understand in relation to lunch. the communication that goes on in this web three. of community is the thing that keeps a san francisco vital in the tech world. it keeps all of these restaurants filled, by having these industries attracted to and constant in san francisco. when the san francisco board of supervisors passed of this legislation, they were thinking about the economic vitality of san francisco. how do we stay competitive in global world and in the global economy? i would like to go to the overhead if i could and show you a couple of pictures. excuse me, to the computer display.

i did some research in the history of mobile foods and found a lot of pictures like this, mobile food vendors in chinatown, pictures were credited by children. this one i found particularly interesting on the 1600 block, the oyster loaf. you can of that script. these are a couple of street food vendors. years later, we see the same on the restaurant. it is the brick and mortar that accrue from this. this is not a new idea, but change is constant in the restaurant world.

right now, 35 at the corner is replaced by, i believe, a 12- story building. that is good, with the overhead we can go back. this legislation was not put in place to support one launcher option over another. it was to create a viable and exciting environment overall. like any ecosystem, a diverse environment is a stable environment. it is a strong environment and an attractive environment. diversity is a good thing here, and it will encourage dining out and restaurants. these trucks are not going to be

at these locations every day of the week. some of the locations are for two days a week or three days a week. the trucks are not there everyday. we have chipotle grill moving in. that is a large chain of restaurants, we are concerned about 7-eleven and the subway. these aren't actually competing with casa. it is a different kind of food and a different kind of experience being offered. the idea that they would be overrun by a day or two a week that these trucks will be there just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. in actuality, they will be enhancing the economic environment overall. there will be many days that people come down the street that

don't know that it is not there that day and they're going to decide for the first time to try the brick and mortar down the block. this legislation encourages the expansion of food in san francisco. that is what this food is tailored to do. i don't think this board wants to go in to the territory of hearing this legislation. did the department of public works effectively apply this legislation? and is the department of public works and setting up an adequate program to monitor it? are they hearing is properly? are the public hearings properly noticed? they came to the department of public works and admitted -- stated directly in opposition

and how many communications they received. all of these issues were considered, and given this program, the fact that these permits to do not go on forever and can be easily revoked or suspended, we have the first programs for you. regarding suspension and revocation of the permits, i will go to the overhead. if it finds after a public hearing that such a permit

holders engaged or have been found guilty of the following x, it lists the good neighbor policy and lists all of the conditions that keeps this as an orderly and clean undertaking. nobody wants this to create a trash problem for a traffic problem. we want a vital downtown. we want to enhance down town, not detract from it. that is why this legislation built these things in. this was clearly developed as an idea. it was developed with what the government should be doing, what is best for the entirety of san francisco. only to look at the audience that is here, and i don't think it will take a big stretch to

understand what interests there are here. this is a young the idea. these people are young people and they are coming in, serving the young economy. serving a growing of the economy. i think it is essentially vital to the continuing economic well- being of our city. it is what they had in mind when the legislation was passed unanimously. i encourage you to hear from him as he describes the process by which they will enforce these permits and the process by which they decide whether to grant these permits or not. what we want to do is serve an economy for the entire city, keeping it all vital. coming to the financial district

for lunch. thank you. >> i have a question. this was touched on earlier. was wondering if for the location, if you do have the certificates of sanitation? >> thank you for the question. we do have a certificate for dph. the important point to keep in mind, the permit that is before you is dph the -- is not the dph restroom permit. president goh: that's understood. and you have those for each of those locations? >> yes. commissioner garcia: we have

seen the one for the next case, can you furnished the one for this case? >> we don't have the restroom form, and before they would operate, they would be required to have that forms signed atdph. -- at dph. so this is the global food facility permit issued by the department of public health. there is a separate document that supports this, that we don't have to provide to you today.

>> we can hear from the department now. >> of the department has submitted a brief to you earlier. i don't want, necessarily, to go back and repeat those items. there is testimony that the department would be to respond to. one of the appellants question to the environmental review as it relates. we had checked with the planning department, have the environmental review officer stated that each permit in this specific case does not require ceqa review.

the program itself went through that during the legislative process. there were questions by the various appellants specifically as it relates to the battle. the issue as it relates to a parking, let's talk about the bathroom tissue. the bathroom requirement is a requirement by the department of health through the california health and safety code section of the law. the bathroom needs to be within 200 feet of a mobile food facility. it is helpful for an applicant to receive a certificate. if that is not satisfactory, the health department will notify

the department and the department will suspend any proof met -- permits. it is established by the department of health. if the department received notification from the san francisco fire department, if it is invalid, it will suspend the mobile food facilities and will not be allowed to operate. the department would then continue into the various agencies -- and given some reasonable time, they will revoke the permit at that point. there is a question as it relates to the enforcement of the health code. the health code and administrative codes beyond the

jurisdiction of the department, in the beginning of the mobile food program, parking and traffic, receiving confirmation stating that they would continue for a second time and received a response. our understanding is that traffic regulations will be enforced. the permit provides a time frame. it doesn't mean the public and that receives a permit will be there on those days. there are no parking spaces available. they need to move on in those specific cases.

and the department as it relates to like foods, specifically. i will provide that in the second briefing to the commissioners that under the department order, like foods is very specific as it relates to the ethnicity of the food. the comments from oasis of real , that is my recollection. it was not present at the directors hearing in the testimony. i have no knowledge in this case. there are many questions in this specific case.

and how the department is processing. the law is very specific, it is executing that policy by the supervisors and the mayor. it will be the appropriate permits and evaluation.

as it relates to these executions of the program. in the department does not believe in following the process that we provided notification to the public in an inappropriate manner. that we evaluated the objections and concerns by the various stakeholders and processed to the permit correctly. in many cases, as you can see from the decisions by the director, some of patients were approved, some were denied, and others were conditioned for six

months with a hearing possibility. and additional information can be provided at a potentially a new decision will be rendered based upon additional information. the department would urge the board, in this case, to uphold the decision. i am here to answer any questions that you may have. president goh: i hear you talking about parking, but the specifics of overstaying the meter, for example, the construction question, can you address those specifically? >> as it relates to construction, the legislation is very specific to that.

if there is a construction site or a street event, the department can temporarily suspend the mobile food facilities permit to operate at that location. as it relates to the parking concerns, the department of public works to continue to reach out at the mta. they have informed us that they will be enforced. president goh: how much has to go to each of these individual agencies? >> and the new global food program, for the applicant, they

would apply to us for not only the dpw permit, but the fire department to continue that process. it will approve specifically. it is required for the facility, and they have a tax certificate. president goh: that includes the certificate of sanitation? so we should have had on hand tonight? what idea and the financial district is already saturated and is not in the of the vitality for the culture, the vital culture?

>> i can't speak from the department perspective, but the first appellant stated that there are 30 some odd restaurants. chipotle will be operating in a very short time. i am not certain in this case whether, in this specific case, there are 32 restaurants and chipotle that would create a situation. it doesn't appear that there would be an issue as it relates to competition. >> it was suggested that there are limited numbers of food dollars in any given day.

>> in many cases, we approve certain permits because one of the arguments was financial losses. again, it is currently no information or no study from a municipality that we know of. we have a meeting with the representative from the city of portland. even they did not have the study. where money is being transferred for food, and these specific cases. there are more facilities operating in front of city hall.

the business appears to be doing well. these eateries, they did not appear to be losing any business at this point. at least not from a cursory review. president goh: the observations seems to me to beg the question. we don't have very many options right across the street, but in the financial district, there are many options on any given block. >> the department to recognize that. and we review when applicants apply for areas that are congested. we would make certain recommendations as to the possibility and whether the

department will support the application. in many cases, it cannot reject or deny an application. >> and it has like food, we have seen the pictures in the menus. would that change the outcome? >> my understanding was that it was not present during the directors hearing. given that information, it could be -- at the hearing officer may continue to recommend moving at a minimum of 200 feet away from this location. president goh: thank you. commissioner garcia: mr. kwan, do you have dp order 71944,

article 5.8 of the public code in front of you, sir? >> yes, sir. commissioner garcia: there's an i -- it would be page four, i- 2. the language is on page 5. and you think there is a distinction to be drawn between like food and similar service? >> there has been a historical argument throughout the various cities that we discussed as it relates to food.

commissioner garcia: i want to know whether or not the concept of like food -- also it talks about the fact that it is a similar type of food product. i am asking you if you think that is in counter distinction of like food. is that one concept? >> it is 1 in the same as the with the department interprets its. commissioner garcia: the sentence is written that the interpretation that one ought to give is that someone is selling food to go, it is a similar type of operation. it seems as though they try to encompass both concepts theory

it seems to me as though the idea that these are operations where the food is to go, it would be in direct competition. >> i would agree that the wording and the phrasing could have been better written in the order itself as part of the guidelines. the department will lead to a knowledge of the mobile food facilities. the food trucks and carts are by very nature -- you buy it and move forward. if the suggestion is that it is convenience food, you will be eliminating overall by that very definition, for example, if

there is a 7-eleven that serves packaged sandwiches, that is convenience foods. it will then be deemed to direct competition. commissioner garcia: and may be reasonably so. >> it would be an incredibly difficult as the legislation is set up for anyone. commissioner garcia: i guess at what be easier, for our job, and i mean this very respectfully, if we had seen the hearing officer's report and we gotten something greater than the vitality of the neighborhood. it seems as though a big part of this has to do with the effect negatively and positively on these.

we will deal with that ultimately when the commissioners have their discussions, were each and every point, at least the major points that came out, having to do with the location. the problem is probably not with legislation as it is with where the trucks will be located. were some of these points discussed? for all that was ever written was the findings? >> i will have to go back and check with the hearing officer. commissioner garcia: it might be hidden away somewhere? >> ha it might possibly be.

president goh: any other questions, commissioners? we'll begin to take public comment. can i see a show of hands of people that are interested in speaking. great. commissioner garcia: i see one individual with a hand up that is an appellant. >> appellants are not able to speak under public comment and representatives are not entitled to speak under public comment. your time was given during the first half of the proceedings and there will be three minutes of rebuttal. let me see the show of hands again. commissioner garcia: the man in the back again -- >> mr. isaacs, you can't speak during public cot.