building code needs to address and i am not sure if dpw has a plan to do that. i would imagine that there are building code issues that need to be addressed in this matter. with regard to being on the public way, we see other items where this is involved. i would be concerned about exiting. if there are people who need to get out of that building and they get to a point and the exit get smaller, the building code must address that. maybe that needs to be wider than 3 feet. you do need 32 inches clear for accessibility issues. the minimum is 32 and their great need to be more depending on the number of people coming down into that area so yes, there are other points. >> thank you. >> the matter is submitted. >> let me first discuss where i stand on the permit itself and the gate. given the issues that were brought forth, i am supportive of the concept of the gate. the qualifier is that date has to be accessible and it has to be per code for exiting purposes. if you look at the photos at the building in process, there are stairs immediately behind it. this building at best is probably accessible only through the lower level. i do not know of the elevator goes down to the lower level. from the street axis point of view, it appears the street is at the cusp of a percentage of wet iraq would be for accessibility. however, -- what a ramp would be for accessibility. there should be allowable access and it has to conform to the code. i am supportive of the concept of trying to the gate and see if it reduces some of the problems. >> i would agree. we're trying to solve the two issues. the ability of residents to get in and out of that gate and use that entry and there were letters in the package from residents talking about the problems in the alley. i would be supportive of conditioning the permit making it accessible from and ada standpoint as well as meeting the requirements of the code. if this was a gate in an apartment building to a parking garage, it should meet the same requirements. as well as requiring the adjacent property owners provide keys to all residents her request to use that entry and exit as the with the front door. -- they would the front door. >> i would echo the sentiments of my fellow commissioners. i do not know what we're going to need in order to get the ada compliance on the gate. it seems a necessity. i think -- i appreciate the comments made by the public speakers and the appellant in particular coming forward. i understand your health issues are severe and they should be accommodated. if the building itself is not accommodating, you have a problematic elevator and other issues. as far as what is before us which is the gate, i do not know if we need a continuance in order for this to be checked out or if we can simply order it here and conditioned the appeal in a way that commissioner tell us -- hillis suggested. >> those accommodations are reasonable and would address many of the issues that the appellate raised. >> i think we should continue this on the following bases. that the building department can conduct its exiting and accessibility review because if there are changes to the construction as required, we can amend or conditions permit at that point in time with the requiring a new permit. -- without requiring a permit. -- a new permit. >> please come to the podium so you can be recorded properly. >> thank you. i have a question. if the gates were true remain, can we have extended opening hours so i can have more help after 5:00 p.m.? i understand the gate is to remain at this point. i am asking if i can have extended our side can receive more help. -- so i can receive more help. >> since we have given additional time, with the permit holder like to respond? -- with the permit holder like to respond? -- would the permit holder like to respond? >> i wanted to add that when lt. white signed off, it was my impression we were meeting all the emergency exit requirements. i don't feel like an answer for the owners if they would be open to extended hours. as i said earlier, it seems to defeat the purpose if we're going to leave it open all day. >> understood. >> perhaps i was not clear. i would be supportive of keyed access for all tenants that would have enjoyed access into the street. i'm not supportive of opening those gates that allows access for others. >> there is a motion to continue to allow time for dbi to conduct an exiting and accessibility review? i would suggest august 15 is a good date for the board if that is enough time. >> you have a question on the process? >> one of the questions that came up that given this gate spans two properties, the building department might have an issue. as it relates to the permit. can the building department -- [unintelligible] so they would be paid [unintelligible] we're trying to identify a reasonable way to make sure that what you are suggesting. >> if that is -- acceptable to you, that is fine. >> is that a legal question? >> it is an issue of the work order. >> august 15 of that is acceptable to the department. >> move to continue this case to august 15. >> no additional briefing, just airport? -- a report? >> we have a motion from the vice-president to continue this matter to august 15. the public hearing has been held. to allow dbi to conduct a review of accessibility issues. permit issues as well? permitting issues? >> accessibility and exiting issues. >> and exiting issues. >> on that motion to continue, president hwang, aye, commissioner hillis, yes, commissioner hurtado, yes, commissioner president hwang: wk to the july 25 meeting of the board of appeals. we are calling item 6a and 6b which will be held together. north waterfront restaurant group purses the department of public works. various addresses, including 250 fourth street and broadway along davis and the front. protesting the issuance of a mobile food facility permit for the sale of everything except hot dogs. and also protesting the issuance on march 8, 2012, two of the grid services number 12 mff- 0035. we will start with the appellant. >> i need to be recused from this item. my employer has a lease with off the grid. president hwang: my apologies. we would need to have a motion and a vote. >> i move to reduce due to the conflict. president hwang: is there any public comment? seeing none. vice president fung: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. commissioner lazarus: aye. >> the vote is 4-0. commissioner hillises' recused. president hwang: we will start with the appellant. because there are to bring appeals, you will have 14 minutes -- two appeals, you have 14 minutes. >> my name is pete ryan. thank you for your time this evening. we are here tonight because you granted our request for jurisdiction when there was a mistake and we did not get notice of the permit and therefore we are here as though we got notice. we think that in addition to the initial mistake, we are going to be asking that you revoke it this evening. there is no dispute that it is within the 300 foot radius and off the grid takes the position that it is considered by agreeing not to serve hamburgers but they are permitted to sell hamburgers. those permits should not be granted because it is an identical food and it is within 300 feet. the fact they asked you to truck them, they will be good citizens. it is irrelevant. the permit should not be granted to that basis. however, as you know, among the 35 food trucks connected to these permits, there is direct menu competition as well. they are listed in our brief and i will repeat them here. it primarily serves salads and sandwiches during the lunch hour. this is not a residential area. this is a commercial area off the grid is open 14 hours a day while they are there for five days, three days a week. five hours, three days a week during the lunch hour is a majority of the time that it is open and serving food. they do not serve dinner. although they are open after 5:00, it is a bar and they do not serve food during that time. it is disingenuous to say because we are open 14 hours, there is no competition. the primary competition is a during lunch when the people are there and they come to lunch in that area. among the 35 food trucks that have permits, we will talk about this, we do not think that the metal of g -- methodology is what the statute intended or comprehended at the time it was passed by the board of supervisors. off the grid is not a food purveyor. they are not chefs, they are not a kitchen, they are a permit expediter that coaches business from established neighborhoods. you will notice that not only do we represent grumpy's, we have the support of eight other restaurants who are contributing to this effort to tonight and ask yourself, why are they doing it? it is simple. they are part of the community. they compete with one another. they are being unfairly competed with off the greek -- grid. the food is great but that is not the point. the point is there is an established community that has been serving the people in the offices for years. we do not think -- this is not one food truck that serves a particular kind of food that does not compete with grumpy's. this is a concerted effort. they come in, they try to find a place, and they initially succeeded because they got dpw to calculate that 300 feet. when we caught that and found out grumpy's was within the jurisdiction, back to the competition, which -- >> did -- dpw appears to put the most focus on, at the menu issues. of the 35 trucks, many of them serve food that is similar to grumpy's. one serves chicken sandwiches. 510 burger serves burgers and sodas grumpy's. -- so does grumpy's. they have the ability to do it under this permit and the permits should be revoked for that reason. now, i want to return to the code itself and look at some of the standards that dpw utilizes in determining whether to grant the permit. we talked about this in other cases. the very first one is whether the applicants' proposed application is a wood -- is within 300 feet. i would urge you to consider that does not mean that if a business is located 301 feet away from a food trucks, and that means the permit should be granted. that is not what it says and that is not what it means. again, we are not just grumpy's. right around the corner are many other of our restaurants who are listed in our brief that sells challenges, ethnic foods, just the same type that off the grid does. we have been before -- been here before on this issue. 301 feet, it is no different than 300. where do you end it? here you have a community of restaurants that compete with one another whose businesses and customers are being poached three days a week during the lunch hour. whether it is 300 feet or 350, we know that the neighborhood is a neighborhood, and it is primarily a commercial neighborhood, the business there is primarily lunch, and off the grid is there three days a week during the lunch hour and they are taking a lot of business. the other factors you can consider, basically it is the last one, any other information relevant to whether the proposed locations is appropriate, that is a catchall for you. any other information, and it is not district 300 feet. if you are outside 300 feet, you are out. that is not what it says. let's consider all of the relevant information that gives you the discretion to consider our client's plight by the strikes. we would urge you to let go of this arbitrary -- it is not arbitrary. the reason the 300 feet is there is because we need a standard on who gets noticed. i think it is appropriate because dpw needs to know who gets the notice. beyond that, this statute does not saying that because you aren't 301 feet -- are 301 feet, you are out of luck. i want to show you something that their brief merits discussion. currently they operate 18 markets. this is not a weekly market. a weekly market would be a situation that is appropriate for what they do. that is not this. our clients have been in business for years. they employ a lot of people in the community. they pay taxes. they cannot get up and move their business around where the customers are. they sign leases and it is not fair that these trucks can come in at a time when they need this business to survive. a lot of these restaurants are suffering as a direct result of this competition. the other thing off the grid says, and this is important, they have been successful in "activating underutilized spaces in urban cores." the waterfront is hardly underutilized. there are eight restaurants. it is not underutilized. those restaurants are there and have been there and they are there because there is business there. it is not underutilized. i will let you draw your own conclusion about what you think about that statement. the other issue, off the great tries to -- grid tireries to say grumpy's sales -- sells alcohol and they do not. most people do not drink alcohol at lunch. even their own brief says its. they serve alcohol at happy hour. happy hour starts at 5:00. after work is over. the food trucks are not even there at 5:00. we agreed they are not competing with grumpy's alcohol business. the fact they do not serve dhaka hall at lunch is irrelevant -- alcohol at lunch is irrelevant. they are serving burgers to people who work and go back to their offices. in closing, i would ask you to take a high level look at the intent of the statute and recognize that off the grid is not, the way they are doing this is not what was intended. they are not food operators and they are not chefs. they are a company designed to go in and take business, poach is the appropriate word. here the permit itself is flawed. dpw may agree with this when we have this chance to look at it. grumpy's has identical food to many of the same operators that off the grid services. we would ask you revoke the permit. lastly, and i still do not have my head around this long, why are there -- this one, why are there two trucks? it makes things twice as bad? -- as bad. >> are for the delay. i run off the grid. i am going to do a power point and i will not take the full 14 minutes. i appreciate your patience while i get it started. president hwang: you can use the microphone that is closer to the display if it is easier for you. >> thank you. i have a hard copy of this presentation, if there is a preference to view it on paper or on the screen. i run off the grade -- grid. we organized logistics' for 18 weekly markets a. we are a san francisco-based company. as you can see on the screen, really what we do is more than morep -- simply poach areas. we work with vendors to see that they have their proper documents, that they are operating properly and also really what we look to do is provide an experience that provides more diversity to an area and more options to consumers. some demographics about our vendors, 38% of them are women owned. 55% are minorities. 61% are first-time business owners. we work with 150 vendors a week. all of that has started in the last two years. by its nature, street food is an -- is defined by a narrow product and those things tend to work well with local produce. really what we are talking about are two separate permits. one permit is for a single truck. the other is for multiple tracks. in the guidelines of the permit that was issued and approved by the board of supervisors was a mechanism for locating multiple trucks under a single permit. we originally applied when the mobile food system -- facility was brand new and we camped out for three days in the cold. we had no idea that dpw had not issued any guidelines and we did not know the property was not an acceptable location. we did our research, we paid for proper notice to be done to the proper locations. after three days of waiting in the cold and the rain, when we got up to the table, we discover that morning that the first location, which is isolated here, was not going to be acceptable. dpw moved us to the middle of the adjacent block in did not require us to give notice, which is part