one section of the economy over another and over here, the city is pitching one section, clearly pitching one second, against the other. this is not what free enterprise stands for. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> amica connor. >> i have no other speaker cards. if there are any additional speakers you can line up on the side and we'll take you following the speaker. >> hello my name is amica, the owner of casa indian eatery, we have two food tricks. we did try and open a second restaurant as well and that didn't work out very well. so that is where the food trucks were born from. i am supportive of the balance, whatever you conclude on the radius. and i just wanted to give an insight on the practical side

of running the trucks of it's a small business just like running the brick-and-mortar. the overheads are extremely high. you have to balance it about as to how many sales you can make. so i wouldn't say it's one business pitched against another business. i would also say that the practical side that matt was speaking to as to parking makes it an extremely difficult business. so often we have to spend a lot of extra labor dollars and spending people out early to reserve spots. also, it's a way for us to try to expand. we now have 35 employees, and are looking to open another brick-and-mortar. so i really do think they can work together mutually and not pitch against each other. i would request whilst making the decisions we look at the practical side of things authentic the time on permits and appeals and so on is extremely crushing to a business, to the point that we

may be considering selling one of our trucks and it's kind of a up-and-down yo-yo as always with a small business. thank you. >> thank you. any other speakers? jessica lee. >> hi commissioners, my name is jessica and i'm a corporate attorney turned volunteer for off the grid. i am a recent -- i recently moved to san francisco and learned about off the grid and the food trucks, the booming food truck business here and felt very compelled to get involved and help out especially with the new legislation currently on the tabe >> one point i wanted to clarify, since it's been discussed today. this talk about the 300' radius. much as we certainly do appreciate supervisor wiener's office getting involved and putting insomuch work and time put into it, as he said a big push for this legislation was to eliminate the sort of

incidencery discretionary decision-making in the existing legislation that allows the department to make decisions about which foods are fleeting within the 300' radius. so i just wanted to make it clear and put it on the record that the proposed legislation's 300' zone is still allows the same type of discretion from the department to decide on whether a permit should be granted depending on which restaurants are within 300 feet. i just wanted to make that clear. thanks. >> thank you. any other public comment on items 9, 10 and 11? seeing none, public comment is

closed. director dick-endrizzi. >> yes, commissioners, it failed to be mentioned that in the back of your packet, there is a map, two maps. one is of the c-3 area downtown. it's noted and this is in our meetings where we used criteria of the 75 -- it has a 75' buffer, but that is from the center of the restaurant or the food establishment address, which is how we came up with the 50'. so just to kind of take a look at the density and then the second one is the citywide view. so just to make sure sort of under some of the clarifications in terms of distinctions the proximity to a restaurant and like food is not something that dpw gets into

looking at until it's contested and as supervisor wiener said that is one of the considerations that they would make in the final determination. the distinction that is proposed before you this 50' buffer, it's an automatic no-go. it's an automatic no-go at the counter, unless you are able to get the approval of the restaurant in that proximity. so i just wanted to make sure that that distinction of saying that it's going from 300' to 50' is not going from 300' to 50'. 50' is the starting sort of consideration and so if there are restaurants next to restaurants next to restaurants that are within that 1500' --

i mean that 50', that 50' gets added and added and added. so it's a quite different sort of criteria that dpw has to work with at the counter. initially when we set up the current regulations it was under the consideration, that you know, that it was -- when we setup criteria it was so that the mobile food vendors would be working to kind of develop the relationships in the area, but we just didn't quite anticipate the number of permits that would be appealed. so it's a different -- so permits that are being applied for and if they are in that 50' buffer, which is sort of talking about sort of the landscape and the availability of where they would be, dpw can

say you are in the address you want to be is in that 50', it's an automatic no-go at counter. am i correct? so it's very different sort of framework in terms of -- in many ways for the property owners or the restaurant/food establishments, there will likely be less amount of permits that they are going to have to -- for those who tend to appeal, would appeal, because dpw is not -- dpw is not going to be issuing the notices. there is a 300' notice requirement and a 30-day, correct? yes. so that is already in place. so again, just what is maintaining is that should the permit be contested, again then again

dpw can take into consideration the like food and 300 feet. those considerations are still being maintained. when we initially made the initial regulation, the consideration of the like food within 4 -- 300 feet. i think currently and andres, maybe you can come up to make sure this is clear. it's following the current formula retail requirements. my understanding is that formula retail mobile food vendors would not have to go through the conditional use process there. it's where the conditional use process requirements are set upon formula retail, which is in the n-c districts except for

the places where formula retail is not allowed. >> it says before dpw even issued a permit there is a requirement that it be heard at the planning commission and in effect in the practical sense of what they would do, the planning commission would look at the zoning controls for the area. as you say, c-3 doesn't have formula controls and they would not offer -- as you know at the time cus are completely discretionary and so the commission can, if it's the will of the commission to not issue a cu, even if the zoning would allow for it, they would maintain that discretion. and the planning commission is not particularly favorable to formula retail at this present time. >> directors, so i'm trying to clarify the changes that are

being proposed here. right now we don't have a complete off-limitperiod. we have this thing when it's 300' there is a notification goes out. >> right. this is sort of the current zoning. so where it's red, it's permitted. which is why you see a heavy drivers' licensing of permits going into the downtown area. >> where the circles are are the 1500' buffers from school. there are faded red areas in those buffer zones. also you will see where st. mary's is, some of the other medical institutions, secondary education, those are in residential areas. that is one of the pieces of

legislation is to open up those areas to allow mobile retail vendors to be in those area as supervisor wiener said. >> so there would be opening up areas that are off-limits today and taking off other areas that would now become off-limits by the 50' mandatory no-go zone? so there would be something favoring the mobile food operators and there would be some taking away in other areas, right? >> right. >> and we're trying to get a balanced approach. i would like to hear what mr. quon would think, based on his expertise and you will not be held to the wire on this. do you agree with -- what do you think would be the impact as far as accessibility for independent operators to come in and start a business with this new legislation would it dramatically restrict them? because they are going to give

us the exaggerated investigator, which is what i would if i were them. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department of public works. what we have found is the loss of unintended consequences was very true in this case. the initial law passed was for mobile truck operators to be able to operate in the city, to bring a diversity of food in a variety of areas. when the code was written it restricted the commercial zones specifically. so when we printed out the map, what you see, and what happens is most people just fixate on where the most areas of concentrated in red is where you are supposed to be able to operate. so for them it's an easy area to try to identify. what we found was that most of the people wind up asking for the financial district, the market street

area. those zones that are identify there had, where there was a concentration of many lunchtime diners and restaurants which creates a level of conflict. with notification, usually the first thing the department hears they are like food within 300 feet of where i am. they object to the what is perceived as economic imbalance, the perception is that the mobile trucks do not. so in this specific case we're trying to address -- the supervisor and origins are trying to address it by trying to reduce the availability of high commercial areas. there is -- i would suggest

that food truck operators really look at landscape and look at areas underserved in many cases. the supervisor and the committee that reviewed this made a good point in that many hospitals, private schools are typically granted a conditional use and it doesn't make sense for restrictions for mobile food vendors that could provide certain types of services. with certain clarity, i think this could be a good piece of legislation. >> thank you. >> very helpful. commissioner riley? >> i also have a question for

mr. quon. when we first passed this legislation, originally, would it be better if we could just identify the underserved areas and permit food trucks to go in only those areas instead of opening up the whole downtown area and creating the conflicts between the restaurants and food trucks? >> that is a good question. one of the challenges that the department faced was that already this program was previously handled by the police department. and if the police department had already issued a variety of hot dog carts and what not in the downtown area. so had there been specific restrictions as you are describing, it would then put a premiere premium on the possible resale of those

licenses. i don't know what the intent from the legislation was, but i could see potentially those kind of licenses becoming similar to taxi medallions where they are are sold rather than controlling it in way where permits are issued for people to sell food specifically. i help that helps. >> i think we have created a situation where they are competing with each other in some areas. >> i would agree. there has also been other food trucks, specifically the cupcakes as an example. all they sell would be cupcakes. and they made a compelling argument in the director's hearing and others that what they are selling is a very in

essence, just selling cupcakes and may not be direct competition to other eating establishments. so again, there is a diversity and a variety of business plans from the variety of food trucks holders and mobile food caterers. if they could create something new and unique that could not be readily identified as a direct competition to other food establishments it would be difficult to suggest that they won't be able to operate. again that is a policy decision left for this commissioner and the board to decide. >> if we look at other cities, how do they handle food trucks and the conflicts between the food trucks and brick-and-mortar restaurants? >> we we have had feedback

from portland and santa barabara and most of these food trucks are placed upon private property, parking lots and some are placed along corridors in some cases. and there has been very mixed results. in some cases, these establishments would increase foot traffic, increase business in the areas. in others, it's been in some cases a reduction in the business of brick-and-mortars. so it's unknown at this point still. >> because i can see both sides. thank you. >> director? >> i had a question about something that just came up. what is the situation on, if someone has a permit in a highly prized location, are they allowed to sell that permit to someone else, or does

that permit expire once that particular business abandons that spot? >> commissioner the current legislation very specific. an applicant can sell his business in this case to someone else, but whoever purchases it will have to reapply for the permit. as along as they are operating the same hours and selling the same food product. >> thank you. >> director dick-endrizzi? >> just to go back to commissioner yee riley's question, some of the food desert areas are the areas in the r-h districts which are the medical establishments and secondary -- postsecondary education areas. so that was, i think, part of some of the considerations that we were thinking about in drafting the

first piece of legislation without recognizing that they are in r-h districts. >> any other commissioner comments? these are action items. we need to call each one of them separate, correct chris? >> yes. commissioners, if there are -- if you want to take especially for the public works one, if there are certain -- you can do straight up the full piece of legislation or if there is items that may not be a full -- you know, you might want to make some recommendations to. then you might want to sort of take it piece by piece. so that is just a recommendation. so that it gives a little more clarity to the legislative sponsor of things to focus on,

if you want to do that. >> okay. and i also want to acknowledge director dick-endrizzi's involvement in this, because it's very important, because these are small business owners both brick-and-mortar and food trucks and i just wanted to say what a good job getting involved in this. i really appreciate it. >> mr. president, would you like a roll call? >> we need to go legislation by legislation. >> you want me to go item by item? >> item by item. >> yes. commissioners the first item is item no. 9. which is file no. 12108 transportation code selling or distributing from a vehicle restrictions. >> do we have a motion? >> i move that we recommend this

>> do we have a second? >> can we just have a second here to kind of study this for a minute? this one director will remove the restriction right? >> this is the one that supervisor wiener had mentioned that it will allow the parking control officers to ticket an unpermitted vehicle. >> so i would second that one . >> roll call. >> commissioner adams? >> aye. >> commissioner dooley? >> aye. >> commissioner dwight is absent. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner white? >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> e. commissioners that motion

passed 6-0. item 10 is board of supervisors file no. 120193, public works code mobile food truck locations. >> i move to recommend this with one recommendation which would be that we would urge the removal of all formula relate trucks of being allowed anywhere in san francisco. >> we have a motion by commissioner dooley to recommend approval of 120193 with recommendation that former retail trucks be banned in the city. >> just to reiterate the key points of this piece of legislation, this changes the

perimeter, the distance -- well,, no; the 300 is not part of the distinction. what is being added is the 50' criteria that is saying a truck cannot be permitted. right now there is no criteria this from a distance that the truck in the initial permitting phase. there is no criteria. it's when a hearing is called for that 300' comes into consideration. so that distinction is that there is now being placed -- proposed in this legislation a 50' criteria saying automatically a truck cannot be located there unless there is approval from

the restaurateur. supervisor wiener says he is in discussion about restaurant not open at night and i don't know if you want to say that upon those discussions? so there is that. there is then the notification requirement is changing to notify property managers and property manageersrs, business owners and tenants on the ground floor. so it's a more focused notification, where before it was any business and could have been any of the businesses a high rise, which cost a lot of money for the mobile food vendor and also a lot of time for dpw to process those notifications. so this is a more targeted and refined

notification. and we have the middle school and high schools and reducing -- do i need to repeat what those driett criteria are? so public property that is adjacent to parks is under the rec and park jurisdiction and then of course, the formula retail requirement and permit cannot have more than three days in one location. >> commissioner riley? >> yes, i have a question on bullet no. 5, where it says, "no food truck may operate within 50 feet of any restaurant as measured from the address of the restaurant street frontage." with specific restrictions and revisions. so that means it's automatically

no if it's within the 50 feet? and also if the performance is issued by december 31st, 2012, then the restriction will not apply. so anything that is -- any permit that is issued prior to passing this amendment would not apply? >> right. those permits stay in existence for as along as those permits are . >> do is we know of any food trucks within 50 feet of any restaurants now? >> >> there are some. >> i would imagine there that there is. >> so they are grandfather in? >> they are grandfather in. >> i would like to add an additional recommendation, this would be to waive the 50' restriction for food trucks that operate after 10:00 p.m.,

specifically targeting food trucks near nightclubs and late-night vendors. >> should we handle it on a case-by-case basis or do it now? >> i think it's good to do it with recommendation with the following recommendations. >> yes. >> so i am abit worried commissioner dooley on the blanket statement on formula retail. i am with you and not a fan of formula retail, but worried about the law of unintended consequences. i think there are stop-gaps right now and it does have to go to the planning commission. so i just worried about the blanket statement. >> i just feel that because the intention of food trucks was to bring diversity and allow a number of small business operators to get into the food industry, i consider

it counterproductive to allow formula retail to be alluded as allowed as food trucks. i see it happening in other cities and view it as a negative thing that. is just my opinion. >> do we already have a cu process to control that? >> yes. but you know, i'm just saying to protect the small business operator. i don't see why a jack in the box food truck should be allowed in the financial district for any reason. >> i agree. >> for the purposes of moving this forward, i can go along with that. so right now we have that we would recomm