calendar? ok, seeing none, we will move on to item two, which is the election of officers, or opposite. with the resignation of commissioner michael garcia, who was the president of the board, the office of president is now vacant, and the board needs to hold an election in order to fill it. the torrent of this presidency -- the term of this presidency will be after january 15, 2013. is there any member of the board who would like to nominate a colleague or themselves for the office of president? commissioner: i will. i will nominate commissioner hwang. director goldstein: ok. are there any other nominations? seeing none, are there any comments on the nomination of commissioner hwang for president of seeing none, then, mr. pacheco, could you please

call the roll? secretary pacheco: we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to elevate vice president hwang to the presidency of the board of appeals. on that motion, commissioner fung. commissioner fung: aye. secretary pacheco: vice president hwang, commissioner hillis. the vote is a four-zero, and chris hwang is elevated to the position of president. [applause] president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: seeing that vice president hwang been elevated, the position of vice president is now open. either any nominations? presidents hwang: i nominate

commissioner fung. director goldstein: any other nominations? is there any public comment? seeing none, mr. pacheco, could you please call the roll? secretary pacheco: we have denomination from our new president hwang elevate commissioner fung to the position of vice president. on that vote, commissioner fung, hillis, hurtado? the vote is 4-0, and commissioner frank fung is elevated to the position of vice president of the board. director goldstein: congratulations to you both. item number four, -- item number three, commissioner comments and questions. seeing none, we will move to item number four. for your discussion and possible adoption are the minutes from the meeting of may 16, 2012.

president hwang: i move their approval. director goldstein: other any comments on the adoption of minutes? seeing none, mr. pacheco, could you read the roll, please? secretary pacheco: on the motion from president hwang to adopt the minutes, vice president fung, commissioner hillis, commissioner hurtado? thank you. the vote is 4-0. those minutes are adopted. director goldstein: ok, i will call the next item, which is the beginning of our addendum item, number fivea. the board received a letter from peter ryan, the attorney for the north waterfront restaurant group, asking that the board to jurisdiction over permits 0021

and 0035, permits that issued by the department of public works bureau of st. use and mapping on february 21, 2012, and march 8, 2012, respectively, and they ended march 7, 2012, and march 23, 2012, respectively. it is for a sale of everything except for hot dogs for both permits, and i believe that's commissioner hillis as a comment to make. commissioner hillis: yes, i asked to be recused from this item. my employer had something with the permit holder. so i am requesting a refusal. director goldstein: ok, so we need -- commissioners, when a member asks for that, we need a boat and a motion. president hwang: i move that we

uphold the refusal. director goldstein: any comments? seeing none -- vice president fung: and director, can you outline what is required in terms of voting? -- madam director? director goldstein: yes, there will be three votes, and in this case, with one commissioner recused, seeing how this is of the vote happens, if there are two commissioners in support of jurisdiction and one against, then the board would have the discretion to continue the case to a time when we have another seated member, and that member could cast the deciding vote. so if you could call the roll please? secretary pacheco: on that motion from president hwang to reduce commissioner hillis on item 5a, vice president fung,

commissioner hurtado? commissioner hurtado, you are recused. director goldstein: we will start with the requester. you will have six minutes because there are two. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for your time this evening. my name is peter ryan, and we represent the restaurant association, and just for your information, those restaurants consist of the american pop, -- pub, togos, baskin-robbins, a diner, and others, and our

representatives of certain of those companies here this evening. we are asking for jurisdiction, and we realize that we have a high standard to meet, but we think the matter is fairly simple, and we would direct you to off the grid, the own brief of the matter. and this contains an admission that they initially located this permit -- the initially low k the permit seven no restaurants would have the opportunity to appeal. subsequently, it was learned that the location was on port property, and dpw did not require notice, as would have been required, so there alone,

you have a city action which prevented our clients from filing a timely appeal. if you allow the appeal, i think you will find that even though some of these restaurants are not within 300 feet, they are all greatly affected by this. we are here to talk about this when you hopefully give us jurisdiction to file the appeal. so with that said, by the emission that grumpy is did not give notice, we think that the standard has been met, that there was no notice given, that that was a city action, and that you should allow these people to have the opportunity to be heard on the appeal. if you have any questions, i would be happy to entertain them.

thank you very much. director goldstein: thank you. mr. gladstone. >> good evening. i have six minutes. i will probably share that. i worked off the grid with a company of facilities with the opening of the vendors to operate trucks to provide this. they are generally not in the business of owning and operating those trucks, with one exception. my remarks today are after talking to john, and directs this program, at the department of public works. and you may have this confirmed by his representative from dpw tonight. first, i went to make an important correction.

the paragraph labeled number one in my letter, and i apologize that it was only two days or so. what i said is that dpw had declined to file a new application once it became aware of the fact that it had approved an application for port property. in fact, dpw did not ask the clients to file a new application, and none was made. what are the implications? even though we all admit that there was a technical failure for dpw to send out a written notice that it sends out to 300 feet, in that, and not only is

there not a mistake, but it caused the lack of notice, and i have always maintained that it is the party claiming the lack of notice, it if it got notice on its own are could never easily got a notice on its own, then you cannot say that it was the city that resulted in the failure to make the appeal, and our position is that there are two factors that indicate they have either had actual notice, actually saw a truck out there, or they had constructive notice, and by constructive notice, the city did publish in its proper place, the proper location, and its publication was available to everyone in the neighborhood,

and they did correctly notice in that publication the correct site. dpw does it by mail notice, but it also doesn't by publication, and it is our position that as long as one of those two is done correctly, that is all the notice that needs to be given. so on the question as to why gr umpy's had notice, there are two permits before you. this is one of the rare times, and the other is for several locations for off the grid. dpw gave notice during the same time. that is the 15-day period.

it so happens, and my client will show you prove, that off the grid did have a location within 300 feet of grumopy's during the 15-day period before it expired -- within 300 feet of grumpy's./ you can have it in the 50 days, and that food truck was there, and grumpy's very well could have appealed. no malice was attended here. you just heard that the client purposely located 300 feet away from grumpy's and the others to avoid notice. that is one way to look at it, but the reason that off the grin has a fantastic record of notice is that they do the research to find locations that are three a hundred feet away

from other businesses with similar food. why? it is not to avoid an appeal, is to make sure the other businesses feel comfortable that their customers will go to their place. the client wants to make sure that it does not give the competitors, potential competitors, a feeling that this will be so close as to interrupt their business. by the way, we do not feel it in trust their business. that is an impression other businesses have, but you will hear later that they are entirely different services. three seconds. would you come up, please? this is the owner of off the grid.

>> i have a permit, and you can see the permit is from september 2011. this is proof that we were out on september 9, 2011. i am happy to answer any more questions. president hwang: was the date? you were there seven days later? >> yes. vice president fung: did you handle the discussions of the

department? >> yes, that is correct. vice president fung: and you were told by dpw that you did not have to have a new permit? >> that is correct. president hwang: far away is the truck at this point? >> the current distance is approximately 250 feet at the closest and 427 feet away from subway.

at its closest, we moved 30 feet from our initial location, at its farthest 100 feet. president hwang: you highlighted the day. >> the group permit was issued at a later date.

they were submitted at the same time. commissioner: those dates do not coincide? >> it is a little bit complicated. that permit i have a copy of that. this is what i am referring to. president hwang: this is rather than the 2012 issuance date? >> when we went in to renew the permit, the reissued it as that 35 number. i do not know why they did it -- they reissued it.

president hwang: when was it? february? march >> i think the february 1 was a renewal, and the march 1 was the first issuance of the approval. president hwang: this is where the was a single drop permit? the one located within the 300 feet of grumpy's? this was issued initially in september 2011, and there was no protest, no objection? >> there were rejections that we've worked very hard to resolve. this was well outside of the 300 foot radius, and we contacted them.

grumpy's existed. when we went to use the multi- truck permit, which we thought was ok, starting in april, and we actually did not, we do not serve hamburgers in this location because we were trying to make an accommodation with grumpy's. we thought there would be no objections.

that is when this opposition came out. president hwang: maybe i am confused. you started selling food out of that truck. this was on september 9, 2011? >> that is correct. president hwang: and you served four times, but after september, did you continue serving, or did you suspend operations? >> that truck is only used for promotional purposes. they paid us to go out there and to sell food. in september. that is the reason why we have not had another client that utilizes that service. president hwang: ok. and then in april, you opened services on the second permit that is at issue?

>> that is correct. president hwang: when was that issued? >> i believe in march. the permits were both submitted at the exact same time. the notice or both went out at the exact same time. if grumpy's some other business had seen a truck parked out there, they could have contacted dpw, and they would have been advised of other permits. president hwang: related to the dpw issuance, they are issued at the same time? >> i actually did not realize. i thought everyone had been noticed. it is not our business practice

to surprise people. when grumpy's, attacked me, i told him that it was my belief that we had issued a notice, but we had gone out before in september. we went out and contacted them and head of time. we thought we had done due diligence. i personally feel that more diversity is better. we chose this location because it is so far from other food options. i am not sure you can make it out there, but other than grumpy's which is sort of on the threshold of 300 feet away, and

i can tell you where we could be in this location where we are permitted, but other than that single location, all of the other locations are well, well outside of 300 feet. president hwang: in your efforts to reach out, what was the response? >> i sent some of my managers. one time, asked to speak to the manager, and they were asked to speak with the owner. one of my managers is sitting there over there. they went back a second time, and at that time, they made contact with one of the employees, where we initiated email contact, and we have a legal background for this location, but it was a porta- potti, and we were trying to find something more accommodating, and we actually asked grumpy's if we could use

their restroom as our restroom of record, because we thought they were supportive, only to realize that they had objections. president hwang: and those conversations you are talking about took place in september? >> no, those occurred in march. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: a kid, we will hear from the department now. mr. choy? -- ok, we will hear from the department. >> hello, a junior engineer for dpw. we did do a 300 notice with off the grid, and once we send out the notification, we noticed that their location -- at dpw, we cannot issue a permit on the jurisdiction, so we moved them

around the corner on to the dpw jurisdiction. let me show you where we move them on the map here. the yellow is port jurisdiction right here, and this x, that is where the wanted to get their proposed location. we sent out a mailing, recognizing that, so we move them right around the corner, which is the dpw jurisdiction.

we made the changes to our notice, and then we uploaded that information to our website. after that, we did not receive any objections to this location. the application did have objections, but that one was withdrawn. president hwang: i am sorry to interrupt you. would be helpful to understand the chronology. the process? >> i do not have a notice dates with me, but the application i believe was in march, and the notification takes 30 days, and right around april is when we sent out the notification for that application.

president hwang: but when you discovered that it was on port property, how soon after your initial notice did you do a separate notice? >> we discovered this, i believe, within one week, and then we changed it. the mailing for that was pretty great, so what we did was change it, the area of the corner is very minor, so we decided to leave the information on our website. president hwang: ok. continue. sorry to interrupt you. >> it's ok. so we basically issued all of the permits for them when they

got their health and fire business license, and there are several permit numbers, which is, the single truck is 11mff- 0024 from 2011, and the renewal on that, because it is an annual permit, and the annual permits for mobile food, they expire on march 15 of every year, so this one was a renewed in march 200012, march 8, and that is for the single track. the single track. president hwang: did you say