>> mr. chairman with no closed session that includes the business before you today. >> thank you allncludes the business before you today. >> thank you allcludes the business before you today. >> thank you allcludes the business before you today. >> thank you allocludes the business before you today. >> thank you all business before you today. >> thank you all >> good evening and welcome to the may 2006 2015 of the san francisco board of appeals.

presiding officer is president ann lazarus. she's joined tonight by vice president darryl honda. commissioner bobbie wilson. we are expecting commissioner frank fung to be here shortly. at the controls is the board legal assistant victor i'm cynthia. scott sanchez is here sitting at the table in the front row. he's the city zoning administrator and he's also representing the planning department and planning commission. we will be joined shortly by the building inspector. i am looking around the room. i'm not sure if they're here yet. representatives as well from the department of public health.

if you would go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all phone and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. the board rules of presentation are at followings. department representatives each has seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute period. members of the public who are not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board, members of the public wish to speak on and an item are asked to submit a speaker card or business card when you come to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium.

if you have questions about requesting a rehearing board rules or hearing schedules please speak to board staff during the break or after the meeting. the board office is located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgov tv. thank you for your attention. at this point in time, we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any tonight's hearing, please stand, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking oath pursuant to the right of the sunshine ordinance

in the administrative code. >> do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. president lazarus, we have two housekeeping items. the first has to do with item number six appeal number 15-046. that matter has been withdrawn. also item number eight a jurisdiction request at 86630 avenue has beentc item number one is general public comment. is there anyone here who wish to address the board on a matter that is not on tonight's calendar? seeing none. item two is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? item three is board's consideration of the minutes for

its meeting of april 29, 2015. >> i have a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, if you could please call the roll. >> there's a motion on the floor from the vice president to adopt the april 29 2015 minutes. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> wilson >> aye. >> commissioner swig. those minutes are adopted. >> thank you. >> item four is a special item a item set aside in appeals numbers 13-095, 096 and 09 peat. - - 098. vbj

this is court number cpf-14-513752. the march versus the department. building inspection. was planning approval. decision were to modify the subject permits. this commissioner is the board's first step in its process to respond to a superior court order. regarding the for appeals associated with this project at 1050 through 1058 valencia street. the court has been directed by the court to vacate the

decision. the next step will be for ther board to reconsider draft findings;" concern that the adopting finding do appear to mirror the process of the board. we do intend to follow the board's rules with respect to the review of the findings. which would give the parties an opportunity to comment on the draft before it reaches the board for consideration. given the time that's needed to follow the board's rule my recommendation is to schedule a hearing on those findings for some weeks out. i would recommend june 3rd as a possible date for that item. >> since i made the motion i should vacate it. there's no further discussion i would move to adopt the resolution as prepare by our director.

with the addition that it be scheduled for rehearing onn4 june 3rd. v::íq >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none then, if you could call the roll please. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to approve a resolution andn

>> the resolution is approved and those decisions are vacated. thank you. >> thank you. next item is item five appeal number 15-0445 off the grid services versus the department of public works. the address is 90 broadway. country grill of a mobile food facility for the permit of sale of rotisserie ribs. we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes to present your case. i >> i can use the transparency as well. i printed out

for you. >> we'll see if on the screen. >> no problem. c my name is matt cohen. i run and operate off the grid. we program, coordinate mobile food trucks all over the bay area. country grill in their submittal to you, submitted a document that stated the range of what we do. it has some important information in there. we work withm(( mi we work with 250 different small businesses a week. we employ over a hundred people in san francisco. part of our business model is what is placing trucks and programming trucks in public spaces. ñ?ñ? there is a bitenñ?ñ?ñ xvñ?ñ?of history.

there's akú to this board.; restaurant association in the area. at the time there was a distance of 300 feet required for notice. as a result of an error in noticing by dpw we agreed to an adjustment no our footprint. we agreed to move to mid-block and in light of5knñ the impact and the opposition from the neighborhood association, and the number of restaurants in the

area >> sorry to interrupt you. we're having trouble with the screen. >> job security. >> thank you. please continue >> these are actually the two documents that we used in the original hearing. as a way of finding accommodation for the impact we have in that area on monday, wednesday and friday. we moved further to the mid-block well out of 300 distance. we agreed not to ç hamburgers. we moved mid-block and away from the contested area that country

grill it has applied for. to give you an idea of the space, this is what it looks like when it's unoccupied. we're beginning to set up the space at the beginning of the day. we currently program four trucks in the space. i think that we were surprised that the permit was actually granted through d.p.w. mainly because of the existing on opposition and that we come to you before and that you suggested that we move to the mid-block. when the space that we had been selling in before was granted a permitq of a surprise and that's the result of coming to you. i think that

is what the space looks like when we run our markets. you can see it's pretty congested. we've actually had to create signage and we have a staff member on site who manages the traffic and congestion in the space. really the question is, there's two questions, number one, take out restaurant will be required to have a 75-foot distance -- a food truck will be required to have a 75-foot buffer from where the entrance to where a restaurant is. we believe for food trucks where we provide no seating constitutes an equal need or equal amount of impact in the neighborhood as one take out restaurant. as a result we would ask you to consider the matter in light of that. in addition to that, the

director in dpwih opportunity to consider whether more than two mobile food permits in the same space is appropriate in a particular location. in light of the congestion of our particular area, the director and i'm surprised that dpw didn't see that perhaps having four mobile food facilities and adding a fifth one in an area where there was already public opposition to us having five trucks there before, wouldn't be appropriate. we noted in our documents to you that i was surprised when country grill showed up to surf one monday morning and i asked -- i spoke with the owner that

morning. i asked where his restroom was. he communicated to me over the phone that his restroom was located on jackson street. i was surprised that later on in the day when i called to confirm the distance and the location of the restroom he had claimed that he was using off the grid restroom. i believe in his submittal he say that because he had a contract with off the grid are permitted sites that would entitle him to use the restroom. however, no one in off the grid granted that authorization to use our restroom. in summary what we're asking for is pretty straightforward. we believe that we've tried to be good neighbors for quite some time. 75feet is an appropriate distance to move country grill away from our space.

which would allow us to not have to deal with remediating his trash and congestion issues in addition to our own. or that our space is already congested enough considering the previous history and that we think that it qualifies as a take out restaurant. if that's not possible, i think we will be open to having him move to tuesday or thursday as a reasonable accommodation when there's no trucks on the streets. we wouldn't have to deal with the impact of his presence. >> i have a quick question. did you make these objections during the permit process? >> the address for the space is 90 broadway. i'll be honest with you, we received notification for 90 broadway. unfortunately it's on broadway. >> the answer will be yes or no?

>> we did not appeal at that time. when we realized where it was we appealed to you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening. thank you president lazarus vice president honda and commissioner sitting on the board of appeals. my name is mitchell newburgher i'm the proud owner of roadside rotisserie grill. i've been running my business for 15 months. i'm a success story on my own terms. i built my business around hard work determination, never say no attitude and integrity. i believe the opportunity exist for those who choose to seek

opportunity. i work super hard, 14 hour days, seven days a week some weeks. i don't like to be strong armed or bullied. i was very successful in 2014. i should have more success in 2015. the fact of this matter is that matt cohen and offer the grid missed their opportunity to appeal this mmf during the first notification process. i placed signage to the effect up and down the block. paid for mailings to be sent to all businesses within a certain range, specified by dpw. i did everything dpw requested to the tee. not a single brick and mar tar business in the surrounding area appealed my presence at this location. not one. only matt cohen and off the grid decided to appeal. in fact my small business caters weekly lunches and

dinners to companies in the area. in my private conversation with mr. cohen in his office he admitted he was notified and the administrative employee did not recognize the location at similar location off the grid. he just admitted to you that he received no notification in his brief, he said he never received notification. it's interesting that mr. cohen received all of the notifications of mmf permits that are within his operational area through the dpw portal but this particular one wasmy not received by them in their brief. back in july of 2012, in front of this board some city member and others he started talking and i i'll paraphrase, we're a city that celebrate competition

and food and he encourages food diversity and encourages small businesses. it's on video. fascinating stuff. maybe some board members have changed then. but it's public record. he also stated that he will comply with the& -- amended permits. in addition, i have another here that i like to put up on the screen if possible.t

they're pretty good. they were on the schedule that day and i saw them there. mr.cohen had asserted this team this board that he would not%:f serve like food. mr.cohen also asserted that he would make sure that i will be 100% in compliance 100% of the time. that's not his job. he can't find time to monitor my compliance. i thought it interesting at my compliance. i made sure i gathered good evidence that otg is not always in good compliance and possibly have their permit revoked. off the grid is not a food truck operator nor food truck entrepreneurs. withoutecpé truck operators, there will be

no off the grid. they're brokers that are fee driven and ifgmnnrñ wasn't for small guys like me, there wil, be no off the grid. to take it one step further, if small guys like me just a little bit wiser, little bit more driven and determined to succeed, they will do as i have done,8wpi follow the rules and codes, apply for the permits put in the working time needed and th%t depending on off the grid to succeed in their businesses. i sat with the department of public health for over six months reconfiguring my vehicle. i provided them with a chart to make sure that we were in compliance with all health and food codes. we have continually held 100% score from the department of public health. both of our trucks have the same scores. in addition dpw northwested --

insisted that we find sidewalk nas are over 12 feet wide. we did this. there are not a lot of 13-foot sidewalks in san francisco. we sat with1[nny!éñ?ñ? u multiple hours. spent a lot of money assessing our potential locations. out of the seven we wanted to operate, only two passed the strict guidelines of dpw.uñ?ñ? this appeals goes against everything matt cohen and offer the grid stand for. thank you for your time. i'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> you can hear from the department now.

>> president lazarus and commissioners. just to start off with a brief background of this application country grill roadside rotisserie they committed an application0wñ?ñ? in september 2014. upon review by the department, public works reviewed the application in conjunction with the article 5.8 of the public works code. we reviewed the location in terms of zoning and distance requirements and all the requirements set forth within the code. upon review, we found this met all the requirements and therefore notification was then sent out on december 26, 2014. mailed notification, which was a 30 day notice which allows anybody to submit public comment, was mailed to all commercial tenants within the

75-foot radius. in addition to this required notification per code the department also sent out a notification via e-mail to mobile food trucks within the vicinity as well as to the group that public works has internally. it's a group of individual who like to receive notifications of all mobile foods that are applying in the city. if you take a look at the exhibits, exhibit c in particular, that notification clearly listed the location. it did list 90 broadway but it listed the exact location of the truck. i believe it was listed on the east side of front street. which could give a@&b understanding of the exact proposed location. in addition to this a physical notification was also placed along the block at least 10 calendar days prior. exhibits e1 and e2 should show that posting. after the 30 day notification period,m9qx no objections were

received, therefore not requiring public hearing. therefore the applicant was giving 90 day approval to submit all the required and other approvals from city agencies. one of the things that d1 listed & works did get a copy of the approved publicx. therefore, public works moved forward with approval.5;f however, upon review public works went back to health department to verify whether that 200-foot requirement was met. it was not so therefore public works asked permit holder to stop operating at that location. however, on the 30th which was actually the final day for submittal of all the required documentation, the applicant was able to provide approved health department permit and the

department confirmed with dph as well. based onen that the -- based on that, the permit was approved. just going back to some of the arguments, in terms of the improper notice, i believe the notice was done according to code and additional notice was also done. it clearly did state the exact location of the proposed food facility. in terms of off the grid being a take out establishment, per section 184. b4 does state all mobile foods must remain 75 feet from the brick and martor restaurants. take out facility is defined as a food preparation and service establishment which prepares food for consumption off premises. although this does -- mobile

food truck could fall under this definition department understanding -- if this did apply to food trucks it will be in direct contradiction with good trucks operating under section 4a. which allows more than one truck to operate at a single location during same time period. also under this same section of the dpw order mobile food trucks are allowed to operate under one single permit. that wouldn't be allowed if a take out establishment did include mobile food facilities. in terms of the amount of food trucks currently on the block dpw order 18281 currently states that the director may issue two or more facilities for the same time period. as long as this does not impact

the travel and flow or other location requirements. based on the fact that this sidewalk is about 15 feet wide which is wider than the 10-foot minimum and they are approximately 50 feet away from off the grid's operation. the department did not believe that this would have have any adverse impact on travel. therefore the permit was granted based on these conditions in the code. if you have any questions i'm open for questions. >> just one, could you clarify regarding the bathroom situation? >> sure. the bathroom requirement is actually a health department requirement. in order to get health department permit, they're required to submit a restroom verification form. that form should be signed by an existing brick and mortar