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: 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 grain