department to make sure the open flame source requirement is satisfied. there is a therelag time for people to purchase these vehicles due to the cost of these vehicles. there are comments as they relate to people parking the wrong way. again, traffic regulation does not allow people to park in the opposite direction of traffic flow nor does it allow people to double park. ultimately, it is left to the mta and police department to enforce double parking and parking the wrong direction. that is beyond the jurisdiction and the control of the department. many of the discussions by the appellant were policy issues, specifically as it relates to the riding of the legislation,

which, as i have stated earlier, is not a policymaker. we are here to interpret the code and enforce it and executed as it is written. the department believes that it acted correctly in this evaluation and approval of these permits. i am available to answer any questions you may have. >> i am going back to the restrooms again. if the certificate of certification -- if the significance of sanitation happens 90 days after the permit has been granted, you have already established the location and done all of the work up to that point. what if there is no restroom to be had? one of the speakers said pete's coffee is not going to give a coffee truck use of the restroom. >> that is correct. in which case, the department of

public health would not certify the sanitation approval. there would inform the department of public works which would either did -- which would either suspend the application, suspend the permit pending approval, and asked a reasonable time that they can acquire it. they would not be able to operate until they acquire all of the appropriate department approvals. >> thank you. >> commissioners, unless you have further questions for the parties, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: -- president goh: we need to make

disclosures if we have any. and i actually have some. commissioner fung: i have not been to any of these restaurant. [laughter] president goh: i frequent coffee trucks and this morning, i went to blue bottle coffee truck on market street. none of that context will affect my decision making. go ahead, commissioner fung. commissioner fung: this is not a simple issue. neither side, in their presentation, presented a course of action for me, on this board, easily. there were elements of presentations from both sides were i both agree and disagree. when it came down to it, two

points in focused my decision and it became solidified as i heard the rebuttals. as an aside, one of the things i really did not want to hear was the concept of medallions for these food truck, because i sat in at the very -- at the very beginning. that did nothing for us. the two things that focused my attention and has affected my decision making are the following -- first, our city agencies are expected to create a consentual atmosphere. i do not see that here. i see that it has not occurred.

i think that agencies have been able to help focus, to help refine the legislation so that they wind up creating a greater amount of consensus. as an example, when we dealt with limitations on the number of restaurants on a street, when it dealt with certain types of restaurants that were in excess of four or six, depending on the time frame, they had to go through a different process. i do not see a process occurring here. i do not see the refinement that will be reflective of less discord. adding to that, when i look at the specifics of the cases, and we did see the findings --

excuse me, we saw reports. we did not see a lot of identification of whether or not there was -- it does not matter. when you look at the findings of the reports, i have disagreements with those. the issue of minimum pedestrian sidewalk with -- width, these two sidewalks are relatively new. if you look at the tree wells and the furnishings on the sidewalks, people are not going to line up in between those zero. they're going to line up as they want. they're going to aggregate, people are going to be talking. i do not see that being maintained. we have a clear example that, and certain other parts of our city, where the sidewalk tables

came through, there are certain parts of our city where a wheelchair could not get through. by the time they add the space heaters, all kinds of other things for the comfort of their customers, it does not work. secondly, the question of -- the question that has been addressed by many people talking about the vitality not of the neighborhood, but of the streetscape, more people usually correlate to greater vitality. people standing in line waiting does not necessarily correlate. my opinion is that, the question is the department, their staff, and their decision making process state this but do not

provide any information that led to that particular finding a. i found both findings to be in error. i cannot support this particular permit. vice president garcia: my understanding is the very best it could happen with this permit is for us to continue this case and. they do not have a bathroom authorization. therefore, they have to be in full compliance with our requirements for this permit. they are not so this is the best we can do. the thing that disturbs me most is j-5. i do not understand how one apartment, dpw, granted a permit to an individual to operate in violation of the law. how is that possible? maybe sometime in the future, d pt will do something to accommodate this issue of firm parking laws that affect mr. fish but are not going to affect this operator. that is eminently unfair to me.

at first blush, when i read this, i felt as though the appellants were -- this is a function of what i read last week. i felt as though the appellants were asked -- were asking us to intervene in a permit and it would represent, on our part, if we were to overturn, a restraint of trade. the more i looked into this and the more i felt about it, even though this is neg dec on the ceqa issue, maybe this does require some sort of see what issue. but i would want it for something that they do not do. i would want it for an economic analysis. that is not a part of ceqa. two agencies of government -- do

agencies of government get into economics? they do. some people said we do not want to have the same look all over town. i realize that the c-3, which is where the struggle to operate, formula retail does not apply. but what it is about, in addition to esthetics, is to prevent someone who has economies of scale and a greater ability to be profitable than a smaller operation, a mom and pop, from operating in a way that is unfair. beyond that, there is some economic issue having to do with the fact that someone local is going to the moneys that are generated from that particular operations are going to find their way into our economy in a way that is greater than if it were a home depot or something.

there is the uncertainty issue. some speaker spoke about the fact that she was looking into opening some other operations and they did not know what to charge. their three methods of -- there are three methods of appraising what a building is worth. the easy one is comparing. if you're building burns down, you have to rebuild it and appraise it. the third issue has to do with what is addressed. what is the building going to generate in terms of revenue? that gives it a value. that gives you an opportunity to make decisions. the way that this is operating, this being -- what is this called? 5.8 or whatever this legislation is, it seems like it is a rush

to judgment. i appreciate someone coming here from small-business association to present a point of view. maybe it was not valid, because there is a second point of view of the people who are the appellants. when someone says there are lots of problems with it so we are going to form a task force to solve some of these problems, but in the meantime, hang on. let this go through. six months from now, we can decide if it was bad legislation or if these spots were bad and we will overturn it. we've heard people talk about the fact some of these people who operate these restaurants that may or may not be affected by the operations of the truck, they will be marginal. six months from now, they might be out of business. it seems to me that we, even though we know it, we want information, more testimony

going to economic impact, negative or positive, should have been presented to us. commissioner fong refer to the findings. -- commissioner fung referred to the findings. it seems as though, at the basis of it, it is an economic issue. the findings read that, in this particular case, the idea is to encourage the use and vitality of the san francisco neighborhoods. the next sentence reads the vitality by scree -- bite streetscapes directly benefits the commercial and dressed in san francisco. you could make an argument that this will not really hurt a restaurant.

someone would be willing to entertain that and you can amass statistics to prove -- amassed statistics to prove that. no one could argue that this does not have the potential to do harm to these restaurants that already exist. i still feel, in spite of what someone said someonei2b 1 and 3, maybe that was not the legislative intent to make a distinction between like food and like presentation for it is seems that when legislation is overly interoperable, it is bad legislation. if things should be clearly laid out. i would want to hear that interpretation. at any rate, in spite of all the comments made about the economic things, i think this thing is problematic. the fact remains that we cannot

upfolded today because of the lack of bathroom authorization. beyond that, my intention is to not support this permit and to recommend -- and to overturn this permit. president goh: i think the trucks are a really great idea. i am with the board of supervisors on putting this legislation in place. i think it is the wave of the future. it is exciting. it is what young people want. i am not so young -- it is what i want. there is something appealing to it. it is quick. the tech craze, the things mr. paul was speaking about.

and yet, in the application here and the way it has come through dpw, i agree with vice president garcia that we could not approve it tonight. because there must be current compliance and there is not. i think we do not have a choice in that regard. in this particular area, maybe the hearing officer could have looked at mitigation measures around the area being fully by elisa, density considerations, ms. dick asked the question how many is too many? maybe there are too many here. the economy has a lot to do with it. we have heard from one appellant owner that all of the money is made in 1.5 hours.

i believe that. it makes sense in this economy. if we were in a fleshy economy, maybe it would be different. maybe there would be enough to go around. i agree with my fellow commissioners that those issues are worth considering. maybe by ceqa, maybe by the dpw hearing officer. the system is set up so that person has some discretion. i believe that person should exercise that discretion. we are able to review. we are able to do that tonight. i agree with my fellow commissioners. is there a motion? >> may i ask a procedural question? president goh: absolutely. >> there are three sites that are listed with this permit a. two are subject to appeal.

one is not. i am curious as to whether this action would affect the third address or if we could proceed with the third address and have the permits authorized for that. and have the matters authorized -- the matter is subject to appeal authorized for your process. >> you could sever the third location, but you would need to continue it one permit so that they could provide you with certification. in order to uphold that location. vice president garcia: is that 65 second street? >> that is correct. vice president garcia: if we could sever that so they can proceed with that and provide the rest room for. beale and california will be subject to this process.

>> there is no way to celebrate it -- there is no way to sever it in that way. the board would have to uphold the permit on >> and that would be the mechanism for which that they could do that. >> it would be the problem of of the board in their ruling to do that. there has been no opposition or challenge to second street other than the hearing stage or at present. >> really don't even have a motion on the table yet. >> i am not trying to rub salt in the wounds, i am trying to offer some sympathy to what seemed like a very nice people. they were very thoughtful and i am hoping they you can get additional spots. it looks like the vote here is to overturn.

additional fees because of relocation, i will lead the department, i know it is minor, to overturn that. someone spoke in public comment about an issue that has resonated with me. this is not true, it is a zero sum game. i would move that we uphold the sperm that under the condition that it be continued to such a time that the applicant can be in full compliance with the permit.

is that the language he would have me use? >> i think it would be a good motion, but i think he would not be able to act on that at this time, you would have to continue it. commissioner garcia: all right. >> to be clear, you of the permit holder to obtain a certificate of sanitation for the second street location. but the intent of the board is to overturn the other two locations. ok, do you want to specify a date? commissioner garcia: miss paul, it would be your client -- how much time do you need to get that certificate? it will be up and down the issue.

>> i might recommend on if it would comment for him to reissue the other permits for the third location. it might save time and effort. >> of the half year of prohibition? >> said the board has adopted findings do not have that applied. >> one permit can be at multiple locations. as they are suggesting here, there might be four or five locations where to our objectives are appeal. and the other two are not. we issue a new permit, i assume this is denied.

the notification requirement will be considering a new permit, or are we just modifying the permanent and the specific case? third, one applicant is allowing a maximum of seven permits. there become the issues where the of the applicant is asking for several different locations in several different permits. there are nuances as this legislation is established that will create challenges in the interpretation and execution as we move forward. commissioner fung: given the indication that this board has made what they would like to see happen, what with the department recommend as a process?

>> if the action of this board is to suggest -- the department can either revoke the sperm that, making the understanding that it is still the best and permit. they will issue is as is, they will provide us with -- commissioner garcia: we can continue it and you can work it out. in whatever way must the benefits of the appellant and serves the purposes of this board. is that possible to have that in the future? >> i think you need to decide tonight if you want to continue its and allow them the

opportunity. maybe you can ask what their preference is. >> their preferences other than getting all three locations -- q. can't separate it, right? we live like to proceed, i guess, with giving you the reforms the need for 625 second and doing that as soon as we can. mechanically, i've got some of the best way to make that work. the preference would be to drop the spot in contention and be able to keep the one that had no opposition. >> if the board were to continue this to allow them to submit the needed paperwork, you would not be able to hear this before january 11. the calendar is very full, but

that would be the earliest. i dunno if that is enough time for you to get the letters that you need. commissioner fung: why couldn't we condition in? we have conditioned things on the future receipts of some material. >> of the ordinance makes it a precondition for the permit, a sense the board is going to issue the permit, approved the issuance, all three conditions should be met before it is issued? >> but in your own language, you say that we are sitting in in this case, for the department of public works. their own practices are to allow 90 days or some stated time for them to obtain that.

>> the 90-day time is within the legislation. upon the approval of the director of public works, the applicant has 90 days and if they fail within the 90 days, the permit is disapproved. >> it is only once they have obtained that that the issue of pulled the permit. >> we have to notify people. >> it seems like the board could continue this to allow them to get the needed a bathroom for the second street and that the permit holder indicated that he preferred rather than having to start with a new permit. >> i think that makes sense. commissioner garcia: it seems as

though that we should be able to condition it, but i am not an argument of mood. >> i'm sorry, but this is a new process for everyone. since you don't want to go down the path that would make it more cumbersome for you in the future, i believe this board has the authority, because the dtw director has the authority to modify the permits. by modifying the permits, you can improve the of the location and make conditions for it. and you cannot deny the other permits. i believe this is possible. if you need more time how to work this out, maybe continuing in the week to allow the city attorney and everybody to discuss if will be beneficial or you will create a precedent for a procedure that will be

extremely cumbersome and the future with every one of these permits having five, six, seven locations. you have got to be thinking about this for the future. i think the way the ordinance is written, the dp debbie director has the authority to modify these permits and to modify them and relocating them to other locations, this board has the similar authority. that is my opinion. the city attorney may need more time to look at it for what the appropriate measure might be. commissioner funggarcia: i'm thinking this probably shouldn't even have come before us because we can't uphold o'hare -- a permit that is not in full compliance. i would agree with the