Goldstein the boards executive director. Were also joined by representatives from the city departments that of cases before the board this evening good with San FranciscoPublic Works Bureau of streets and mapping. We are also at the table is senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and building and this writer Scott Sanchez also are present in the Planning Department and Planning Commission. The board was to turn off or silence all phones or other Electronic Devices so will not disturb the proceedings. The board schools of presentation are as follows. Appellants and Department Respondents are each given 7 min. To present their case and 3 min. For rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must conclude that comets within the seven or 3 min. Period. Member of the public not affiliate with the parties up to 3 min. Each to address the board and no rebuttal. Please speak into the end of the microphone. To assist the board in the accurate operation of minutes grass but not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to boards that when you come up to speed. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments and suggestions. There are Customer Satisfaction surveys on the podium. If you have questions about requesting a hearing what tools or hearing schedule please speak about staff during a break or after the meeting or visit the board office. We are located at 1650 mission st. And suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on speed tv cable channel 78 and as we broadcast on fridays at 4 pm on channel 26 dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgtv. Now, we will swear in or from all those intended to testify. Please note a member of the public may speak without taking it out pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify at any tonight hearing and wish that the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand, raise your right hand and say i do after youve been sworn in or firms. Please stand out if you plan to testify. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony youre about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Thank you. Pres. Honda and commissioners, is one housekeeping item. This has to do with item number five appeal number 15 201. This is for suspension request at 6 39th ave. The parties have requested a rescheduling to march 15, 2016. This is to allow time for the appellants to obtain Legal Counsel. So, if the board is inclined to do that will need a motion. Any Public Comment on this motion . Seeing none, we have a motion to move this item to march 16. On that motion of commissioner fung aye, pres. Honda im a aye commissioner wilson aye, swig aye. That motion carries 50. Thank you. Moving back to item number one in all Public Comments. This an opportunity for everyone here would like to address the board on a matter thats within the board subject matter jurisdiction but is not on tonights agenda. Is there any general Public Comment . Seeing none, will move to item 2, which is commissioner comments and questions. Anything from the commissioners tonight . Item 3 is the board consideration and possible adoption of the february 10, 2016 minutes. Any additions or changes to the minutes . Can have a motion . Motion. We have a motion to adopt the minutes. Any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, no Public Comment to adopt fung aye, lazarus, aye, honda, aye wilson aye. That motion carries fivesecond item deal item number four is appeal number 16 001. Arjun singh doing business as Spice Affairs versus San FranciscoPublic Works Bureau of street and updated at 214 battery st. 46 geary st. And 99 posted appealing the denial by december 29, 2015 of them will for food facility permit. Denial permit application because all three locations on close proximity to existing restaurant. In addition parking a truck in those areas for long durations will contribute to more traffic congestion. This is permit application number 13 0004 and we will start with the appellant. Thank you, you have 7 min. To present your case to the board. First, i would like to about the three different occasions. The first overhead, please. If you could speak a little more directly into the microphone that would be helpful. The data i put a diagram for 214 battery st. The only two restaurants on battery street in a three block space and only two restaurants would be the [inaudible] and on battery street, three blocks there are no restaurants doing business. Also in the three block radius is no Indian Restaurant in the area. Battery street being a oneway street is most of traffic leaving San Francisco so it doesnt have any congestion in the mornings. I sent out a public notification to all vendors within the radius and they did not write any objections to the permit. The second one would be 99 post should i understand this is close to the [inaudible] but i like to propose 6 pm11 pm of operation at this time all the restaurants are not doing business at that time. Post rate is also a oneway street. In the morning we would do business. There will not be any traffic in that area. At 46 geary st. In the to box him operating street theres only two restaurants. [inaudible]. Fall into the radius and the other restaurants to not have objections. There is also no Indian Restaurant. The width of the sidewalk is 10 feet. And its more than allowed for a traffic congestion. Our food truck is a most 22 feet. If its in one parking meter. So we mostly ask dpw at requires two locations to part the food truck but we actually minimize the truck thats very small, 20 2p. 22 feet. Regarding the public hearing the decision was made in favor. We would also like to reduce the operation from 103 pm. Thats five hours a day to avoid traffic congestion. To accommodate dpws request for not operating for long hours of the day. These hours will be ideal as were coming and going from work. For all other notifications is good feedback and they would like to have a restaurant in the area. Theres not a lot of options for indian food in the air. All the people in the area do not have an option for a quick lunch. So that might have something thats quick and easy to access and the food truck would be ideal for that. San francisco is a great city of restaurants for the best location being in downtown San Francisco. This took us a long time. Even though the planning permit approved in march 2013, but it took us 2. 5 years to apply for the until it was denied. The reason it went back and forth so many times in this 1. 5 years is that we want to make sure the dpw guidelines are followed and making sure we provide it to talk with is no congestion in the area. As for the notifications as of dpw requires notifications to all businesses and the radius to see if theres any objections related to this location. Consider the 75 feet radius only one restaurant in the two locations. Theres not a lot of restaurants on the same street. And having a wide sidewalk and no indian food in the area, we would like to respectfully request the board to make a decision on our behalf. As of dpw also does not how far the restaurants need to be for us to qualify or not qualified to the to location should so we are assuming as long as its not in that 45 feet radius and the 75 feet radius restaurant the same kind of food, we are okay but we still try to keep our food truck away from a lot of big restaurants. Just on the two locations were no restaurants and one of the things dpw said, we were operating for long hours. So we would like to minimize those hours to 25 hours 25 hours a day. A limited traffic condition and at that time not a lot of people are leaving and coming into San Francisco. That should be adhered ive a question, subject are you currently operating any mobile facilities at this time . No, im not would you personally be running these operations . Yes, i am. Thank you. We can hear from the department now. Good evening, commission. Public works. Just to speak in regard to 13 appeal 16 001. The applicant first applied for this permit under 13 mf 004 in february 13 23rd. In regards to the plans this being a 2. 5 year long process, it has taken a long. However it should be noted several other locations were originally on the applications and because several of those locations did not meet code requirements, there were several iterations and revisions and subsequently, the Current Location which are on this appeal today were applied for in march of 2015. After confirming that these three locations listed met the general location requirements set forth in article 5. 8 of the public works code, they decided to move forward with the required notification in the 2015. After notice there were quite a few objections. I believe five, total but a few objections included livered communities as well as the Business Improvement district, which is several different players involved. Those objections were received and therefore public hearing was set for august 5 in 2015. So, per code, the director of public works is allowed to assign a designee to conduct the hearing and after the hearing officer conducted the hearing and all information was provided to the barman of public works the Bureau Manager as well as the City Engineer the City Engineer subsequently denied all three locations as all three locations are in close proximity to existing restaurants and in addition parking a truck in these areas are these long durations, which is virtually any them12 am will contribute to more traffic congestion. The reclamation from the City Engineer was also given to apply for locations and other underserved areas with less restaurants. So, just under the basis of this. Part 4e of public works code was that the guidelines graduate regulations robbery mobile phone facilities and public right away. It allows the director and his or his designee to review all pertinent information. Run the application and the validity of the mobile food facility following the hearing. Therefore, the City Engineer is allowed to review this and the basis for the denial is as follows. The board of supervisors ordinance 11913 regarding mobile food facility permitting and the rightofway was created to provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting Food Consumption opportunities for mobile food facilities and underserved less congested areas of the city. At different times of the day and evening. So, take a look at these locations, all three of those locations are exclusive to the downtown area and n. Of market st. Very close or in the square Business Improvement district and union square area. There were plants made by the phone stating the number of restaurants within close proximity is approximately 23. However, this is incorrect. If you book within exhibits b1, b2, mp3, you can see that leave at least 10 restaurants at each location within the 23 block radius from the proposed locations. Additional, public works encourages food trucks to operate in Standard VehicleParking Spaces following that same ordinance 119 additional, public works encourages food trucks to operate in Standard VehicleParking Spaces following that same ordinance 11913. I quote, the city must exercise care and Public Safety in addressing appropriate locations for food facilities to discourage unloading and top of zones for spaces for regular service. And existing businesses and the board of parking associated with dad to vehicular congestion for off Street Parking thats more special when occupied by these facilities. The public works has allowed foods to operate in yellow zones. Weve done that so on a casebycase pasted with a condition that all mobile food facilities shall abide all parking restrictions and controls. If you take a look at these particular box you will notice that on percent of the parking on this box is commercial and yellow loading. With the exception of one on jury, i believe, was a handicap space. They do fall within relatively extended period of time is the original request was between 8 am12 am. In addition to that, several of these existing businesses and restaurants during this time are open during the requested times, which does not follow ordinance 11913, which request we provide options at different times of the day and evening. Just one last point i want to address. It was mentioned there are no very many similar food options in the area. I want to make it clear that that is no longer similar foods and like foods is no longer part of the ordinance so that should not take precedence in your decisionmaking. Im available for any further questions you have. Mr. Shaw, i think that was the question i was going to ask. The type of foods. The other question would have been a proposed time change by the appellant, would that have affected the hearing officers decision . It likely would have. I can speak for the hearing officer but i assume it would have. I believe many of the complaints received during the hearing with that the operation was occurring during many of these business hours. Many of these businesses is going off of google are open between 10 am6 pm in the fall directly within their timeframe. Procedurally, how would that work in terms of actions by this board . Does he have to reapply with a different timeframe . He would have to reapply good i believe, so once you go after 6 pm you do have to do a large notification that there are additional requirements. I believe its not only a groundfloor tenants anymore. Becomes anybody that an Horror Stories as well. However, i do believe he did apply until 12 am so i dont think an additional notice would be required in this case. After 8 Pm Additional notice is required but he did apply for after 8 pm. My question on the permit holders i notice that although he has the rotunda Neiman Marcus cafe is not in this listed on there at all. Im sorry, on on gary street. Im sorry. Neiman marcus has a restaurant on the ground floor as well. Besides the rotunda. Okay. Okay. So, what we look for in terms of following article 5. 8, is that the location has to be a minimum of 75 feet from the primary entrance. So, if that enters his within Neiman Marcus thats probably why it was not accounted for. Did okay, the tango. I have a question. Im very familiar with those three streets. I been stuck in traffic probably five times this week. Gary street close up, third street by my conduit to union square. The primary conduit to the bay bridge. Battery street, primary conduit for the bay bridge onto first street and entry and access to the financial district. Where does dpw way in on this request i mean, these are primarythese are secondary street. These are primary conduits which are called regardless of whether theres something part of their or not. Unfortunately, we are not as qualified to review the traffic and congestion i meant to say the department of parking and traffic. We did okay. Where does that fit in . It is a violation in terms of Parking Department of Public Parking and traffic they would have to come in and provide the proper enforcement in terms of ticketing requiring them to move. Without feedback with regard to traffic . Who does the Traffic Studies in general . You brought up the fact that or its brought up in the brief, that there is an issue with the parking, truck needing to make a delivery, one more truck sitting for a long period of time. Creating one less yellow zone shortterm parking space. That creates a double parked. It screws up traffic even more. Who handles the measurement and the study of congestion and measures whether its viable that anything is there . Is after the municipal transportation and agency. Empty. They have a qualified traffic engineers and they would be the ones that produce Traffic Studies. From what i understand Traffic Studies are usually produced only after request made from the public and they do have to pay fees to get that traffic study. In this case, conducting traffic study is not required part of our application. Its really more of a judgment call in this case and a casebycase basis in terms of the traffic and congestion in certain areas. But therefore going back to dpw, again, gary street, a major eastwest entry into unit square, correct . Correct post street, the most the major westeast exit from union square. There is no other one. And battery, again, the major northsouth entry across market to babies. So, is that which you call a judgment call when you identified the three major conduits and food truck parked there might cause congestion . In this case, yes. That as well as the amount of businesses within the area as well as the dedicated parking on each of these blocks. Thanks. Thank you. We can take Public Comment no. May i see a show of hands only people plan to speak under this item . First person please step forward. If the others are willing please them on the far side of the room against that wall were moving through things go. Lover wants to speak first, please fit for. If you havent already filled out a speaker card, please come forward. If you do so befor