that was renewed? director goldstein: that was with 0035. president hwang: ok. >> and then 11mff-0021 was the m;ulti -- multi-truck, and that was issued february 21 of this

year. so all of our updates are on our web page, and then for all our renewals, those can be appealed, as well, so if they have any questions on that one, they can give us a call or email us if they have any questions at dpw.org. vice president fung: i am finished. -- are you finished? i have a couple of questions. when they make the request for multiple truck locations, your diagram shows all three trucks in the same location. they are allowed to be either in one location or several locations with multiple trucks?

>> for multiple, it is one location, and one truck, it can be multiple locations. vice president fung: if that was not multiple trucks at that location, then it would be in excess of 300 feet. from grumpy's. >> meeting this one right here? the multiple truck or the single truck? vice president fung: i am going by the diagram, which shows that the specific situation. i think this was prepared by the permit holder. it shows three trucks in line at that location on front street.

therefore, with three trucks, it is 250 feet away. >> that is correct. vice president fung: if it is a single truck, it would be in excess of 300 feet? >> that is correct. vice president fung: that is really not the point i would be interested in. earlier, you indicated that you folks made the determination that they could continue with the same application with no further notice requirement. that was a department determination. >> yes, with the determination. vice president fung: did you share that with the permit holder? or -- >> yes. vice president fung: thank you.

director goldstein: ok, if there are no further questions, we can move into public comment. thank you. of the members of the public who would like to speak on this item? please raise your hands. ok, if you could please line up for us on the fall wall -- far wall, that would expedite things if you're able to do that. people who are employed by the pri older are not allowed to speak at this time. i just want to make that clear. the first speaker can please step forward. that would be you, and we do ask that you do give our clerk a copy of the speaker card or business card so we can actually refer to your name in our

minutes. thank you. you have three minutes. go ahead. >> thanks. my name is chris. i work downtown at battery st. for link tv, satellite media. i just want to spoke in favor of off the grid. i notice someone come to speak about the other restaurants. i have been there. there are a lot of people work in my intense industry, where we only a five or 10 minutes to run out and get something, and this is needed in this location. there are not great options. there are places across the street for coffee.

some of the elements are about that, but we enjoy it. off the grid. director goldstein: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. my name is mike. i am a manager at a family and small business located in san francisco where we a point about 25 people to operate a restaurant and two food trucks. allowing them to continue to sell. there is a demand for us to be in this area. we have been received so well in this area along with the other food trucks. when we ask people what they love so much, their answer is unique style of indian food.

our food is the exact opposite of what would be a classic american pb -- pub fare. we serve puff pastry. director goldstein: i am sorry to interrupt you. i am looking at the permit, and it seems that you would be one to benefit from this permit, so i do not think it would be inappropriate. but i can definitely see both sides of the argument. director goldstein: it is not the that your comments are not important. the board rules are that people affiliated need to speak under the time allotted to the party, and since you are a beneficiary of one of those listed under the permit, you would need to speak on the time allotted to the party.

president hwang: those are our rules. thank you. director goldstein: it is up to the president. >> may i speak to the rule? director goldstein: yes. >> the person who made the appeal, you are not supposed to speak. neither of these vendors are employed by them. they are not under contract, where their employees or subcontractors are from off the grid, which is an entirely separate company, so there is no real affiliation other than that they are a consultant. they benefit, sure. they are benefiting, sure. and if it is benefit, then you are right, they are benefiting. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: so we will hear from anybody else who is

not a food truck operator falling under this permit. any other members of the public who wish to speak? ok, seeing none -- >> one of the vendors wanted to hand in this petition of hundreds of signatures. i do not know if you allow it. president hwang: there were signatures submitted with part of the brief. thank you. director goldstein: so, commissioners, the matter is submitted. president hwang: i do have a question i did not ask of the appellants. grumpy's -- thinking. one of the points made by the permit holder's attorney is that grumpy's is a member of the golden gate restaurant

association. is that true? >> i believe that is correct. president hwang: and we have received notice. >> actually, i misspoke. i do not know that they are a member or not, and i'm glad you asked the question, because the rules make it easy for you. there is no question here that they did not get notice, and they were required to be noticed, and the reason for that is while there may be many other ways to get notice -- president hwang: counsel, you are not answering the question, and you are making for their arguments. >> i do not know the answer. president hwang: the second question might be addressed by the answer you are given me -- giving me. i think you are going to the

point that that is neither here nor there. that is not part of what we need to do today. was there actual notice by your client? >> there was no actual notice, and i think part of the reason is what you heard today. while it might be in neighborly act to try to talk to the competitors, and even while a california street may be super vigilant at looking at the website, the reason the statute requires action on notice is said that when you are here, you do not have to parse through the veracity of what is being said here tonight, begin to really do not know what happened, but what we do know is that the rules required the actual notice, and it was not given. had it been given, we would not be here tonight. the reason it was not given and a middle-age not by the city, it was due to the city, which is what the statute says. president hwang: i understand

your argument. i just wanted the facts. your position is that your client actually did not have any notice of the trucks existence within 300 feet from your client's property. >> that is correct. president hwang: thank you. vice president fung: who is going to start? commissioner: go ahead. vice president fung: i will start. i believe the department erred

without providing notice within their own guidelines, and therefore i am in support of a hearing. a jurisdiction request. president hwang: i am similarly inclined, although there are equities going in both directions, and that makes it a more difficult decision, but -- you know, errors impact both a permit holder and the appellant. makes it difficult. commissioner hurtado: yes, i am in agreement. this is unfortunate for the permit holder, but it is an error on the city's behalf, and unfortunately, we have to follow the rules, and i would vote to

grant the hearing and make that motion, the jurisdiction request. president hwang: is that your motion? >> yes. director goldstein: is that for both permits? based on the lack of notice? to grumpy's. ok, mr. pacheco, when you are ready, if you can call the roll, please? supervisor kim: secretary pacheco: -- secretary pacheco: we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to grant both of these jurisdiction requests and reopen the appeal period on the basis of lack of notice to grumpy's restaurant. on that motion, vice president fung? vice president fung: aye.

mr. pacheco president hwang? jurisdiction is granted, and requester now has any of five- day appeal period which ends this coming monday for both. director goldstein: think. ok, we will move on to the next item, which is item 5b, a rehearing request for washington street. the board received a letter from louie's chinese, and that appeal to a 12-039. we will start with the requesting party or his

representative. >> thank you. i am representing him. he is here with an interpreter if after i am done there are any questions that he can answer directly. director goldstein: i went to make sure that they have the ability to translate your comments as well as the board, so six minutes. to allow the translation. >> i appreciate that. thank you, commissioners, for hearing us tonight. i know that the requirements for a granting of the rehearing which is extraordinary reasons, and i think there are extraordinary reasons and issues to grant a rehearing for this matter.

there is no question, and i think the department itself would recognize that there is a major language issue regarding louie's restaurant. vice president fung: excuse me. you need to identify yourself. >> my name is -- and i am representing louie's restaurant. it was not presented to the department, and i think the department was even aware, and unfortunately, it was not presented at the first hearing. you will find in public comment that this is a major issue for the community, and it is based on this and on the evidence that you would hear that really requires a we hearing so the commission can fairly determine and adjudicate what happened and

whether or not disclosure made sense, and i start with the fact that none of the notices that were received by the department were bilingual. they were all in english, and the evidence that they did not get to hear is the fact that although the notice but required certain action, the action was taken. the restaurant immediately contacted outside vendors, outside vendors that dealt with all of the issues that were raised. including machine repairs,

including pest control. these were done immediately. the problem is the abatement hearing, which was not in chinese, the operator did not know exactly what that was. he showed up, and there is no dispute. he showed up without the documents, and when the inspectors said, "did you do this," he said, "yes, i did." they said, "where are the documents?" and he said, "they are not with me." no documents. that is the same as our determination. we will shut you down. the interesting thing is the inspector came back on march 14 to issue the notice it was shut down.

he inspected the property because he was there. he saw the kitchen and he saw the other areas and agreed there had been a remarked change. because of the restaurant -- a language barrier, he was not willing to change or continue the abatement hearing, any of that. the operator and the restaurant was not given the opportunity to establish the took action to keep this open. the commission also -- the board here did not hear from the community at the last hearing there is major issues in chinatown with these restaurants and the continued attempt to meet the health requirements and keep them open. there are language issues, there are economic issues, there was a major economic issue here

because of the work of the tower that was going on behind the restaurant for over four years which is the city college building that destroyed a lot of the economics of this restaurant. all those -- all those would be addressed as well as this operator's plan which is to continue with requirements to set up the continued outside vendors which he is on a schedule for of twice a month to continue the machine maintenance, to continue with his own internal inspections. the fairness issue its to be addressed by the commission, not on the merits tonight. none of these issues and the department will tell you there was a major language problem with this vendor. none of these issues are in

chinese. this vendor did not understand what he needed to present at the abatement hearing. he would have presented that. the evidence that -- [inaudible] shows he had these documents and he took this action and it is unfortunate he was not allowed to do that and therefore we would strongly ask for a rehearing on the merits of this issue. i do not know if there is questions for me or for the operator. president hwang: i do not know if it was translated. you did not stop, sir. >> i would say my presentation i have gone over with the operator. prior to this. he clearly understood, most of this was information i obtained from him. he is here if there are questions. the information i provided to you was your extensive

questioning and talking with the operator over the last few days. i certainly -- he is here to answer any questions. i can certainly answer the questions i have from reviewing all this documentation. >> i have to questions but let me disclose i did review the tape and i have read the materials on the currents of mission for the rehearing and the previous submission. i am familiar enough to be able to act on this case tonight. the pictures that you showed, when were those taken? >> i believe these pictures, i can find out specifically. these were taken after the initial inspection, after the work of the outside vendors was done. >> you need to speak into the

microphone. >> you need to identify yourself. >> i am the owner of louie's california chinese cuisine at 646 washington street. [speaking foreign language] >> that was taken on february 27. >> one last question.

in the previous hearing, the department went at great length to explain they had bilingual personnel at the inspections with a department. are you saying that the services, translation services were not provided? >> i am not saying the department did not have bilingual personnel. the department did and on different inspection dates, there was english speaking inspectors and there was bilingual speaking inspectors but they were attacked him. it was not someone who would translate both necessarily at the same time and when an abatement notice was issued, it was not issued in -- bilingually. the branches saying this is what

you need to do. they gave an abatement notice in english. they did not give him a notice in english and chinese. >> any of the questions? >> i am done, thank you. >> the abatement notice would notify your client that there is an abatement hearing scheduled. the client attended the hearing. >> correct. there were deficiencies that needed to be corrected. a hearing after that, he corrected the deficiencies, went to the abatement hearing but was not sure what it was for or why he had to be there if he actually did correct the deficiencies. at the hearing, you will hear podcast, did you fix these things and he said i did. do you have proof and he said

sure. where is it? at my restaurant. could i come back? we cannot do that. this is the hearing date. we're not allowed to continue it. that is where we are. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> anything else? >> eis there reason why you never mentioned any language barrier? >> i must say that i did not put those papers together. and i have only recently become involved in this. what it does say and i have looked at these issues and spoken to the operator and understood this issue of the language problem. there is no question that it is there. i do believe that because of economic issues, this operator

was still behind him. this was suffering at a deficit. and economic deficit and a language deficit. he did the best he could to appeal and put the papers together. i agreed to become involved. that is why we're here today. there are documentations that put together but i understood the role -- rule because it was late you could not take that so i made the presentation to you today. >> we will hear from the department now. i am finished.

>> good evening. i am a senior environmental health specialist for the san francisco department of public health. i am the food safety inspector for the southwest quadrant of chinatown's district which does include the restaurant, louie's chinese california cuisine. it is the department's position that he has not presented any information that contradicts the documented evidence prevent -- presented to this board. that evidence included three years of stark photographic evidence of the most negligent and agreed to a sanitary conditions i have personally encouraseen. a documented recidivism which returned in intensi