quan. we're a family owned-and-operated business. we have been tenants at 222 front street for 20 years. we recently renewed our lease for an extended term. i wanted to again voice my opposition to the coffee truck being parked on front street, when is a few steps from our store. it's going to take away from our morning coffee business, as well as block the storefront from california street. it's going to force our delivery trucks and vendors to double park and block the streets. parking is already tough. we need spaces for loads and unloading deliveries all of which take place between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. a lot of people are trying to distinguish expresso subito by being quick and convenient, when they don't want to go into a coffee shop and sit down and surf the internet. but food trucks in the financial district, as you can

see, their lines are really slow and it just blocks the sidewalk. so you can't say that it's going to be faster than a lot of the other coffee options that are quick service. such as us. we don't have seating. it's strictly to-go. so it's very fast. please deny the perform for the coffee truck. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. [speaker not understood] i'm here to support the issuance of this license for mr. goldstein. and you should have complete confidence in the vetting process that your department has gone through. in issuing the permit for mr. goldstein. i think that that is the food

truck in sampson street and financial districts that have been approved and vetted have been nothing, but an asset and i support the issuance of the permit. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is david mcclure. i have had a office in the neighborhood for 20 years and i can tell you in regard to saturation of coffee shops, if they are so saturated, why do i have to get in a line that goes out the door and wait a long time? during rush hour when this coffee truck would be in service, i'm here to support the coffee truck. when i moved into san francisco, that was 35 years ago, there were hardly any large chains of restaurants. there was no starbucks.

there were no kfcks and, in fact, they were all lined trying to get permits like this gentleman is. but then the city was protecting the small businessman. and the reason they couldn't get parents is that they didn't want that quality of food in the city. they wanted the unique business in the city. it seems now that has reversed. the food trucks, whether it's coffee or food, they are always offering service that is not here already. i go to they will awesome the time and the reason i do is because they are better. not always, but often. the small businessman will go out of his way to make it better. the large business will keep their -- if they are good,

they will keep their quality at the same level to keep their business at the same level. if you want uniqueness and you want to see good quality, you are going to allow more small businesses, not less. so thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi there. thank you. my name is alex hart. it seems clear from my reading of the city ordinance and dpw guidelines that city policy is to allow food trucks, if they comply with the various rules and regulations. and expresso subito has really done that to a t. there has been a 15-month process here. it was clear to me that radio services may have made a mistake in providing notice of the original dpw hearing, but that wasn't expresso subito's fault and there was no harm done since every business affected knew about the board

of appeals hearings. while dpw may have made a mistake in the findings that asupported the permit, dpw was correct that those businesses have sold like foods within 300' did not object. and since the board of appeals is having a de novo hearing that can be fixed in any case. expresso subito issued a -- applied for this permit over 15 months ago and has sent about $100,000 on o'equipment and permit. so we encourage you to fix the errors made, which were not expresso subito's fault and to help right this situation. the only people that can come out hurt in this proceeding are gary and his family. the appellants will walk out of here unaffected at best and most possibly benefiting from the espresso truck, bringing

more potential customers to their restaurant. it would be a great, significant injustice to not uphold the permit. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is sandra wheater. i am an accountant and i'm often in downtown san francisco visiting different clients. i am always in a rush. and i do what is convenient and what is good. and as somebody said earlier, that coffee is one product, it's all the same. but it's not all the same. they provide a great product. it is fast for me. wouldn't do it if it wasn't. it's a pleasant experience. and i think it should be supported:thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, mime michael goldstein, no relation to gary. i would like to say first off,

i don't leave the house with a tape measure, but i can speak as a consumer and i don't like when my opportunities where i want to shop and what i want to buy is taken away from me. and i feel that no. 1, that the food trucks offer a lot to our city, as well as every other city. and it's not -- for me it's not an either/or decision. he don't go to one or the other. i go sometimes here, sometimes there. so i don't understand why we're here right now. and i will say that when i heard that thing -- when i was living in san francisco, i used to buy grafiao coffee.

>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, my name is ken rosen and i'm a c.p.a. and i frequently come into the city, usually in the morning. one thing i have noticed there is a shortage of good coffee shops or places to buy coffee in san francisco in the morning when people are trying to get to work. you know, this is evidenced by really the long lines at the stores. you know, i myself, i don't have a whole lot of extra time to sit and wait in line for 15-20 minutes. so i'm just going to skip it, if there isn't a place to go. and i think these coffee trucks are sort of unique in that they offer a solution that is good

for the brick-and-mortar restaurants. because the brick-and-mortar restaurants are open, whatever, 10-12 hours during the day and so you have got this need, that goes on from whatever, 6-10 in the morning, when people are lined up. so you know the truck is there to sort of help in the need. and i think the impact to that is much less than if there is another store that opens up that is also open from 6:00 to 6:00 at night. one other quick comment. there was a letter that was just read here, mr. o'brien, royal exchange and the assumption is that if you run this kind of business, you know, it only cost $500 in permits to do this. and that is not really true. you know, you have got to pay for rent to park the truck. you have to get the truck here, so you have to pay for gas and you have to get people to bring

the truck. there is increased insurances and additional labor. there is a whole lot of additional costs. and you know, gary has to recover those costs over four hours. so even somebody is paying whatever a week, they have may be 12 hours to recover the costs. so i don't think he has got a real benefit. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is john newton and i'm an architect. i just wanted to point out that, it's already been shown that gary has worked very hard to establish the business. he made all the proper applications. the department of public works already addressed the way they reviewed and approved the permit properly. the one main thing i wanted to point is that gary has already made a large sacrifice. he originally had three locations from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he has already

reduced that to two locations, 6-10 a.m., which is a major sacrifice. so i think that speaks well to gary. he is eager to keep his business and he has already made? some goodwill sacrifices already. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, president hwang and members of the board my name is marlene weinstein and i'm a bankruptcy attorney who practices in federal courts in san francisco and oakland and other places. i have known gary for a long time. i am here really to address two issues that were raised by the appellant that i have noticed in my review of the documents. the notice provision, because that seems to be one. and the distinguish between

300' walking distance versus 300' radius and i believe that the appellant really confuses those two ris issues. with regard to notice, expresso subito used radio services, i believe is the same service used by department of public works and a lot of city services in determining how notice was provided. it is granted that apparently there were a couple of stores in a couple of locations that were not noticed in the original notice and i think part of the confusion was the front street versus california street address. and i believe it was royal exchange and potentially coffee close, et cetera. those two may not have gotten the original notice. however, the issue about notice and due process and as i face all the time in federal court, is whether the individuals that did not get original notice were harmed. whether they had the right to due process? whether they had an opportunity to speak and present their

sides? and in this case, royal exchange, this has been two appeals now that everybody has had an opportunity and has been fully ware of these hearings to present their side of the story. i want to bring and very quickly, because i know my time is limited. i will use the overhead. i have the sections of the -- this? this way? the department of public works code -- section 184.88. and that talks about the notice of intent. in terms of service. and i do have copies, if everybody would like them. >> okay. >> i highlighted those. >> thank you. >> they talk about -- >> your time is up.

>> can i just -- they talk about radius >> sorry. >> thank you i was told that. >> hi. i am not sure if i can speak or not. i am gary's wife. i know that is not allowed. >> sorry. >> i respectfully request. >> you can speak under rebuttal, if you want to. gary and his attorney want to give you some of the three minutes you can speak during the rebuttal. >> thank you. >> hi my name is joseph ferguson and i have known gary since 1970. i no longer live in san francisco, but i have a daughter who is going to turn 29 this saturday who lives here and she went to school here and now she is starting her career.

the thing about gary as scott mentioned, gary and scott started the holy bagel when i was roommates with them in the late 1970s when i lived in san francisco. i watched him create a business that was really part of the community. he was very in tune with his neighbors, neighboring businesses and the rest of the community. when i think about the objections, i know people are concerned about business, other people that have shops that sell coffee in the morning down there. it seems to me, my experience with neighborhoods, if i say i go over there and get a coffee, oh, yeah, there are tons of places to get coffee. if my friend's truck has a long line, i will discover one of these other businesses. i have discovered restaurants that way. when i go into a neighborhood for something else, and i'm standing around and i try something new. so i think it

will enhance, as much as might have any other effect in the neighborhood. and last, one thing that was brought up was that starbucks submitted an objection. but it was not put in these minutes that gary responded to those objections. and it made big, huge changes including moving the location and changing hours. so i think the fact that they haven't actually gone out of their way to withdraw it might be moot. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is karen smith and i represent aristoinvestment group. he would like to tell that you rob black, who is the owner of off the grid had stated numerous times in the past year, to year and a half that the revised ordinance back in 2011, was specifically to bring food choices to undeserved

areas of san francisco. undeserved arab. so i went on merriam-webster to find out what is "undeserved" area. this is a well-served area. the ordinance was stated and revised to bring undeserved or underserved areas of the city with options. mr. ramadan stated that he was able to sign the letter on behalf of this coffee truck to use the restroom. i am wondering if the lease that he has with the owner of the building allows him to do so. i doubt it, but i don't know. bonnie, which represents one of the building owners in that

area had stated that this whole 2nd street is going to be under construction and there is go to be no room. there is going to be four parking spaces. of all the people that support mr. goldstein, i wonder if they own restaurants. they are accountants, they are bankruptcy attorneys. i would like to know if they owned a restaurant if they would allow mr. goldstein to park the truck in front of the restaurant? i'm sure he is a very nice man. it's not credentials. it's about underserved areas. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> pat patricia voy. no one, many of those who spoke

in support do not live in san francisco. we try to get the deliveris in the city before the stores open. where are those delivery trucks going to go? no. 3, is to me, because of the underserved issue on this, the legality is that they are doing predatory practices. someone comes in with a truck, they pay $9700 a year and they can make a lot more money than the people paying $10,000 for rent, plus probably $3400, and insurance and they have to pay the electrical bills running from $300 to $600 a month. i firmly believe there should be food trucks. i do not believe that they should be in an area that has multiple facilitis that sell

the same product. this is a very important case for the city. and i feel sorry for all of you. because it was an ill-prepared, ill-written legislation that should have been tweaked before it came to you. it is so you flawed and convoluted that the dpws that make arbitrary and cap resolution capricious decisions. why don't you accepted it back to the board of supports? >> next speaker, please. >> my name is walter kaplan,

when i lived in berkeley i bought my coffee from pete, from pete's coffee. in the 1970s when i was in law school, i lived in the mission and i bought my bagels at holy bagel. i opened a little cafe on what was something just built, something called united nations plaza and i was cited by the city, by the department of public works for violation of section 723 of the public code for trying to put tables on the plaza and have a nice outdoor cafe. i had had to get a letter virtually signed by every member of the board of supervisors and had to sit down with the director of public works to be able to put tables on the plaza. as a result, the code was changed, and that opened the doors for outdoor dining in san francisco. later, things also changed to allow for hot dog carts. you might remember problems

that you had with stanley steemer. this man complies with what is required to have a food truck. dpw has given him had a permit. i go downtown from time to time, i stand in line at different places, trying to get a cup of coffee, a cappuccino, an expresso. this is in compliance with what is now the existing law of san francisco. i suggest and urge you to give him his permit and make changes later, make recommendations to the board, if it's appropriate for future licensees. but this man should have his permit. thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello, my name is troy campbell. i am not envious of the decision that you have in front of you tonight. it's very tough. we have heard a lot of opinions, a lot of anecdotal information and a lot of what if's, but i want to share in information from a recent article from early january. the golden gate restaurant association that reported that when food trucks pull up in front of restaurants they have been reporting a 30-40% loss in business. i wonder how many of the people who are for food trucks would like to see a 30-40% loss of their business from something that pulls up in front of their office, their retail store? and then pulls away? i think the 300' radius and like food items was put in place to try to protect those businesss and push the food carts in areas that are food desert where's they need to create activity

and more opportunities for neighborhoods that are underserved. so thinking about the loss of business that could affect these restaurants and cafes in the financial district, >> thank you >> is there any further public comment? if not we'll start our rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. the issue here today is not what expresso subito got right. what we're arguing is what dpw and radio services got wrong. just because it's not okay for expresso subito to say radio services got it wrong. it's not my fault. so the businesses who did not get their due process, who cares? you can't convict someone, let mem participate in an appeal and say hey it doesn't matter.

it just doesn't work that way. and this isn't just about getting 301 sacramento and 303 sacramento wrong. it's bigger than that. radio services just extrude up royally. and i'm going back to my map. radius services determined the midpoint of the assessor's block when the law is the midpoint of the block face. and within the public works code, it distinguishes between a block face and an assessor's block. "assessor's block" is perhaps could be three-block faces as in this case. and it's used multiple times in the public works code. amid the block face where the star is. and all of these businesses did not receive notice. so dpw testified a couple of months ago that 101 2nd street is within a 300' radius.

i want to ask dpw did anyone at 101 2nd street receive notice? if they did not, notice was not served properly. the second point is the 300' radius. the ordinance use the word "radius." the order itself says there are no like foods within a 300' radius. radius is the proper measurement and dpw is going to get up here and say oh, no, we're going use walking distance and we can't determine what a 300' radius, when they are required to send out a notice to businesses within a 300' radius. they know all the businesses within that 300' radius and they are going to get up here and say i don't know what businesses are within a 300' rayus? that is just crock. and third, the starbucks objection. starbucks objected and dpw says hey, if starbucks would have objected we would have denied

the permit. i don't see how you got around that. radius services admittedly [stkrao-u/]ed up on the notice. the 300' radius is in their order and they have the list of businesses within a 300' radius for and for them say we don't know what businesses are in a 300' radius, that is just bs. thank you. >> thank you. >> 15 seconds, i have the map, reference to the 200' to the toilet. if you do a little subtraction, this is a public works map. you will see it's a good 200' plus the time you go up the stairway to the back is probably 240 feet. thank you. >> legalo again. i have a few things to talk about like now. first of all, notice. radius services did notice from the midpoint of the block face

using assessor's block as they have always done in all of these situations. if for some reason the board of appeals feels going forward a different radius should be used that would be great, but we were going on what radius service has always done. i find it interesting that the apants would like you to see it says radius, radius every where else, but doesn't say radius when it comes to the walking distance, but take notice of the fact it says assessor's block, assessor's block and that is one issue for me. another there w were questions about the truck issue, and i would like to talk about the fact that expresso subito does have a second truck operating in another location that hasn't offered so far, but if you feel it would be appropriate and wish to substitute it in. it has the barista inside the truck and dpw has said that they would be amenable to amending the order to specify the other truck, if that is something that you would like to do. and we have pictures, if you would like to see them.

the findings that have been adrised by appellants, they are right. the findings were wrong and if you ask mr. kwong he will tell you they were typos. it doesn't have to do with like foods at all. we would request, actually that you would change them, because they refer to a notice provision that has nothing to do with like foods whatsoever. i am going put on the overhead the two findings that you could consider changing, if you wished. here they are. one is there is one like food espresso within a 300' walking distance and provides reasons for which you could reject the starbucks and substitute the other one there have no like foods espresso within a 300' walking distance. so if you wish to remedy that type [kwro-erbgs/] that would be great, but it is a typo and mr. kwong would tell you that. let's talk about the notice that r