>> we created a move of an area where we will be visiting. we want to make sure that the area has the gelato that you like. what we give back as a shop owner is creating an ambient lifestyle. if you do it in your area and if you like it, then you can do it on the streets you like. >> good evening and welcome to the november 14th, 2018

meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president frank fung will be the presiding officer. he is joined by vice president rick swag, commissioner lazarus, commissioner honda, and commissioner tanner. to my left is the deputy city attorney will provide the board with any legal advice at this evening. at the controls is our legal consistent. kind of bored's executive director. if we could grab some seats, there are some over there. thank you. we need to keep that door clear. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. the print management or permit manager, kenny wong, inspector with the department of public health, cory teague, the zoning administrator representing the planning department and court -- planning commission, bernie curran, senior building inspector representing the

department of building inspection and jillian gillett and leo maceo. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request to turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices that they will not disturb the proceedings please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public were not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing or schedules, speak to board staff during a break or after the

meeting or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street. this meeting is broadcast live. and will be rebroadcast on fridays. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded from san francisco government television. we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the centre and ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait, stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. okay. we will now move on to item number 1 which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the jurisdiction, but that -- that

is not on tonight's calendar. any general public comment? okay. we will move on to item number 2 commissioner comments and questions. are there any commissioner comments this evening? no. we will move on to item number 3 before you for discussion the possible adoption of the minutes of the october 24th, 2018 board meeting. >> any comments, corrections or additions? >> i entertain a motion to accept. >> motion. >> okay we have a motion from vice president swag to adopt the minutes from october 24th, 2018. his or any public comment on that motion? okay. see none, on that motion. [roll call] >> that motion carries. we will now move on to item number 4. which is a special item with

possible action taken by the board. this is an informational presentation by the san francisco public works bureau of street to use and mapping and the department of public health regarding the protocols followed by public works in the review of applications for mobile food facility permits and the criteria used for making final determinations regarding underserved areas and appropriate locations for mobile food facilities. and watch what, will be looking at complaints, code violations and enforcement of the ordinances and orders. secondly, we will have consideration and possible action by the board to make recommendation to relevant city departments and the board of supervisors regarding the mobile food facility ordinances found in article 5.8 at the san francisco public works code. welcome. >> good evening. my name is bernie with public works. i am the permit manager and i'm here to talk to you this

afternoon about mobile food facilities and public works process. >> a brief overview of what i will present today. we will talk about our current permit process, the process flow in some of the locations of mobile food facilities. our review of applications, public noticing requirements, i will also have a brief discussion of enforcement actions, legislation and criteria concerning congestion and saturation. so i have a diagram for the permit process. it starts with an applicant coming in who is interested in a

mobile food facility. they come in and we can talk to them and they identify a location that they are interested in and they prepare a draft diagram showing the layout of their facilities and sidewalk -- relative to the sidewalk and street furnishings. we put together an application package and submit it to the department. the department reviews the application package and then we begin working with the applicant to ensure they have a suitable location and have the ability to move forward with their permits. once the department is satisfied , there is a public notification process. involves mailing and posting of their notice to operate. we are open to public comment and objection to that finding. leading to a public hearing and

tentative approval and potentially an appeal. the diagram i have up now shows the location of mobile food permits. the blue dots are locations of approved permits and the red dots either requested locations. there's also a table that shows a number of approved locations on a given year and the number of requested approvals. i want to point out that the requested locations most often are withdrawn by the applicant for various reasons. whether it is the cost of the permit or they've changed their mind on the application. we are currently running approximately 90-100 mobile food trucks at any time in the city. i would also like to point out

that on the map does show the locations of the vendors. it is possible, under one permit , to have more than one location for the same track. it could be at one location monday, wednesday, and friday and move to a different location on tuesdays and thursdays. this is a typical applications site map that we would request the applicant to provide us. it shows the location of bus zones, curb ramps, the building, the sidewalk with, trees, if there were parking metres there would be parking metres shown. that gives us an idea of whether or not we can cite this mobile food facility at this location. >> give me one moment. can you please take a seat? we cannot block the door. thank you.

>> when we get a permit package together, for general location requirements, for trucks we look at least a 10-foot sidewalk. that is so as the truck is parked, there would be a forefoot cueing area for patrons to queue up at the track and that provides us a 6-foot wide travel path for pedestrians moving down the street. they need to be 7-foot clear from any fire hydrant and they need to be parked at the curb side. for pushcarts, we have a similar requirement, except we have moved it to 15 feet. it was the same forefoot cueing area. a six-foot path of travel. we are also incorporating a 3- foot area for the mobile food cart as opposed to a truck at the curb side.

other requirements that we look at, 75-foot minimum distance away from any existing restaurants and a primary entrance with an 8-foot minimum from -- for street artists. 12-foot away from blue zones. 5-foot from any corner. and stand the requirements for proximity to schools. once the department is satisfied with the package and the location and it is a viable location according to all the requirements, there is a public noticing requirements. there is three different time periods that we look at. hours of operation between 6:00 am and 8:00 pm, they are required to notify all ground floor commercial tenants and neighborhood organizations. there are mailed to notice as need to go out.

that is to everybody within a 7d then there is a public posting on utility poles or other street furnishings that have to go up ten days prior to the closure of the notice. if you are working between -- and trying to work between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm, we have expanded that noticing requirement to the property owner and all residential tenants and ground floor commercial tenants, neighborhood organization and the building owner if that address is not the same as the proposed address. and then finally, if you are working from 3:00 am until 6:00 am, it requires director approval. to date, no one has tried to operate in those hours. the only difference between the place card and a track truck is the place card is required to

notice a 300 feet radius from the proposed location. for enforcement, we have compiled a list -- or a number of complaints and notice of violations or correction that we have issued. the complaints, as you can see has steadily been dropping as people have become better neighbors and understand the program and the notice of violations and correction notices. it stayed fairly constant. most of those that are issued are issued for operating not in their permitted location. a quick review of the history of the legislation. in 2011, the original legislation was passed and it

had a note like food clause meaning no operating mobile food facilities could have like foods similar to a brick and mortar. there were prohibitions on residential zones near schools and transfer of the permitting operations to the police department to public works. that ordinance was amended in 2013. it removed the no like food clause and the ordinance had a finding to address the underserved -- but it was silent on the criteria for underserved. we also added the prohibitions for 75-foot radiance from any adjacent restaurant and no more than three days a week can a mobile food facility operate in any location. currently there is two pieces of legislation that affect mobile foods there.

what is past which is a senate bill on mobile vendors. it prohibits local authorities from regulating sidewalk vendors except for the provisions of the bill which boils down to having to be deemed a health safety or welfare issue for we could prohibit -- prohibit their operations in the street. and then it stipulates that plans can only be administrative at this time, our initial review feels like there's very little change that it would have to our current mobile foods program. but it is still under review with the city attorney. there is also a mobile caterer and mandatory seismic retrofit program ordinance that is currently before the board.

which allows a mobile food facility to operate in front of a business that is undergoing seismic retrofit. the mandatory retrofit. in that case, the mobile food facility has to be branded the same as the restaurant it is replacing. >> folks, we have seats over here. we need to keep that door clear. there is some in the back. thank you. thank you. excuse me. >> i know there was an interest in congestion and saturation requirements. to address congestion criteria, these are our congestion concerns and these are the current criteria. for pedestrians, some of which we have already gone through with the map. but requiring the minimum sidewalk with clearances from

existing sidewalks fixtures. i don't think i need to go over those again. for vehicular congestion, we have not yet discussed mobile food facilities. they are not allowed in red, blue, white, or red curve areas. and currently at yellow curbs, the mobile foods must comply with all the time restrictions for the yellow curbs. for saturation of mobile food facilities, we have a requirement that no more than three mobile foods that facilities can operate per block at any given time. what that is you won't see more than three mobile foods working at any time. there could be different ones at different times but only three at any given hour of the day.

so public works is undertaking a review of these criteria. we are working with m.t.a. to evaluate the current practice for yellow zones. in discussion with them, we are contemplating having different requirements for yellow zones in different areas of the city. mostly because the downtown area is all yellow zones. and so there has been discussion about the time limits for those downtown yellow zones. outside of the downtown core. our talk has basically been to not allow mobile foods into yellow zones. for saturation, we currently -- we are only looking at today,

the saturation of mobile food facilities relative to other mobile food facilities and trying to expand on that to include brick and mortar restaurants. we are talking to planning and health department on that. planning has some criteria as far as the amount of frontage in various districts where they would allow new restaurants or not allow them to move into. so we are following up with them and trying to determine if we can use a similar criteria to spot mobile food facilities. in conclusion, our last steps, we are developing the new criteria as that i just mentioned. we want to engage the stakeholders together in place on the potential criteria revisions. that would include the mobile food vendors, neighborhood

organizations and the restaurant owners association to see if our proposals work for them. we are still trying to determine if any changes we proposed will require new legislation by the board or whether we can do that through existing public work orders. we are also working with the city attorney to determine what changes may be required in order to comply if we need to to senate bill 946. do you have any questions? >> i have a fairly simple one. how is the address determined for a particular food truck? >> we generally fix the funding

-- fronting property address. >> so if it has a particular spot on the block captain whenever building it is in front of, that is used for determining the notification radius? >> it is the location of the truck that determines the radius if you have a fronting property that is 100 feet long and they are taking the second parking space in calculus on the second space. >> i have a whole laundry list. >> so do i. >> do you want to start? >> why not. i thank you are here because -- i thank you are here because we are faced on this board with determining what is there. we run into ambiguities or we run into questions from the public that seem like pretty

fair questions, yet if the legislation doesn't back it up so we get kind of hung out to dry or where the legislation hasn't taken into consideration some things. so i thank you are here because we want to maybe surface some of those things and possibly officially send d.p.w. a note as to issues that should be considered when reviewing the legislation, which is now, the last time it was reviewed, it was almost five and a half or six years ago. you may have noticed that things have changed in san francisco. it's a little bit more crowded. there are a few more vertical buildings that are up. a lot more traffic on the streets. conditions have changed and may be the legislation should be

reviewed as well in consideration of that change. that's why i thank you are here. the questions. so one of the big questions is the spirits of the legislation in the first place. the spirit of the legislation in the first place, and i will ask you to comment on whether i am interpreting the spirit of the legislation properly or not. there was a shortage of food facilities in certain areas and the opportunity for food trucks was to supplement the shortage of food service in certain areas and to supplement those services that were underserved. and to find -- be mindful there might be over service and undue competition in areas where services that exist. his that, in your mind, part of

the spirit of the legislation? >> i believe so. i wasn't here at the inception of the program and i'm not entirely sure. >> you don't take exception to that interpretation? okay. we face a couple of things. let me give you one example. we had an item come in front of us where it two brilliant young man wanted to take their ice cream concept and go mobile on union square. right on the corner of geary and powell. there is no shortage of ice cream within the area of geary and powell and one of the appellant's -- or certainly one of the commentators on looking to appeal that permit, which i think was ultimately granted with conditions.

that was granted with conditions first of all, there is no need for that. second of all, he said it's too crowded and that truck sitting at that site is going to exacerbate an already crowded situation. let's just take the fact that they wanted to serve ice cream. within that area, the westin ste street, they serve a lot of ice cream. the cheesecake factory, they serve a lot of ice cream. there are a couple of other storefronts and small businesses that serve a lot of ice cream. but one of d.p.w. post s. point of view is that it is an underserved market and these guys will fit in just perfectly. when is -- who builds that criteria for or how are we supposed to measure when an area is underserved and when an area is satisfactory --

satisfactorily served so we can have some metric to make a judgement as to whether an area is over served or underserved? >> i think we bring up a valid plan. our position has been that it was to remove foods from the legislation. it's not something we have actually consider. it may be time to take other items, as you said. the city has changed. taken into consideration as a program has matured. but to answer your question of why we would allow them to serve ice cream where there are other ice cream -- restaurants that serve ice cream, i think my short answer is, it is not prohibited. we struggle as well with the notion of what is saturated or underserved.

that's why i think we are trying to come up with a new metric to gauge when is enough enough? but no one seems to have a really good one. planning has some rules about that in certain districts and where we are working with them to gather that intelligence. we have talked about having applicant -- applicants survey restaurants within 150 feet to 350-foot radius so we have a better idea. those are things we are actually considering to try and clarify those. >> i would think those to be one of the takeaways and whether we codify this in writing or not is one of the things we should communicate to you. that ambiguity and that lack of metric and clarity with regard to underserved verses over served or the over availability. it gets into a competitive

situation. the traffic thing is a whole other piece. when does a food truck create a traffic jam and when it doesn't is another item that we stumble upon too. i had to comment on it. i don't want to hug the whole thing here. the other thing is especially with the trucks, not the trucks, the carts. we have had a case here where there were small business practitioners a very good at what they do. so they say and so we think. so they serve halal food. and on market street. they applied for a permit and people with bricks and mortar who are in very close to that part say, weighed a moment.

these guys are going to pull up here with a little cart, a hand truck and they will pull out their gas tank to keep the food hot and then they will serve food and we are just serving the same food, you know, within a block away. and first of all, we are brick-and-mortar. we have wrenched to pay. if we want to update our electricity and getting pg and e. post s. attention to do that, and getting the bill to do that it puts a big burden on us. we have all these issues. all which raises a very high level of difficulty to serve the same food that they are doing. they don't have the same burden and they are undercutting our business. how, again, this is something that we face. small business that we all support versus small business

and we all support small business. but they have a car crash right right in the middle of -- right in the middle of the city metaphorically because both will have an impact on each other, with the new arrival, which is the pushcart is going to be the perpetrator of the problem. how do we deal with that? had to wait measure fairness when something like that occurs. >> i'm not sure i'm prepared to answer that. it is a complicated question. >> yeah. that is why you are here and that's why we want to communicate and show you what we face on a periodic basis with two parts of the citizens that we really want to respect and uphold. small business --

>> you are right. they are both small businesses and they are both trying to make a living. i think we will take that back with us and incorporate it with our thinking as we try to revise the legislation. >> the last one and then i will let somebody else take a chance. accountability, or policing of certain essentials. there are requirements that toilets or handwashing or cleanliness items are available for both the operators of the food truck or pushcart and to its customers and that you are supposed to have within a certain amount of square -- square feet in agreement with the building so either party can go in and use the toilet facilities for cleanliness and

decency purposes. how do you manage that process so those who claim to have those agreements really do have those agreements? >> i think i might do for that to health. because that is not something in public works post s. jurisdiction. >> but it is part of the issuance of the permit, correct? >> we do ask for a letter from whoever from whoever they are getting restroom services from. and so that is in our first -- when they first apply. as far as enforcement, like i said, that was with the health department. >> with the health department say that is within your purview? >> i don't know.

>> that is part of the health code and not in the public works code. that is for public works. drawing this destruction -- this line. >> i really hope that given that it has been six years and given that there has been a significant learning curve and more density and more sophistication of how these people do their jobs, food is getting better and better all the time. by creating more traffic that you do your best to clarify or identify these learning curves and the new curveballs being thrown at you and that you adjust the legislation and asked the board of supervisors to adjust the legislation accordingly. i will let darrell go on. >> i would like to say thank you for coming and being the dartboard. i guess you drew the small straw evidently, our body here is a

lot of mobile food facilities and mobile card facilities. sometimes we are slightly frustrated. i will use the example that vice president brought up regarding the ice cream truck. in the legislation, it reads this legislation attempts to provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting food consumption opportunities for mobile food facilities in underserved and less congested areas of the city. at different times of the day and evening. unless you don't live in san francisco, gary street between stockton and powell is always congested and if you've ever tried to go there during a really busy day or a holiday, you can barely get through. second of all, that particular location had street furniture on their as well -- i'm not completely reiterate what commissioner swick said, but there's lots of other options in the immediate area. so it is hard for us to hear this when the legislation itself

says underserved and less congested and yet you provide or push forward a mobile food facility that is an extremely heavily congested area as well as it's not in underserved area. that is one. two, understanding that there are differences between the mobile food facility with the trucks as well as the pushcart his, we have mentioned this several times that your legislation identifies them both identically and when the department comes up before us they say know , that is specifically for a pushcart or that is specifically for a food truck. but your legislation reads that there is no definition in your language. >> i don't have -- >> sorry that they -- there are more comments, but people are very fired up trying to get their business through when they come here. and as you kind of pass the buck to the health department and i'm

sure you'll pass the buck to sfmta, is the concern about equity from these mobile food facilities and the brick-and-mortar meaning that the same rules don't seem to apply for the mobile food facilities as they do for the brick-and-mortar. as in the enforcement his portion of that. as you said, you've issued many permits into ludlow zones and most of those zones are providing only one hour or two our parking. but the facility is there for multiple hours. yet there is no enforcement. and so allots of this stems from public safety. as commissioner swick mentioned, our areas are becoming much more dense. if you go to these mobile food facilities, you will see some of the popular ones have people waiting for a half block and they are blocking the sidewalks. who does the enforcement?

is that your responsibility? >> you are correct. enforcement is with m.t.a. that being said, we are engaged with them currently to try to figure out how to better manage the yellow zones in the downtown area. it is something, i know at one point there are some four our yellow zones that were set up a number of years ago to allow food trucks to be there for a longer period of time. i don't have all the details of those and where those zones are but they are the downtown core area. we know that doesn't necessarily work for the trucks that are trying to make deliveries either that is one of the areas that we are discussing with m.t.a. as to resolve this issue. >> it is tough not to interrupt you but it is a multi-

department situation between the health department, d.p.w. as well as sfmta. in your own language, that fee is double and becomes harder to renew your permit upon any action. lacrosse department information do you guys share? so if they are getting a fine from sfmta, does that include, in your permitting process, as far as reissuing the permits? >> i'm not aware if that connection is being made to. i would have to look into that. >> it says here that every mobile food facility permit is subject to an annual renewal fee of $125 per permit. in addition, if during the course of the preceding year the department received one or more substantial complaints against the permit location, or filed one or more notices of violation against the permits, the department shall assess additional process fees of

$159.50 per permit. the department also shall charge inspection fees which are double the initial fees. do you have a statistic of how many people that are participating in this program have been charged those fees? >> i don't have that information with me tonight. >> that is part of the frustration that we end up dealing with on this panel as well. that because when d.p.w. comes here, they say, it is the health department. and when the health department comes in, it is sfmta. thank you. >> that is true. may be there is something that needs to be coordinated better. they can only do what is under their jurisdiction. >> perhaps we should ask for public comment if there is any and then i have a suggestion to make. >> we haven't heard yet from kenny wong from the department of public health. he is here as well if you would

like. >> we apologize. >> if you could move from the door, we have to keep it open for fire egress. there are a couple of seats over there peerk thank you. >> good evening. and kenny wong. principal instructor from the health department and safety program. i have been a principal inspector for 30 years. i have been in mobile foods since may of 2017. i won't go through the application process in detail. i will provide an overhead. basically there is two routes for permits. either you go private property, and if it's private property, the approval or use of that area

will go through planning and zoning. through the two ua. if it goes to public right-of-way they have to go to d.p.w. but basically the requirements are the same. as far as the health department, they have to show proof that they have a restroom at the location or locations. the cart or truck would have to be compliant to codes. i'm also the principal inspector of plan review for brick-and-mortar. if you want to contrast that, we can do that too. i would like to get into specific questions that you may have. last time we were here, he wanted to know how many

inspections were done and what type of violations occur. the name of the business has been taken off but these are routine inspections with the dates. >> mr wong, can you speak into the microphone, please? >> i'm sorry. routine inspection with the date on and the type of violations. i don't know if you can pick this up. may be close up on the violation part. so there were 175 inspections done. we had 375 mobile foods and pushcarts.

you can tell here, it says the various violations, no hot water , permit license inspection report not posted. food safety certificate of food handling, available defective plumbing, modern risk food temperatures. it goes the whole gambit. the number of applications received from 2017 until present has been 122 applications. seventy-five have been approved. it's in a spreadsheet if you would like to look at it.

i will throw it out to questions >> i have a couple questions. i noticed on the spreadsheet you have not said routine unscheduled. i assume you would not schedule these because you want to come up -- >> routine it means not schedule >> i don't know why the jargon is that way. >> my question really is, are each of these facilities on some sort of a regular schedule from your department to be inspected? is there an annual inspection? is there a semi or semi annual inspection? >> we want annual inspection, ideally. unfortunately we lost the inspector. so we have one inspector right now. so we have half staff. >> are there fines that are issued when these are found? >> we started fines in may because we heard the board say

that it's not fair for the brick-and-mortar is to be fined and pay reinspection fees. so we are starting reinspection fees when they have eminent risk for the public. like food temperature, refrigeration, we will reinspect and charge a reinspection fee. >> are those violations reported to d.p.w.? i think that was hinted at earlier. so that knowledge is available to them when they're looking at reissuing the permits? >> it is not reported to them by the information is available to them. >> okay. i think those are my questions. i have another one but it has escaped me. thank you. >> similar question. as i was talking to the previous department captures penalties for violations. but right now if each department is not sharing those violations, the permit holder is not being

responsible and the public health is at risk. >> well, pardon me. if it's a private property, d.p.w. won't get those violations because they would involve the d.p.w. permit. >> what about the ones on the city and county streets? >> that should be shared. >> although it's available, i mean it's there but it's not shared. i don't think anyone wants to do extra work and go hunt for that. >> we made all inventory of these available to d.p.w. to do density and saturation surveys. so we could give them the information if they want on d.p.w. property violations,

mobile foods. >> since you did both brick and mortar as well as the m. f. f., can you give me a brief -- what we hear often from appellant's and permit holders is that the level of scrutiny is really different. can you explain what the differences are as far as how often at restaurant is checked versus and m.m.f.? let me finish my question first, please. how many inspectors do you have for the brick and mortar and how we inspectors do you have for the mobile food facilities? >> for mobile foods, as i said, we only have one inspector. for brick-and-mortar, we currently hired nine more inspectors. this is to fill vacant positions so we have about 25 food inspectors.

>> you have 25, but nine are for brick-and-mortar and one is for m. f. f.? what do the other 15 do? >> no, all 25 or for brick-and-mortar. >> and you have one for mobile food facility? >> how often are the brick-and-mortar his inspected in comparison to the mfs? >> ideally if they prepare food twice a year, they don't prepare food, they sell packaged food once a year. brick-and-mortar. >> now since he only have one house inspector, are you saying that you are inspecting them once a year or once every two years? >> we hope to inspect them once a year. >> how long have you been shortstaffed and when do you expect a replacement? >> we expect a replacement in

january. we have some outline maternity leave so we have to shift personnel around. >> could you address might toilet question, please. i saw the list that you showed and i did not see anything that referenced anything that had to do with a shortage of toilets or noncompliance to having sanitary facilities nearby. how do you police that? how is there proof that they have an agreement with a nearby building or an appropriate place , according to their permits? >> the restroom verification is required annually now. there used to be when you first started the application, once you are approved, we would go by that verification. now they have to produce it

annually. when we get that, the inspectors are supposed to call and verify the restroom is available and talk to the responsible party of the restroom. >> is that validated? i know and inspector is supposed to do that, but is there a sheet that said that so and so phoned so-and-so to validate that the claim -- validate the claim? >> we don't have a sheet, what we'll do that that from here on out. >> i think if we are making a toed card and the list of things we would like, that should go on there peerk hearsay is a wonderful thing, but, you know, that is one of the complaints we have received. we are supposed to have a gender neutral restroom. were supposed to have an 88 restroom. all these guys have to do, i'm speaking parenthetically about

what we hear, all these guys have to do is say oh, yeah, that building, they let us use the restroom. >> do you have a question, commissioner? >> oh, okay. commissary. who is responsible for verifying that the approved commissaries are used? >> we are. the department of public health. >> can i ask you this. one of the comments that we get is, well, those guys are from oakland his. or those guys are from somewhere else, not san francisco and they are bringing their food in from oakland and san francisco is getting absolutely no benefit out of having their mobile food facility or their pushcart here. is there a requirement? i saw less of commissaries and they seem to have san francisco addresses. is there a requirement that food carts and traps utilize local

commissaries or can they bring their food in? >> they can bring it in from outside the county and the commissary can be outside the county. what we do is we send a referral form to the county verifying that they have a commissary and they are listed on the commissary. >> and how does -- how does d.b.h. verify that any commissary, which is not on the approved list, in fact is abiding by the same rigour of health statutes and suitable practices as the commissaries which are built in san francisco >> the health department will send that jurisdiction reports. for them to verify that they are

using this place for a commissary and its equipped as such. >> it is you are a leap of faith that jurisdiction is really going to deal with that. >> yes. we have agreements to verify if they say they use a commissary here, we would verify for other counties. >> thanks. >> i did have a clarifying question. in terms of the access to the restroom, that is only for the operator and not for the patrons , right? >> is only for employees right now unless they set up a food park that we have in san francisco. they set up a food park where they extended hours more than four hours and then they have to provide patron restrooms. >> thank you for the clarification. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on

this presentation? seeing none, any further questions? >> i have a comment. a suggestion. and i think i thank you for your general presentations on the permitting process. however, as you can tell by the questioning, the issues that this board faces deals with the nuances and definitions within the legislation and one of the rules and regulations of the department. perhaps madame director, did you issue your summary to the departments in terms -- >> i didn't e-mail them. >> you did. >> yes. >> perhaps we could get a response. some of these items were not fully responded to and i think they should issue a written response to s. >> okay. >> i think some of the things in that list could be put to rest immediately but there are certain other ones that deal

with grey areas, if you will that i don't think i've heard answers to. >> i'm also wondering if we want to bring this back in six months perhaps to hear updates about proposed legislative changes or other new regulations that they plan to issue to address some of this. i think i heard primarily from public works that they are looking at some potential changes because they recognize that there are issues here. >> just to second on that, as understanding it is a moving target, and the legislation itself is silent on the criteria , i think that underserved and less busy needs to have some type of matrix added to that so that -- >> it is in the list. >> i just want to clarify

because that is the most important. >> i have a last question. who is responsible for bill 846? who is the sponsor? >> i'm not aware who the sponsor is. >> interesting if it is a local. >> in the past, this board has been influential or at least a positive additive informing the board of supervisors about our concerns on certain issues. the one that sticks out the most that i think resulted in the a.d.u. or at least the dealing with illegal units and making -- and legalizing them. so we have had a past history of influence. can we make a request to d.p.w.

and d.p.h. that when they are going to suggest new legislation to the board of supervisors, that that would be the timing of the briefing which has been requested, so that we can add some commentary to what they're going to provide as commentary to the board of supervisors, please. >> we can certainly do that. did you -- would you like me to prepare a resolution? >> i would suggest that we might send a letter that has some official notice. >> we have our list of questions i thought you would just ask that they make sure that they have that and that they respond to that. i think that enumerated most of the concerns.

>> as a start, we could put these -- we could ask for written responses to the questions and we could also inform them that the board would like to participate in providing comments on potential legislative changes. >> when they are closer to making their suggestions for revised legislation to the board of supervisors. >> okay. >> that is our failsafe to make sure that we are heard. >> okay. at this point to, i can prepare those questions and send them to the appropriate department. >> thank you. i will number them and we will make it so we'll be clear on getting the written responses. >> good. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for attending this evening. okay. we will now move on to item

number 5. this is appeal number 18-090. jason hughes and kelly versus a zoning administrator. the subject property is 1750 alabama street. appealing the denial on june 13 th, 2018 of a mass reduction variants for proposal to construct a vertical and horizontal -- horizontal addition to an existing single family dwelling with the reduction of only 82 square feet of floor area to be deleted from the exterior of the maximum building area where as a planning code 242 requires the reduction of 650 square feet. this is case number (201)601-2810. on october 10th, 2018, the board voted 4-0 to continue the appeal to november 14th, 2018 to give the opportunity to meet and confer before november 12th . so each party will have three minutes each. do we want to start with the appellant?

>> okay. >> thanks. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the project architect. my clients are here along with their 85-year-old mother and their children who are in the back of. as the last commission hearing, the commissioners asked us to review our design to see what additional combinations we could make with the adjacent neighbors who have objected to the project we met twice with them. who are here and the immediate neighbors to the north. we met on october 23rd and again on november 6. [please stand by]