking -- multiple venues. the only time we h ad a limiting factor on the number of restaurants was in the planning code the restricted how many restaurants could go on to fillmore. that got overturned later on because the marketplace found its own level there. the limitation on the number and it was a specific number, 21 restaurants.

there was no correlation to a market threshold for the restaurant. that was something they pulled out of their hat and related to certain environmental concerns of traffic and things like that. i am not sure whether we will run into that same situation here because they seem to be popping up all over the place. in this instance, i probably will support upholding the permit. if there is a condition, that is fine. >> i guess my feeling is and i will just stay where i am inclined to go in the reasons where i am inclined to go. i think competition is good for consumers. i think that this idea of

coaching, i do not think anyone is entitled to any amount of business just because they have been there longer. this idea that restaurants that are rec and more restaurants pay more taxes or have a higher cost of business, they have a higher cost of business because they are there more hours. they're paying for the privilege of being open more hours and making more profit. you have to look at the cost of doing business that is a ratio to the hours that a business is potentially open. i do not buy that argument at all. in terms of competition, you are not entitled to any specific amount of business. you have to compete for it which brings me to the ultimate point for me which is that there is no unfair competition here. just because a food truck may have an item of food that is the

same as an item on the menu, to me, it is not persuasive because you have to look at the totality of the menu. you can just say, there is one item that overlaps with the food trucks, therefore it is impermissible. i do not think that is fair. i do not think that is the purpose of the statute. i would vote to uphold the permit without any conditions. >> i may be more protectionist than my other commissioners. i have -- i am inclined to uphold but with conditions. my concern and i found, by the way, the presentations from both sides exceptional, so i appreciate the work you put into this. and i think that the arguments made by the appellant are compelling on many levels.

i hate to be in any dispute with my fellow commissioners. competition is good and advances are of interest. like the vice-president said, these things play themselves out depending on what the market desires. i do think that the reason why there were these limitations put into the statutes for notice and like food is because there are -- they are a different animal. food trucks, we all love them. everyone likes to have a variety of food and interesting food and delicious and accessible food, we all want that. but they are different animals and i think the restaurant business is a difficult one and we want to continue to maintain san francisco's place on the map as a drop for businesses that are willing to put in to

providing exceptional food in the brick and mortar rain as well. given all that, that is not our decision here. we're not the policy makers. we are the implement years. i think to the extent -- the implementers. i appreciate that. the gestures are a way to work with each other. for that reason, i would think that commissioner lazarus understood, i am of the review in order to make of the grid hold to its promise.

i do not know -- >> you would need three votes to condition the permit. >> i would move to uphold those permits with the condition that the permit restrict -- it would essentially restrict the sale of hamburgers were like foods. ok, hamburgers at that particular location. >> we have to the real permits before us. are you asking that condition be placed on both? >> on both. >> for that location. the sales of hamburgers at that location. >> at the 90 broadway location. >> i am not trying to be smart.

but korean hamburger? traditional american hamburger, and not ok. >> when i was looking at the menus, it did not appear they had some ethnic related hamburgers on there. i do not know if we need to reopen that. >> i am fine with anything entitled a hamburger being restricted. i want to know so i do not violate. any restriction. >> i appreciate that. i do not know what my fellow commissioners feel about traditional, classic american hamburgers. the menu -- >> i do not think you want to go that way. >> i have never been to -- i thought the menu reflected some ethnic type hamburgers on there. >> it was on the powerpoint that you saw the menu. >> they had greek, french,

russian. maybe teriyaki. i do not see any korean burgers. anything that is specified that relates to burgers, would you be comfortable with that? i do not know of my co- commissioners would be comfortable. >> i would be fine with that. i want to specify ground beef served as a burger with a variety of toppings with the restrictions on the menu right now. french, terry lackey, japanese, or whatever. quex also the restriction -- >> the restriction lives as long as grumpy's lives.

>> the motion is to grant the appeals and issue the permits on the condition that both permits exclude the sale of hamburgers similar to the hamburger is currently on the grumpy's menu. for the duration of time that grumpy's exists. on the concern about like foods. >> just for the record, the current menu is the one at exhibit c to the permit holder's brief. >> mr. pacheco will call the

roll. >> we have a motion to grant this -- both appeals, issuing both permits upholding both permits on condition that the sale of hamburger similar to hamburgers on grumpy's menu be stricken from both permits for

as long as grumpy's is in business. this is rendered on the basis of a like food restriction. >> for the trucks that are operating at front and vallejo. >> 90 broad. >> is that the location? >> 1 permit says 50 to 99 broadway. >> we can just say broadway. that will cover it. >> that restriction excluding sales, that type of sale is for the broadway locations for both permits. on the motion to uphold with this condition for both projects, vice-president fung,

aye, commissioner hillis is recused, commissioner her toddler -- hertado, no. commissioner lazarus. the permits are upheld. >> item 7a and b are rescheduled. there are no other items. president hwang: we are adjourned.