superintendent this afternoon because i had discovered this in the brief as i was writing the brief last thursday. and so i wanted to put that out there, that if -- you know, if the concern was financial and not just public safety, public works would continue -- would maintain these trees. the trees are located behind the fence, so we typically wouldn't want to maintain the trees or prune them with them located behind the fence, and i just -- at this point, i had to bring it up, but i don't feel like it's all that germane unless the property owner felt like that would provide them relief, and they'd be comfortable living with the trees for another five, ten, 15, 20 years or so. >> but in your brief, you've mentioned three points to that. one is maintaining maintenance of the trees. second is repair of the sidewalk should there be any damage, and third was assume liability for the tree, right? >> correct. so the implication is that

future round of sidewalk repairs would be the responsibility of public works. future round of tree pruning or maintenance would be the responsibility of public works, and then, just the general liability for maintenance of the trees would belong to public works. the one tree that is two thirds in the right-of-way could be open for some debate, if, again, if the property owner was looking at retaining the trees. the challenge -- the challenge -- >> would you maintain the two thirds? >> well, we -- among civil -- well, when we have trees in the public right-of-way, prior to july 1 of last year, we would sometimes have people -- even though we prevent it and fore bid it, people have planted trees on property lines when it's the only place to avoid utility conflicts. and when problems aevolved over time, which they will, we'd

have to step back and say the trunk is significantly here on both frontages. we're going to accept back and try to let both property owners assume some mutual liability here, so along both those lines, that's what we're thinking. >> what about health or property damage during limb failure, are you also taking the responsibility for that? >> it would be a public works responsibility, and we're never saying, hey, it's okay property owner, we have a claims department, we're going to help you out. we don't want anyone to have damage to their property. one thing i didn't cover in my initial presentation is there's a lot of fog out there. when fog passes through the canopy of a tree, it condenses. not only does this property owner have fog, but it basically rains all summer. so the front porch is covered with barnacles and lichens and

things. there are impacts to these trees on this site to this property owner. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. we'll move onto rebuttal. we'll hear from the appellant. you have three minutes. >> in my brief because i didn't know in my situation that these are really in the public right-of-way, i assumed that i am ultimately responsible. and if i am ultimately responsible, i could not live with myself if i thought these could fall on somebody or someone's car. i understand there's a chance it could fall on myself or my house, but i think it's worse

if somebody were to get injured by the tree. and then we just heard from mr. buck about how this is actually within the right-of-way and then is the city's responsibility. but does it matter who's responsibility it is, given the risk? you know, he said that you can't determine when or if a failure's going to occur. if you look at the report, it talks about not just the age of the trees and they're healthy, but the way they've grown, or they have this dog leg or crooked structure to them, and he has observed that this is the cause of more torsional effect on the tree limb, and they have more breakage because of it. i found an article on the internet, and a study they did in golden gate park, that said that monterey pines are more

prone to limb failure, and this is due to branch structure and failure of the wood. monterey pines are beautiful, but they may have an inherent weakness to them. i think there's a greater risk of limb failure, and at the same time the chances of any failure is significant. it could be catastrophic. there's a bus stop on the corner. the 29 runs along that line. people use this street, and people are walking their dogs on this street. the kids on this, you know, are being pushed by think parents in strollers. i just think to do the responsible thing, there's really only one solution for these trees, and that's to instruct d.p.w. to fulfill its obligation under 801(d) as they good at 201 garfield street, and remove them. and that is they should also consider public safety being the steward of the trees and

urban forestry. thank you. >> ma'am, the two replacement trees, are they on the adjacent parcel? >> the two trees i need to replace. >> are they on your parcel? >> they are on my parcel. they are on the public right-of-way. >> but you didn't know that before. >> i had applied for a permit to replace them, and i was going to replace them. i still am going to replace them. part of the problem with putting them back with where they are, is initially, they grew up and initially hit the power lines. the way pg&e trimmed them, they just trimmed around them leave the branchs overhanging, so there's always going to be a problem with the power lines unless the power lines go away. the forester that i talked to agreed i could put the tree behind the fence line, and i'm just trying to get my act together and get landscaping

done on my property. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. mr. buck? >>. >> good evening. chris buck with the public works. couple of points, and then kind of maybe some recommendations for consideration. one quick thing, let me just show the overhead site again. so one thing, if -- if both trees are approved by the commission, one recommendation i would make is the current permit is for the removal of these two trees with replacement of the two. they're only 15 feet apart. we really only need one tree where there's two pine trees right now. i would recommend one tree in the yard behind the fence again. it could be a medium stature tree that's never going to get near the size of these current

ones. it won't overwhelm the property and it won't encroach on the property across the street. we really only need one tree. so what i would recommend is that we have removal of these two trees with one tree in this location. we can work with the property owner to either have them reduce the open -- open area here or get a landscaping permit if the desire is to keep it open. so that's one point. i do want to be reasonable. the property owner inherited the trees. she's maintained them well. we don't need to cram a lot of trees really closely together there. i think there's room for one replacement tree in the right-of-way, in the sidewalk, on the front side of the fence, and where the subject trees are, we could have one replacement tree behind the fence between the two. there's a little bit of a level spot in that side yard that would make sense, and it

wouldn't overwhelm the property. and one point of clarification is that typically, what happens when -- let's say these trees are in the public right-of-way. we get a call from a member of the public who says i think this tree has to go. we go out and evaluate the tree, and we say, you know, we're going to respectfully disagree. we think the tree is relatively healthy. what we recommend at that point, our process, would be the owner could initiate the recovery ro removal of that tree, but we would let them remove and replace the tree. it would not be covered by public works. and we're in that situation at this point. we know they're in the right-of-way, but we don't believe they need to be removed at this time. if the property owner wants to proceed with removal despite this recommendation, our recommendation is that if it's

approved, the owner bear those costs for removal and replacement the based on the testimony, i understand that's not necessarily an issue necessarily for the property owner. it's a public safety, and that's a point we disagree on. but i just wanted to kind of make some clarifying points, and see if there's a way i could provide a road map moving forward. thank you. >> mr. buck, how did you determine where the property line was? >> so we have map viewer, key maps, great maps. we pulled this -- we have an on-line service. we measure -- so we can measure it electronically, but then, we have a measure under each parcel of property where we can get the key maps or the monument maps, and those are the ones that show the little handwritten, you know, seven, nine, 12, five, 15. it shows what the true width of the public right-of-way is.

just like sunset, in the sunset we have a 6 foot wide developed paved sidewalk, but the property line does not go all the way up to the sidewalk. the reason being when you're developing a neighborhood, it costs a lot of money to pour concrete. so when neighborhoods are developed, you see people pour the minimum sidewalk that's required by planning, and then, the rest -- and there's this ambiguous, well, where's the property line? and the only way to check is to pull the property maps. the measurement is from the face of the curb, so when we measure that, we measure face of curb into the property. and on this one, i double-checked. i didn't just use the electronic, click here, click there, we pulled it up, and it says 9 feet in this particular case. i think because of the history in this site, when our

inspector got to the site, there's two trees behind a fence, there's some assumption when you're putting a fence in the right-of-way like that, you're kind of taking those trees on, but that's how we check the width of the public right-of-way. we do that in every case the same exact way. >> so i'm confused. the trees are either on private property or in the public right-of-way, and it's -- if you're saying that they're in the public right-of-way, then where -- what happens to the rights of the property owner, vis-a-vis the trees? >> it's never changed. so public works has always had the response -- the jurisdiction over street trees in the public right-of-way. so tree in the public right-of-way is a street tree. >> right. >> a tree on private property that's of a certain size qualifies as a significant tree. so property owners always have a right to submit a removal

application to remove a street tree that's adjacent to their property. the one thing -- and so that's what we've been doing for decades. two thirds of private properties in san francisco were responsible for maintaining for trees in the public right-of-way, and then, public works maintained one-third of those street trees. so the -- in this particular case, the rights still exist. we maintain the trees in the public right-of-way. we sometimes disagree whether a tree needs to be removed, and when we disagree, it often leads to someone applying to remove the trees on their own if they feel compelled to do so. >> okay. >> and then, the rights of the property owners that we absolutely -- we're public works, public, you know. public safety is a critical tenet of our, you know, strategical -- >> okay. so just to clarify, i heard you say earlier that you would be willing to authorize the removal of these two trees and

replanting of one tree. >> correct. >> okay. so you -- >> and if the property owner pays for the removal. >> right, which i gather she was prepared to do any way. >> right. >> so you've essentially slipped your position. >> well, i -- not that i -- you know, when there's a large limb failure like that, it's kind of hard to take a hard line and say, you know, hey, live with this, right? private arborists have a two page disclaimer at the end of every report, right? don't hold me liable. city agencies don't have that. we're committed to public safety. we don't want anyone to get hurt, and i just think that -- i do think there's a good maintenance record here, and we wanted to put up a defense of our denial, but at the same time, you know, the trees are in a challenging location so

close to the sidewalk. >> do you have further questions? >> no, i have a motion. >> anybody else? >> thank you, mr. buck. >> thank you. >> i have a question for the appellant. you heard the offer. is that acceptable? >> that is acceptable. >> do i have a motion, madam commissioner? >> there's more discussion, so i would move to grant the conformity inspection of approval to ae plareplace the trees with one tree, as discussed with the urban forester. >> you need to expand this. >> yes. >> that one tree to be planted within your private property. >> oh, on the other side of the fence. >> on the other side of the fence. >> would be, yeah, because actually it would be actually on the level part of the

property. >> and we might as well add the other tree. >> yeah, the other tree. >> as she was -- she was really supposed to replace two trees with the previous trees. >> that's not before us. >> so -- but he's now willing to allow her to replace one, so it's a change of the condition. >> but it's not part of this permit. >> we should just take it up so it's clear. >> housekeeping. >> if it's all right with the city attorney. >> i think it would be permissible to say a 1:1 replacement the other one is connected to the other permit, but i guess it could be connected to this permit. >> okay. >> it makes life easier. >> fine. please continue. >> whatever you said. >> madam director. >> okay. i think it was a motion to grant the appeal skm to condition the granting of the

a -- and to condition the granting of the appeal on the requirement that the appellant plant one tree within the fence line and one tree in the area that she was supposed to plant back in 2014, so we're looking at two new trees. so -- and so on the basis, are we saying that the public works order was improperly issued? >> well, on the basis that public safety prevails in terms of the removal of the tree. >> okay. so on the basis that public safety prevails in removing the trees. so on that motion by commissioner lazarus -- [roll call] >> okay. so

>> welcome back to the june 20, 2018 meeting of the board of appeals. next item up, we have items 9(a) and 9(b). they will be heard together. we have the union square business hired.

we hire 30 ambassador cleaners. they're out scrubbing, sweeping up. we have public safety ambassadors that deal with all sorts of issues as it relates to this issue that there's

clear passage across the sidewalk, that you can walk-through those sidewalks, and that the sidewalks are clean. this is really important to us. we consider ourselves property managers for the area, working hand in hand with the city, the different departments: police department, public works, to do this work, certainly mta, and we feel like we're stewards about the area. we care about the area and we're watching over the area. so today, i'm here to appeal the permit that was recently issued by public works of the san francisco hometown creamery at 281 geary, which is right off of powell street. this is the block, again, up geary just facing union square park. i'm sure you're all familiar with it. really important block, very busy block. and to be clear, i'm certainly not against food trucks. we do have food trucks in and around union square. i'm not against ice cream. their ice cream is good. the gentlemen are lovely, and we've met with them several times, but my opposition is

just to the location. this is not a good location. as i outlined in my appeal, it doesn't meet the intent of scott wiener's legislation in 2013. i know because i worked with scott wiener at the time to craft this legislation. i'll read the legislation here, parts of it. it was to provide and expand the range of interesting food consumption opportunities for mobile food facilities in under served, that's a keyword, and less congested areas of the city. those are key points. regarding the under serves area, union square is certainly not under served by restaurants. we have 38 restaurants and caves within a two block area of this permit, including a pinkberry frozen yogurt, and this argument was used by public works in two recent food truck permits to deny them.

the spice affair wanted to go into 46 geary, and another food truck was denied recently at 99 post, where there was two restaurants in the area. secondly, we're hardly a congested area. we are a cosmopolitan area. we figure that there are about 146,000 visitors -- 147,000 visitors throughout the year moving in union square. if you break it down by sensor, we have about anywhere between 14,000 and 20,000 pedestrians moving through the sidewalks every day. of course, much busier at christmastime. the tree lighting that happens on this block, this is where chinese new year comes through. this is busy. i'm sure you've all been down

this. this is extremely busy, and this is an issue because when a food truck pulls in, it'll create a line blocking the sidewalk, and the legislation says there should not be conflicts between pedestrians and the line. the legislation also says there ought to be 10 feet for the sidewalk, 4 feet for the line and 6 feet for pedestrians. if you look at this, i'm not sure the junior officer that approved this visited the site because this just doesn't work. there's two giant flower pots there which move into that 15-foot sidewalk leaving less than ten. so -- and maybe that works in an outer area in the city, but not in union square. it's busy. it's really hard to move through the area. you can see that just across the street with the tour buses double parking and where the hawkers are trying to sell you tickets. you can't move through the sidewalk. it's irritating at best, and it doesn't feel safe sometimes. you cannot walk down the

sidewalk. so this is -- this is concerning. and again, to quote the legislation, it's the city must exercise care and consider public safety in addressing appropriate locations for mobile food facilities in order to minimize these conflicts between pedestrian movement and customers. i know this area well. we work right on the corner there, and i walk by there four or five times a week during the weekdays. as i mentioned earlier, we do have some food trucks in you know square, and we work with -- union square, and we work with different organizations that are appropriate. we work with off the grid, for example, on our winter walk. maybe some of you have been down at christmastime where we're there. we also are about to work with off the grid again on maiden lane. it's a much quieter street to start with, so we don't have those conflicts. our merchants are concerned on maiden lane, and that's why

we're doing a pilot program. again, when you work with these organizations and you can test it out, you work with them for a period of time. when you get a food truck, it takes seven years, and this is your location. this is prime real estate in union square. so finally, our other concerns also are around the truck itself. i mean, the truck is charming. if you've seen it, it's a v.w. wagon. i doubt whether the department of public health is going to approve this truck. there's ten different requirements that you need to have, a hand washing station and the other sink and all these other things. i don't think it'll be approved. we got charmed by once before. there was a creme brulee cart, and it wasn't that, it was a kettle corn, kitchen equipment thrown on the sidewalk right on the corner of market street. it's ugly and tachy, and

it's -- tacky, and it's not what we were sold. and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from mr. roth, the other appellant. >> my name is stanley roth. i've been in this business 44 years. in 1974, this board actually overruled the police department and gave me a peddler permit, which was actually the first peddler permit in the city. i am the owner of the stanley steamer hot dog cart.

i have to agree with karen, this is the wrong location for a food truck. and my job tonight is going to be to try and go into the -- the legislation. i think the most important line in this is line 23, where it says consequently, the location restrictions included in this legislation are intended to -- i'm sorry, the locational restrictions are intended to address these public concerns, and those are the concerns about -- and so the locations that are put together, these restrictions are the foundation of the ordinance, and there's three mandatory location requirements that are violated in this approval, and that's what i'd like to review. so if you'll bear with me, they are -- the location is -- violates the 6 feet from sidewalk furniture rule. it doesn't provide the clear path of 6 feet of walkway and 4 feet for customers, and it's also within 75 feet of my

operation, and that's a prohibition. so here is the definition of an m.f.f., a mobile food facility. and the first one is mobile caterer, so a mobilized vehicle. so when they say a mobile caterer, that's a food truck. down below is push truck. that's any wagon or cart, but in the middle, a mobile cart, and a push cart or mobile caterer are both referred to as a mobile food facility unless specifically stated otherwise, and that's important because here is the ordinance. the ordinance says all m.f.f.'s, all mobile food facilities must maintain a minimum clearance of 6 feet from existing street furniture, including, but not limited to, parking meters, pay phones, pedestrian sfmta crossings, news racks, kiosks.

so must, as the commission knows, is a word of mandate. it's not optional. so this is what that location looks like with the street furniture, and you can see that it is -- every yellow zone has something in it. there's no way that a food truck can be 6 feet from that. and i pointed that out in my brief, and the answer we got from the department of public works was this, which says public works considers this code section to only apply to push carts, and that's not what the code says, and i don't know how they can do that for a lot of reasons. one is because the code mandates it applies to both, and secondly, it -- i'm sorry. let me -- time pressure. it -- it's unfair. there's two permits in the

city. there's food trucks, and there's carts, and subtly, by this, i would own a lesser of two permits. and also, it doesn't seem that anybody knows this because on the department's website, it still says all mobile food facilities must maintain minimum clearances of 6 feet from street furniture. so the effect of that would be that if anybody was thinking of looking for a location, they would be discouraged from going toward a yellow zone that had street furniture because the website and the code both say you have to be 6 feet from it unless -- but now, this truck is right there. and by the way, that truck can be anywhere in those four yellow zones because the code allo allows them to have two yellow zone parking spaces, and the d.p.w. allows them to move one space forward or one space back, so all four of those zones are available. and it's important about street furniture because what street furniture does, and that's that clear path of pedestrian

travel, street furniture narrows the sidewalk. so this is where the d.p.w. says this is a 15-foot sidewalk. that is what the sidewalk actually looks like. you can see the street furniture and the wall. the street furniture takes up 4.5 feet, and there's 2 feet of shy distance right here. and i think in karen's brief, she shows what -- there is -- i think it's in exhibit k, shy distance is a term used by engineers, that people avoid obstacles on the sidewalk. so when you have a 10 foot wide sidewalk, here, you have about a 6 foot wide sidewalk. here, this food truck would be in one of the narrowest parts of the sidewalk in union square, and i think karen, in my brief, and i was using the bid's numbers, union square gets 53.8 million visitors a

year. that's 147,000 people a day. so to try to put more people into this small area is impossible. and it violates a mandatory code section, which says they must not be there. and now, the next code section is this -- the permitee shall provide a minimal clear path of travel for pedestrians no less than 6 feet wide and in a.d.a. compliance 4 feet wide. well, the sidewalk is no longer 16 feet. you've got 8.5 feet of pedestrian width, which violates the code. and the -- and the d.p.w. response was the official sidewalk width on geary street is 15 feet, but you can't look at the width of the sidewalk if there's street furniture narrowing it. finally, the mandatory street requirement, 75 feet from another m.f.f., this is what the location looks like from

me, and that cart -- that truck can be anywhere from 50 feet to 13 feet, depending on which yellow zone it chooses to use. and the d.p.w. says it doesn't apply to me. it does, but i'm out of time, and if anyone wants to ask the question, i have the information to show that it's in part of this violation of this code as well. like karen said, i'm not opposed to food trucks. i've been in this location for 44 years. but rather than less congests, this location is the most. thank you. >> so mr. roth, a point of clarification on your distances. you indicated that the tree -- free furniture was 4.5 feet from the curb, and later you said that left 8.5 feet. >> because you have shy distance because that's about what -- that's why street

furniture is so detrimental to pedestrian walkways. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the department. [inaudible] >> oh, i'm sorry. the permit holder, yeah. to ru

the mayor outside our creamery, and we invited everyone in and had them try our ice cream, which they enjoyed. a few days later, the mayor sent us a certificate of honor, which to this day hangs proudly on our wall. the mayor's chief of staff responded expeditiously with the following: thanks for reaching out, adar. sounds like a great addition to union square. we were just at the museum of ice cream the other week, and a tourist asked us where the nearest ice cream shop was and could only think of the ben and jerry's in the basement of the macy's. i'll mention it to the mayor today. he'll be so excited. what's the time frame in opening this location? union square is a major economic zone, and the addition of small businesses like yours

helps to support its success. his e-mail echos the same sentiment we hear from others when we inform them of our proposed plan. when we became aware that there were some who were opposed to our plan, our strategy was not to push against them, but instead to listen to those specific concerns, address those specific concerns, and make the appropriate accommodation. we reached out in good faith to listen to all reasonable concerns and modified our plans accordingly. we are not a generic snack vendor. we deliberately orchestrated our vehicle to add value and enhance the neighborhood of union square in conjunction with developing a business identity that can proudly act as an ambassador of san francisco. it would have been substantially easier, less stressful, less time-consuming, and come at a less financial cost if we went with a typical

food truck. instead, we selected a 1978 v.w. classic van for multiple reasons. one, we wanted a particular vehicle that would be compatible with the neighborhood landscape and provide an image of classic san francisco nostalgia. two, a vehicle that is substantially smaller than a food truck so it would not take away from the existing area. we recognize that union square is a premier retail destination, which is why the vehicle is not only being gutted and retrofitted on the inside to comply with the san francisco department of public health, but the exterior has been fully restored, giving is a showroom appearance. the premier center of san francisco should not be represented as an enclave reserved for chain stores and those are the deepest pockets. it should be inclusive of those who are capable of delivering

top quality aesthetics, customer service and enhancing an individual's experience in san francisco. and i'll be going point by point on what the appellants have brought up, but just real quick since i've got a good chunk of time here. when it comes to street furniture, it mentions -- it's in d.p.w. order 182100, and it says that the publg use and safety is consistent -- public use and safety is consistent with the theme -- you'll notice there is a consistency with what type of public use is consistent, things that are used by the public, not just necessarily a street planter. and so give you an idea of how far -- to give you an idea of how far we've come, this is what the van looked like when we first got it, that our

mother would call an eyesore, and this is more what it looks like today. and i'd be happy to answer any questions the commissioners may have. thank you. >> you still have eight minutes, by the way. >> that's fine. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from department. you have 14 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm not sure i'll need 14 minutes, but -- >> sorry to interrupt. this is the first time without a chaperone, too. welcome. >> thank you. thanks for pointing that out. >> still going to read my

speech here, though. my name's brian cohen. i'm representing public works today -- or this evening. i'll present a brief history of the mobile food facility permit application process for san francisco's hometown creamery, permit number 17-mff-0001, and respond to a few of the appellant's comments -- arguments. the applicant applied for the mobile food facility permit, 17-mff-0001 on january 7, 2017, with a proposed location at 287 geary street, located on the south side of geary approximately 66 feet east of the powell street intersection, operating friday, saturday, and sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. public works reviewed the proposed location and it was determined to be in general compliance with the location or criteria specified in section

184.85 of article 5.8 of the public works code. on november 15, 2017, public works proceeded with the 30-day public notification persection 184.88 of the public works code. during the 30-day notification period, public works received five public comments persection 184.88 of the public works code, the public works proceeded to schedule a hearing -- a public hearing for the -- to be held on -- which was feld on february 7 -- held on february 7, 2018. there were five testimonies at the hearing in opposition to the mobile food facility with comments ranging from -- the comments were location is not in the under served area, the food truck would increase pedestrian congestion on the sidewalk and obstruct emergency egress from the on --

affronting if a ilt is, the truck would obstruct the view of the physician -- physical storefront. following that, on february 26, 2018, the owner modified the location with d.p.w. order 187-470 to operate at 281 geary street, on -- on geary street approximately 80 linear feet east of powell street, operating friday and saturday from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. [inaudible] >> -- and reduce the hours of operation on saturdays and sundays to after 6:00 p.m. to avoid conflict with the loading zone. based on the information

presented at the time of the application and the public works hearing, the department believes it appropriately modified and conditioned the approval of permit 17-mff-001 for san francisco's hometown creamery. to discuss a few of the comments which were also discussed in the brief, the -- i'll just say that each mobile food facility permit is at different locations, has different challenges and different and different information to consider. each one is considered on a case by case basis when determining how to proceed -- or how to condition, approve or

deny a permit. in terms of the sidewalk width. sidewalk is 16 -- 15 feet -- official sidewalk width is 15 feet from the facing curb to the property line, so it meets the minimum 6 foot requirement for path of travel and a 4 foot requirement for the customer area. in terms of the order section that discusses 6 feet from street furniture, typically, you know, some parking spaces from parking meters, and if you -- so that's why that specific section would apply to food push carts. there's another line below that for hydrants which is also included in that 6 foot clearance. it has a 7 foot clearance for

hydrants. that's why we use that 7 foot clearance for hydrants to apply to food trucks instead of push carts. and instead of the 75 feet from the existing mobile food facility, as i stated in the brief, the public works code -- i can provide the specific section here. for section 1 # 8.18(d) 1, it describes at the public works hearing, the director may consider whether the applicants proposed location is within 75 foot radius of a location previously established and currently being operated by a mobile food facility. so it can be a consideration, it's not a requirement. and that's it. so thank you. i'll be available for

questions. >> i have one. may i? there was reference to a permit that was denied a block or two away with the basis kind of being saturation of restaurants. are you familiar with that one, and could you describe the differences between that location and this with regard to that aspect. >> i think that was one of the reasons presented for reasons to deny. the other was i think it was a loading zone, and the board, i think, upheld that denial because of the congestion, and they wanted to be there during the daytime, during loading time hours. i believe that was the primary reason for denial. >> was your consideration of the restaurant -- number of restaurants in this -- near this location? >> at that time, i -- probably. i mean, it's case by case.

>> okay. >> you ready? 'cause you're now in the deep side of the pool. so regarding scott wiener's legislation, how did you determine that this is a less congested neighborhood? less congested? i personally walk on that block regularly as my wife works on the corner, and you can barely get through now. >> so i think the -- the intent of less congested, there's no -- so we follow the rule of the code or what the code says, and that's not specifically in the code, that's in the legislation under the findings for the reason for the code, so that's interpretive, and there's no real reason to say what's congested and what's not congest zbld so why is it in there. >> that's in the legislation. >> that scott wiener did. >> it's not in the

legislation -- >> so you're not subject to the legislation? >> i can clarify. >> okay. >> the findings -- >> you're lucky. s.o.s. >> the findings of the ordinance which proceed the actual operative language of the code provision are not the code, and they're interpretive, as he just said. there's a reason for the legislation, but if they don't put it in the operative section of the code, it's not legally binding on the department? >> okay. and then, could you repeat -- >> so the question is you don't treat it under the normal statutory constrictions? >> you could, if there were not issues that could not be resolved in the plain language of the text. okay. and the other question is, could you give me the hours, again, of operation? >> the approved hours were -- so saturday -- friday and saturday is 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and sunday is 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

>> okay. so it will be interfere in any of the yellow zone activity that's currently there. >> right. >> then, separately, as we -- as you represent all the food trucks, so how does that -- how does that work when -- like, on those particular meters, i just happen to be aware that those are two hour limits at 3.75 an hour. how do you -- how do you issue a permit for an m.f.f. if there's a limitation on the parking meter of two hours and they're there all day? >> so they're required to comply with the -- well, actually, i think -- i'll have to look at the code, but i think m.t.a. -- >> i know they extended the hours in certain areas for these meters, but they didn't extend them that long. >> three or four hours. >> okay. so that is a consideration when issuing these permits? >> well, i think the duration of -- is a window, and they can operate within that window. that's how we would view it.

>> okay. >> not necessarily that they're there all day, but that's like an m.t.a. enforcement issue regarding how long they're issue occupying. >> and that was my next question. although you issue the permits, and you're not sf mta, do you have an idea of enforcements of over time parking -- if it's a two hour meter, you're not allowed to plug the meter again, you're supposed to move your vehicle. >> i'm not familiar -- >> okay. is there any representative from sfmta here? >> i don't think so. >> okay. thank you. [inaudible] >> well, theirs doesn't apply because they're there after -- >> okay. >> are you done? >> i'm done. >> okay. you have a site plan of that entire block that shows the color of the curbs? >> i do not. sfmta does. i don't have that with me,

though. >> do you know what -- i know this is the yellow, and i think there's white on the side. >> yeah. >> what about the rest of the block. >> i don't know that there's any regular street parking. i think the union square might know better than me. but i believe it's mostly a white loading zone or a yellow loading zone. >> there's white, and then there's commercial vehicles of six wheels. so there's two yellow, two white, and then, receipt surround -- red surrounding each one, and then a portion where you're not supposed to park. >> you're surviving. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on that item? if you could lineup against the wall. it looks like we have a number of speakers. each speaker will have two minutes. if you could just -- go ahead sir, you can start. >> my name is bill rutland, and

i represent macy's, and we care about diversity, too. >> you're a big guy. can you move that microphone up a little bit. >> can you start again? >> sorry. my name is bill rutland, and i represent macy's. we care about diversity, and in fact we're one of the most diverse industries around. i can certainly understand why you would want to locate your food cart right there because it's absolutely one of the most congested and most served areas, and we're not against food carts. and there are probably many adequate spaces within the union square district that would work well. but macy's has been there since i was born, 1947 -- i'm sorry. i'm old. and we recently sold one building. we remodelled it. we've been dealing with an

interim moratorium, and the concern is, you know, brick and mortar is kind of going away, amazon. so we have to -- when we remodelled, and we're about to remodel in the same spot, which again will take up some of the street, the idea is to attract people. and the window space there is primary, and it's going to be difficult. now i know this nice little volkswagen, the concept, and it could work, but it appears to be difficult to get all that stuff that's necessary in there. but they're not limited to that. so if they make it, that's great, if they don't, they can send the lease to a truck that will cover up our area, and, you know, we spent a great deal of time and effort. he wants to show you the size of the truck you can see there. >> overhead, please. >> and also, there's a public

parking lot right across the street, and cars are coming out all the time, and they're going to run into the -- the buses, the tour buses, and then, you've got the traffic on -- so i think there's a traffic situation there, also. we just think there could be a better place that's not so harmful to our retail. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. [inaudible] >> yes. >> but wouldn't -- wouldn't that truck there bring more customers? there would be people buying ice cream? >> well, wait a minute. that is unfair. we sell ice cream in the store, so -- >> but you see my point there. even if there was some lines, let's say, it wouldn't necessarily detract from the business, right? >> no, what detracts -- our

real concern is the blocking of the view. and you see a nice small little volkswagen bus. >> mm-hmm. i got that part. >> which could maybe, but the permit is for seven years. the permit is transferrable. the permit says you can put any kind of approved truck there. >> okay. i see your point. >> anybody ever tell you you look like a younger reggie jackson? >> okay. next speaker, please. >> i'm with macy's also. >> so you may speak. >> okay. thank you. >> vice president of government and public affairs with macy's, and what i want to talk about is what mr. rutland was talking about. on this photo here, not only is it a big truck, and it could be any truck that come nz there, but look and see how it's

covering up the signage. what we don't see happening is a food truck bringing in additional customers to union square. like, people aren't driving across the city to come and get an ice cream, going to drive and deal with the congestion of union square to buy an ice cream. we don't see that. it's like people that are in the area, they want ice cream, and they'll stop there. hopefully, they'll stop at the ben and jerry's that are in the macy's, but we're concerned about the size of the truck that's there. it cuts the signage down. by regulation, we can't put the signages up any higher than that, so those 14 foot trucks are really from the street level, you're not going to see what's going there there. we are leasing our area to some luxury retailers, and we're concerned that that could hamper the ability of those people that would want to move in to that spot if they're concerned their signs will be able to seen from the street

level. so i'll leave it there because i know mr. rutland already spoke, but thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi there. my name's vickie brodski. i'm a retailer broker are collier's international. the cost of labor and rent in union square is simply too high, so irthey opening? the main reason so open in union square is for branding. a store in union square is the equivalent of a bill board. by impeding visibility to the retail spaces, you are taking away the number one reason for a store to open in union square. a healthy tenant in a shopping mall usually tries to target a

10 to 12% occupancy cost. because stores in union square are rarely profitable, tenants need to be incentivized by name brand. what you see on the street does not tell the whole story. there's a large amount of sublease and shadow space available. it often takes over two years to lease a space in union square. stores are closing left and right. macy's is in the process of closing their men's store and moving it to their main store while remodelling to make their main store profitable. by discouraging retailers from leasing macy's union square fronti fronting spaces, you are punishing one of the longest standing tenants and their spaces when we simply cannot afford it. i just want to quickly show you

two graphs. collier's closely monitors retail activity in union square. can you see that? so as you can see, this year, we've only done three transactions. two of them are renewals, only one new tenant's come to the market. the last few years, 2014, 13, we've done, 11, 5, and we're diminishing. and our vacancy rate is 11%. >> thank you, ma'am. time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. i'm a native san franciscan, third generation and business owner. i'm old enough to remember my mom taking me to i.magnin in union square. every visitor goes through or two union square. my question is, who does bid