that is that the permit holder would have special deed restrictions allowing if the next door neighbor did an addiction that he would not protection. i don't protest. i don't know how we could do that because i don't think it's fair that we allow the property windows and then the neighbor can't build his property out because of said illegal windows. that is a problem. they are illegal windows and when you see a large window like that, structurally that could be a challenge because that load would have to be carried to the ground floor and during a field inspection, i am not sure that amount of detail would be carried out. >> without inspector duffy, i

don't think we can resolve this issue, and i'm not disagreeing with anything that my foal fellow commissioners brought up, but inspector duffy did not answer a key question nor did his representative to whom i don't fault you, you are theses the mess messenger, do they comply and the percentage of coverage that is legal on a property line, and without that either concurrence, justification, or opinion by inspector duffy, i can't move forward. i have a hard time moving forward, i guess i could, but i have a hard time moving forward.

too many questions and too much open ended and we didn't get the plans early enough to have tight pointed out to us how this is significantly changed from what we saw before, so i would rather later. >> it's difficult for mr. h ernandez to come in and not have heard the hearing. >> i don't fault mr. hernandez. >> mr. duffy wanted us to revoke the permit and have them resubmit in a proper form that it would then be acceptable based upon the information that the building department would have liked to see. we added additional layers of questions related to how does it relate to the code beside the

fact that if one was to try to build it anew, one wouldn't be allowed to do that unless one got an exception or equivalency from the city. >> suggesting an option would be to revoke the permit. >> i think we put the onus on the building department because they would rather that we revoked it last time and see something afresh. i was pushing him to not do that so we can consolidate this process without having to go through multiple player layers of review, multiple appeals, and at least provide some resolution whether anybody would have been happy with that was another issue, but it appears that we may have to continue it again.

we can review the drawings to allow them to both be permit holder and the appellant and department to issue additional information based on the questions that we are raising. >> clerk: okay, i mean we could move it. >> i would add it is absolutely necessary to have inspector duffy here. he is a party, you know, and its kind of impossible to have a surrogate or a messenger deliver his point of view. >> joe is going to be so happy that he's missed. >> i can go either way a denial or continuance. i feel more comfortable with a continuance because some of the information we requested has not

come before us. how does the calendar look >> next week is fine. we have the plans now. >> will joe be here next week? >> yes. >> president fung: i would accept and informational brief from each of the parties just for them to be able to expand beyond what just the drawings show. >> what would the page limits be on that? >> i think three pages. >> so sounds like we need to move it to an august date. we have the 8th or the 15th. >> commissioner honda is not here on the 8th. >> . >> president fung: is the 15th acceptable to both parties? >> there is a possibility

commissioner wilson will not be present on the 15th. okay, so the 15th. >> president fung: let's continue this to august 15th and both parties will be allowed to present a three page brief supplying supply. >> do we want to specify for the record those specific questions? you did ask questions. the questions asked possibly at the hearing on the matter on june 6. >> i think you wanted the specific calculations according to the ab009, is that what it is? >> let's do it differently commissioner honda.

let's say they can provide a brief and how they conform to ab-009. 009, san francisco building code equivalencyies, and how they are then exempt from cbc. >> okay, so we have 'motion from president fung to continue this matter to august 15th to allow inspector duffy to testify and also so that the providers can provide further information a three page brief with answers on how the plans conform to ab-009,

the san francisco building code egive lency len equivalency lency len equivalencys. >> madame director, can we get some affirmation as soon as possible that inspector duffy will be able on the 15th. >> i saw a nod from inspector hernandez that he is available. >> you are keeping his calendar? okay. [roll call]. >> that mat sercontinue ser matter is continueed to the 15th. >> thank you mr. hernandez. we will move on to item 7.

this is appeal 18-073. martin laechli versus zoning admi 826-828 central avenue. appealing the denial on may 22, 2018 an application for open spac variances (to add one dwelling unit in the ground floor of an existing two- that does not provide any open space for the existing units or the proposed unit the proposed dwelling unit's frontage onto central avenue does not meet th expo case no. 2017-003418var. we will hear from the appellant first. >> [no mic] >> we can go to the next case.

>> we will move to >> president fung: let's take >> board of appeals prior to the going on our short break i read the prescription for item number 17. this is appeal 18-073. we were about to start with the appellant, the attorney for the appellant. >> he is in the back. >> okay. is it mr. brett gladstone? you have seven minutes, sir. >>

>> good evening commissioner, brett gladstone speaking. i want to make a correction. in my brief i stated something that wasn't accurate and i thought at the hearing my client said that he was inclineed to give the variance if we just cleaned up some lot numbers and i went back and looked at the transcript and he did not say that, so i apologize. this third unit will not be accessory unit as the zoning doesn't require it to be. it will be a one bedroom of about 1050 square feet. we are perplexed that it is one of the grounds that the space is not sufficient in size. you are going to hear from the architect in a minute where it doesn't seem very light filled on paper.

sara velve did make a site visit and said she saw a lot more light than she expected from the plan. we had a building and fire department meeting and the minutes indicate they are prepared to go forward with it so, from their point of view it's livable. besides light and size, the third ground that the denial says it was based on quote there are other procedural methods to make a legal unit in this location four feet below the sidewalk. we believe that the zoning administrator is referring to the adus and it is hard to understand why this would be an alternative. using the adu would not be a

variance for using the window exposure. we don't need adu to create a third unit and it would not give the light anymore light or open space. the city law does not force an owner to go have an adu and many don't want to because then it is under rent control and can't be sold separately and demanding a new unit be walled an wall called an adu and demanding that it be under rent control. units units build after 1979 in san francisco cannot be under rent control and that may change but for now it is in effect and this

is creating a new unit and being required to be put under rent control. state law requires an adu to be restricted in my ways because it is a win fall, but this unit doesn't exceed zoning. it is not a windfall at all. many people in his position add a unit without it being required to be an adu. quick and inexpensive things like waivers without going through a variance procedure. mr.sanchez held this variance because under adu law the degree of variance that we need to have an adu, meet window exposure is too great and the window exposure rights can be waived by mr. sanchez for certain degree

of variance from the requirement but not for what we have in this situation. it has taken my client tent month to apply for a variance. no benefits, just a burden. it doesn't neighboring sense make sense and it's not legal. there is an e-mail which i think if you have rachel may will show you. it made my client think if he had gone lou the through the adu procedure his variance would have been obtained. he needs it to not be called an adu. he wants to stay in the city and the only way to stay in the city the to create more value to the property and that allow as rephi

and allows him to get money out and pay off his co-owner who wants to put it on the market to get his money out and this is a way my client can do that. i will introduce the architect. rachel. >> hello, i am rachel nelco the architect for the appellant. first of all, i want to say when i met with sar sara on site, she hadn't been on site recently. when we were in the rear lightw ell, she explained to ex

exclaimed wow, there is a lot of light coming in here. i believe you have to be on the site to see this and there is a light of light that goes through from the lightwell lightwell. originally in the plan in the living room we had an enclosed workshop and we are proposing removing that so now the window space is completely open for the existing windows and they will share the light for that space collectively and we are pros eizing proposing new windows in windows in the breeze way. the doorway we are proposing glazed panel so more light will come into the breezeway and that breezeway will be painted a light color so light will reflect. we are thinking of doing sun tunnels.

we have a diagram. it's placed on exter yol exterior exter exterior wall. [bell ringing] >> your time is up. >> i have a question for the architect or attorney. so the difference between the third unit and adu is section 135 of the planning code still applicable in regarding the open space to the property and if it is how do you address that? >> that section deals with window exposure, does it not, and i don't have it in front of me. >> no, for the private open space. does that apply for adu as well as regular unit? >> the zoning administrator can through the adu waive the

requirement that we have more open space than we have. we don't have very much. >> that wasn't the question. the question is that you are aski ng for it to be a separate unit. does it require the 100 square? you don't have it >> making it a dwelling unit requires that variance and we don't have it. >> thank you we will now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department the subject at 826-828 does allow for three dwelling units in 2016 the property owner sought a letter of determination to remove the notice of special restrictions since that time planning code requirements have changed to be

less burdensome for dwelling units and one of the reasons was that a third unit added would have to provide accessible parki ng place and while that provision exists does allow that to be satisfied with bicycle parking. when you are adding one new unit you don't trigger the requirem ent, now it's two or more units in the subject's zoning district. we issued the letter of determination and released the special restrictions to remove that restriction from the property and must meet all planning and zoning requirements . in march of 2017, the appellant filed the subject variance application because the proposeed third dwelling unit does not meet feasible open

space of the planning code subject for hearing in august of last year. as we review the cases about a month ahead of the hearing date, staff brought the item to me and i asked why they did not seek a du, but would that allow them to satisfy the open space requirement through the waiver process. in early august i received a letter from mr. gladstone that the property has been converted to condominium and one of the benefits that we have of the adu program is that the additional units will be subject to ren control rent controlled and i think he argued that the adu was not appropriate here and said that given that is that is a con der there is no underlying unit

-- they have a different application to ren control rent control because they are independently separate dwelling units. we had a hearing on august 23 and i asked mr. gladstone for clarification for the condo con conversion question. i had concerns about the exposure of the unit. i don't know how that made it into the brief. before they feels their brief, corey who was acting za wrote directly to the appellant, not to mr. gad gladstone and stated that i did not state that, so very clear but still made it into the appeal record and i appreciate mr. gladstone

correcting that record but i did note at the hearing that i had concerns about the exposure of the unit. it was compromised exposure and doesn't have the amount of windows required on the planning code to satisfy the requirements . this is something that we struggle with the accessory dwelling units.

it can allow for dwelling units that exceed the density. it's not required to be used only in cases where it exceeds the density. you can have a indication where a third unit is loud under to benefit fro.

>> is there an r3 zoning. i thought it was gotten rid of a while ago? >> you are correct. i think the r3 did convert to the r2h3 in 1978. but r3 is still, i believe, a building code occupancy that is used for one and two-unit buildings. this causes a lot of contusion because it lists r3 and for whatever reason it means one and two units. that's not funny. >> and then we see -- but even if it's subject to rent control, i mean they're both and rented under the market value and it's today's standards and it should not be an impact? >> that's correct. >> you ran into something i couldn't capture. a a.d.u. in the context of a condo minimum structure had a

level of difficulty and i didn't capture that? >> yes, certainly you can have a condo and still add an a.d.u. the a.d.u. can't be a separate condo. it needs to be part of a existing condo unit. but with the issue that the appellate had raised was they would not be subject to the rent control requirements of the a. d.u. provisions because these were condo units. because for condo units, they're treated differently under rent control because they're separate billing. when it's condo converted they're separate single-family dwellings which have different limitations under rent control. they don't have the full rental protections. >> cost options? >> yes. they don't have the full price control. >> so in this situation, from a business structure standpoint, is the -- if this were to be an a.d.u. and i know that's not

necessarily and discussion at this point and the a.d.u. attached to or it part of the general h.o.a. and the h.o.a. is responsible for the -- >> good question. >> for the management of the a.d.u.? >> my understanding is it's attached one of the two units. >> it's one or the other. >> it's not a separate unit. >> are there any public comments on this item? please approach. >> my name is daniel albert. i am a neighbor of mr. martin. i live at 818 central avenue. i know mr. martin for at least three years. he has always been fair and honest with me. what i do for a living is i teach kids how to state at

golden gate park. i'm here to urge you to grant variance for him to build this project. my building is exactly near copy of his building and i actually have stayed in the basement of my building temporarily where we were remodeling and sunlight gets into the basement. i'm here to say that it's not that dark down there and mr. martin is trying to build more affordable units to have more people living in san francisco. it's a genuine cause to let him build his unit and to proceed with the structure. i'm here to support him. my room mates support him in doing this and so did my up stairs neighbors. we all support him in doing this project. i urge to you grant him a var

variance. >> we like the church of eight wheels. >> thank you,. >> are there any other comments? >> my name is peter. i'm the executive director of small property owners. i am also -- i live around the corner from this project and for martin. i've seen hundreds of both legal and illegal units in this city. our membership has a total collection of 15 or 18,000 units. i know a little something about this. this property needs to be developed. it's over a thousand square feet, they're most condos in the city aren't that big. there's plenty of room to do this. you can work with the access, the frontage problem. all of the buildings are exactly the same on that street.

the access to this unit that they would be building is along a hallway and you can recess the steps a bit more and so fourth which are part of the plan. i think all i can do and i've seen a lot more in the city. there's a shared patio in the back so the idea that there's no access to vacant land or to vacant area that isn't true. it isn't terribly big but it's big enough. i do urge you to consider this. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none. we will now move on to rebuttle. we're hear from mr. gladstone. you have three minutes.

>> i wanted to point out some of the changes that are being made. actually i'm going to ask the architect to come up and take these couple of minutes because i left her not enough time and i wanted her to talk a little bit more about the changes to grant more light if you would approve it would ask to be conditions of your approval. thank you. >> to go back to the main peace that's will affect this unit and it's brought in, maybe not, it gets brought in and it can be pushed into the unit. so if there's concerns about it being dark that was one way of alleviating it. if there is still a concern or if we're not able to do it in certain areas because we hope to achieve three or four or five

these are newer products that try to replicate the sun coming in and so it's another means of trying to make this a sun-filled space if that's the concern. the last thing i want to point out is to reiterate the front age. this is the existing with an out the new color or the concrete build out with the front light wall being pulled back including the new stair. it will allow more light to come in which is required by the code. this is what affordable by design means. people here are not going to pay the rent of most 1,050 feet apartments. it has its challenges. we have a housing -- every

housing we can build and helps us get to meet the mayor's directive to do what we can and let's not judge what people should or shouldn't live in. we have s.r.o. units that get approved every day. existing but lots of new ones that have extremely small amounts of window exposure. there's 350 square feet. we're building like crazy as we should be. if s.r.o. units can be made habit able with limited light and limited open space as they are, you init unit of 150 should be. >> what's the light-to-air ratio

or percentage? >> i'll let the architect talk. >> based on the percentages we were meeting them by code. the key is ventilation. we were exceeding that with the front window that's why it's operable and that's why the air flow is coming in. all the side windows along the side property will have to be fixed for fire code and rated and close to the property line. but in terms of window space, technically existing, we'll be grant fatheregrandfathered in be be sprinkle in and going through another version. we are exceeding what we can do right now. >> but you have no idea what that percentage is right now? >> i have to do the calculation but we have every space has at least two windows in it. >> thank you. >> excuse me, the planning code has the exposure requirements.

but the building code has the size of the requirement. does this window match that. >> the front window is our rescue opening which exceeds our 5.24 square feet and it satisfies the ventilation requirement required by 12.03 i think. >> the financial burden was unacceptable making this a a.d.u. because it wasn't cash flow enough, you didn't use those words but i'm interpreting it the same. wouldn't be enough to satisfy a lender because it was rent controlled. but, if a property, in the first

go around is rented at a whatever, a market rate is, the rent control doesn't kick in until future years. so why in an initial financing of this building satisfy the needs that you identify, why is this a factor? >> well in my notes, i didn't get a chance to say this, i had put down to say to you tonight it's either going to sell as a condo or as it's going to be a rental. my clients doesn't know yet and won't know until we see what the construction costs are whether he won't know whether that methodology is selling it as a condo or renting it. it can't be a condo if it's an a.d.u. if it's a regular dwelling unit,

then after a certain period of time, you can apply to add that to the two unit condo that already exists and make it a three-unit condo through the condo mapping process. he has a choice of making it rental or making it a condo. he might have to sell it as a condo to generate the money and it may not be, as you say, that he gets anymore -- it may not be a refinancing gets him out the money he needs because you are right, this stays at a limited rent until it's vacated in the future. >> so bottom line is an a.d.u. this cannot be a condo and bottom line is he has to keep it as a regular residence for financial game? >> for the financial money he with buy out his partner and stay there. >> thank you.

>> we are talking about the housing crisis and how to do dwelling units and we have made dwelling units. it's now generally illegal to remove an illegal unit and you are obligated to go through a process of legalizing that unit so there have been substantial changes made to address the crisis. that said, when we're looking at new dwelling units we have to apply standards to ensure these are quality units. we are at planning commission, the planning commission doesn't just rubber ta stamp everything. they'll scrutinize it and ensure there's quality exposure for the units. it may result in the loss of dwelling units because in order to ensure that we have quality housing, so this led to the decision to deny this variance.

i am here to answer questions you may have. >> my follow-up question, as we just heard, it may be the need or intention of the owner to make this a dwelling unit to enable the possibility of turning it into a condo. with that knowledge, what are the odds, might as well just go straight -- what are the odds of this becoming a condo unit? with that strategy, do you have a difference of opinion that it has a chance of becoming a condo unit or is it just -- or otherwise? >> i would assume that that is the reason that they are going through this is because they intend to convert it to a condo. that would be the highest value for the property. i don't know what reason they would have to not do the condo.

in terms of whether they actually can do the condo, i mean, that is generally matter for the department of public works and they would review that as part of the application. this was approved as a two-unit condo. i don't know if they did the lottery or owner occupied by pass and how they got their condo authorization but it's up to the public works. mr. gladstone is a legal professional. i'm assuming he has done his homework and it would be up to him to advise his client to the likelihood of that happening. that would generally be up to the department of public works and how they apply their policies in code requirements for condominium conversions. >> i think i believe you did move the special deed of restrictions allowing it to its two units only. >> it allowed them to seek authorization for a third dwelling unit which is why we're here in the first place. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> you are the variance commentators so i will took to you. >> it is a variance but no one talked to it. we did not receive a copy of the appellate variance request. i have no idea what reasons they put in there to describe hardship, similar property rights or the other criteria. in terms of the brief and oral, most of it dealt with issues that have nothing to do with the variance. i don't know why so much effort was made because it's not on the

table. at this point, i have nothing to disagree with the determination that the five findings were not met. i would concur. although i am empathetic to the permit holder. i believe that they need the condo sale to provide financing. i too am not convinced that it satisfies the five criteria needed to grant a variance. >> if there are no further comments, i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the five findings were not

met. >> we have a motion from president fung to deny the appeal and up hold the denial of the vary anson the basis the five findings required under planning code section 305-c have not been met. >> aye. >> aye. >> commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> vice press swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries. >> next item. the next item we are moving on to item 8a and 8b. these are appeal numbers 18-069 and 18-070. they will be heard together. patricia versus san francisco public works. and mohammad guire and muna versus san francisco public works. subject property locations are

one drum street 979 market street and 1169 market street. appealing the issue anson may 17th, 2018 to golden gate hallal food of a public works order. approval of the request for a mobile food to operate at one drum street on monday and wednesday and friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. at 979 market street on monday, tuesday and thursday and at 1169 market street on wednesday, friday and saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. this is public works order number 187536 permit number 16mf0094. we will hear from mr. herera first, the appellant. >> i see the zone administrator ready to go. doesn't this require the planning department? >> i guess not. >> good evening, welcome.

>> good evening. >> you have seven minutes, sir. >> thank you. first of all, i wanted to say thank you for the time. and i want to start with a very strong statement in regards for this food trucks and mobile foods. we're going to use a little bit of a commonsense to be the guy on this. and we're going to start with my personal objection is safety and sanitation, health, public health. when go to the bathroom in any restaurant, no matter where you go untiin the united states youa sign in the bathroom to say to employees to remind them to wash their hands before returning to work. there's a good reason for this. the majority of the food-born illnesses is related to washing

with hands and soap. another issue is keeping your food safe. keeping it cool or hot. since the records from the central disease of -- excuse me. >> the cbc? >> thank you. since that and 1/6 americans will suffer from type of food-born illnesses each year. the biggest challenges of the food truck is keeping the food at the safe temperatures, this means keeping cold food cold and hot food hot. to comply with temperatures and safely regulations. it's difficult to maintain in a mobile cooking because the equipment is not sophisticated

as inside of a normal restaurant. being outside means being exposed to the heat. there's no storage. meat, fish, poultry have been especially scrutinized. all these foods are very hazard. common food that can cause illness and possibly death. also, space. when we look into the space. the food trucks face a very unique health and safety issues, like i was stating for for the site and venue. the cooks have no -- they have to prepare the food in a confined space. there is a lot of less room for the work. this creates a high-risk of cross contamination allowing raw

food to touch areas in the kitchen where the cooked food is placed. clean dishes, we won't go further with that. but to confine the space it allows people to be in the kitchen at one time. meaning one person who prepare the food handles raw food, bacteria in meat or poultry is very dangerous. high-risk proteins. fish can be served to you. without rigorous sanitation guidelines and frequent use of the disposable gloves, handwashing changed the drastically your experience. food illness such as botulism is hop titus a, infection and

samonella and it's much higher in fact in o 2011, 85 cases of samonella were reported to have been consumed animal track in alberta, canada. food truck also is much more and they don't have the luxury of being in containing buildings. this means flies, more pests, more problems, even more even when the mobile is not in use. any numbers of i have a very strong case that estimates that 48 millions of people get sick.

128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 people die each year of food-related illness. not only my concern is the birds. many of you had probably walk around downtown with the food vendors are there are pigeons everywhere. the biggest problem with the pigeons is the drippings. there are many different types and the mess that they can make is difficult to remove and it causes a slip and accidents also occur and then of course, the human pathogens. it's my major concern and one way to understand the risk of

the bird drippings opposed to the humans is to look and how common this is can be transmitted through contact with bird drippings. these two are fungis and they can be found in the drippings and i see these every day and everywhere in the streets especially near the food trucks. and the vendors, when there is leftover food. to conclude my objection, it's mainly my concern for the help of our people in the streets and then they often times you may claim i'm feeling sick with a cold but it isn't it is that you

have been possibly intake a meal that hasn't been properly handled and it is an extremely dangerous situation in my opinion. thank you. >> so sir, i have a question. so you did not supply a brief? you are supposed to supply a brief to us other than the oral comment. do you live in the immediate area? >> you mentioned food trucks several times, i believe this is a food cart. >> i don't live in san francisco. i commute. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear next from the appellants for 18-070. do we have muhammad and muna present? you have kevi seven minutes.

>> good evening, i started oasis girl 20 years ago and we were the first mediterranean food kabobs and wraps in the entire area. d.p.w. is issuing permits to hurt the local restaurants under falsely using ordinance number 119-13 to permit mobile food facilities in high rent districts serving same food as restaurants on the same street. under the ordinance it states the legislation attempt to provide and expand the range of convenience and interesting food consumption. for mobile food facilities in under served and less congested areas in the city yet the d.p.w. has issued all of their permits in the busy financial district that has the highest concentration of fast casual restaurants in the city. serving the exact same type of food. i know that they say that that's not an issue for them but it really is for the local business. the food cart that d.p.w. has

issued a permit not only sells the same food but it's on the same exact street as me, ziggys which both serve sandwiches and plates and salads, and also miss tomato who serves gyros. when you put it on the same they steal the foot traffic that we need to pay our employees, we need to pay our rent. we need to pay our taxes. these guys are coming in from the east bay and they're bringing in food in kitchens that aren't regulated by s.f. they're regulated by other countries and they're bringing in the food and they're taking cash and taking it out while we're being held accountable, d.p.w. makes every local business accountable for their front age and say for instance a homeless person does something, we have to clea clean it. they take their carts and leave. we're held responsible if someone slips and there's water on the ground we're responsible.

not the city and not d.p.w. as many of you know, san francisco has the highest rent, the highest minimum wage and the costly labor mandates in the country and it makes it hard for a smaller restaurant to make a profit. many casual restaurants are going out of business. it doesn't pencil out so when d.p.w. places same food carts in front of restaurants it makes you wonder what is the agenda? to provide under served areas or to try to close a brick and mortars in the area. let me tell you what happens if we go out of business. the city provides a loss in sales tax. you don't know how much they're really making. people lose jobs in the area of food service from delivery people to janitor yan to construction we stimulate every aspect of this economy. we serve a village of people, landlords ask for reduction of property taxes and it would be the city's fault for competing with local property owners. you have empty spaces and more

homelessness and most importantly the change in culture of this city. who in the past, has been known for their great local restaurants, we are already seeing great chefs leave the area and see the city that appreciate it's a great food but is still affordable to operate a business. this is the first year, as a matter of fact, this is the first year that no san francisco restaurants was nominated for the james beard award, not for best restaurant, chef, anything. this should a warm the city of san francisco, this is our culture and we're being pushed out. how are we supposed to pay our bills? you guys come up with legislation out of the legislation about how to make increases and minimum wage yet you put someone from the east bay coming in with a card going in front of our business and serving the exact same food and you expect us to survive. i don't know what you guys want. do you want us to run out of business or do you want us to survive? do you want us to thrive? do you want san francisco to be great or do you want all food trucks? we're not new york. new york has tons of people.

our business operating hours are from 10:00 to 1:30. that is all. after that, because i don't have alcohol. i'm just like him. i don't have alcohol. i serve sandwiches. i have been doing it for 20 years and i've been doing a great job. we can't serve if you guys keep doing this. you can't put food carts in front of restaurants, especially because we're all competing. there are so many restaurants in the area. just look. i was actually called by another cart he asked me to come here because he is in close proximity to this hallal cart and he said this cart person used to work for him and only did he work for him he stole his recipes and he is going to open the same thing. he asked me to come here and tell you this. i don't know what else to do. you guys don't seem to get it. we are hurting. every day our expenses go up and they're trying to figure it out. these guys are making cash and

they're taking the cash and putting it in their pocket and leaving and you guys are penalizing us, you tax us to the rim. you make us pay for things for everybody extra healthcare, extra this and how are we supposed to pay it? we need to make money. at the end of the day we're business. thank you. >> thank you. >> and actually a san francisco restaurant -- >> we will hear from the permit holder. art muhammad. you have 14 minutes, sir. because there were two appeals. >> did the second appellate speak? >> yes. did she have more time? yes, she was part of the second appeal.

there were two. did she have time. >> she had two minutes and 12 seconds and she stopped. >> you can sit down. can you approach and if you can give him two minutes, please. if you can identify yourself. >> hi, my name is mohammad, i'm the owner of oasis grill. so i want to talk about three issues. number one that the items this cart plans to sell is hellal food, rice bowl and it's already being sold by the block. more than my establishment are selling the exact same items for years now. it's not difficult to sit up shop in location that everybody around you is selling the same things. it would be smart to put yourself in the area that does not sell your menu items.