>> we provided the radiofrequency report as well as the standard in our written comments. because of the low-power nature of this, when there is somebody who is concerned, oftentimes, just having the in home verification is the best and most hands-on way to resolve the concerns. and i said before the hearing today they would like that. regarding the specifics, this is the smallest equipment for this type of technology. and the box will be tier one, except that it is 12 in. instead of 14 in.. it just does not get smaller. the equipment inside its smaller, but it has to be in a shroud to protect it from the elements. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the

department now. again, six minutes. >> good evening, president garcia and members of the board. in both of these situations with both of these permits, the department followed 11-09b of the code. no verification was required. in the process as it relates to 11.09b, verification was not required and planning was not required to review it. based upon the sec information, the department processed those permits. from a process viewpoint, we

deny here. the board recognizes the short coming from article 11.09b and establish article 25 of the public works code, which requires specific review requirements for the planning department depending on the site location, as well as the notification department based on -- notification requirement based on the size of the equipment. in this case, based on article 25, given that they were residential areas, planning to review it cannot based on the size -- to review it, based on the size of the equipment, they plan to review it. however, there was no error found it and we would ask the commissioners to " -- to uphold the approval. >> i think i just heard that the permit holder conceded that

jurisdiction should be granted. are you sticking your position? >> the permit holder can have that perspective, but the department believes it did nothing wrong. >> the permit holder has one year to initiate work, or to fully installe? >> under 11.09b under the department of issuance, the permit holder has one year to install the facility and complete it. >> and does that include the sign off by your department? >> we are determined that the completion is the time when they can generate equipment specifically. there had been discussion of

what is complete. the city ultimately made that determination that this is deemed complete when the facility is able to generate a signal. and if they were not completed within that one--- >> and if there were not completed within that one-year timeframe, what would happen? >> the terms would expire. the applicant would need to refile under article 25 of the public works code. >> and your department has deemed it to be complete? >> as stated by mr. ernst. >> 145. >> correct. it is my destiny that they were able to generate a single unit based on battery backup. >> thank you. >> on the permit that has expired, what do you do when the work is not completed within a year? is that still a valid

outstanding permit at this point, the about -- the brussels street permit? grex the permit is now deemed invalid because it expired. -- >> the permit is now deemed invalid because it expired. >> why are we undertaking a jurisdictional request for a permit that has expired? is there a need to do that? or is it expire? >> it might be that it came up after the briefs. in this case, much like a building permit that has not completed the work and the permits expire, what the department would normally require is to renew it. under this case, we require it to be renewed under article 25, which is a recent mission of application. >> if they are amenable to a jurisdiction request on the permit that has not expired, i would move -- not necessarily

right now. i mean, i would be amenable to doing that one for that one also, given that we do not know the status of the permit at this point. >> well, let's wait and see. >> is there any public comment on this item? if there is, step forward, please. >> [inaudible] >> know. -- no. president garcia: 2 minutes. director goldstein: the president has said it two minutes. >> my name is linda. i live in the hall next to the one that the equipment installed in front of. i want to echo my neighbors sentiment that this is definitely not wanted in our neighborhood. this is a very residential area where there is an elementary school half a block away. there are young children walking by every day. the fact that we were not notified and we were not able to

appeal in a proper time frame because we were not notified in the original -- at the original point. we would like to respectfully urge you to allow us to do so. director goldstein: if you would not mind filling out a speaker cards. >> sure. president garcia: miss ernst, would you come up to the microphone, please? it certainly makes the decision for the board easier if you stipulate to granting jurisdiction on the first one. but i do not think you are accurate when you state that this board has in every case when a 11.09b is ruled that we have granted jurisdiction. i'm curious as to why he made that comment. >> i believe the first time this process was started was in december of 2010.

we received a jurisdiction request. since then, there have been -- off the top of my head, three so far, and this will be the fourth. and those three were granted -- were granted jurisdiction requests for the reason that the standard of review is not whether or not the process was followed. the department of public works did follow the old process. but the granting of the request is a broader-based request of whether the city did something intentionally or not intentionally to provide notice. when you look at an ordinance that did not provide notice, even if it was unintentional oversight, there still was not as for those permits. >> i am understand that, but i do not feel that is responsive to the request that you feel

every time there has been a jurisdiction requested where a 11.09b ruled, we have granted it. >> for next gen, yes. there has been a denial of the appeal a ultimately. >> i remember one that had to do with whether or not it was a good view. to me, that was a very different situation. but you have given your answer and you have granted that you are willing to stipulate jurisdiction. that pretty much closes that off. if any of you want to make a comment, if it is very brief, we will entertain it. >> all of you received my link the request in writing, so i did not feel the need to go there today. but i do believe that next g is out of compliance with their

permits. >> thank you. submitted? director goldstein: yes, it is submitted. president garcia: comments? commissioner hillis: i anders and the neighbors' concerns. i would move to grant both requests. president garcia: thank you. i'm not sure that was her intent. i think she was talking up ranting jurisdiction on 156. and the appellant would have an opportunity on that anyway because there will be notification on the new permits. ibacks item she was talking about 145. >> she stipulated 145. >> 145 was brussels.

>> 156. 156 is a moot point, but it is still unclear to me if they -- if it is still active president garcia: i think it is expired. >> i do not understand why is even before us if it is expired. commissioner fung: permit #145 located at 644 morse street was an approved permit. what happened was that next g is stipulating that they agreed to jurisdictional request for that is a vacation. the other location is 145, which is at 43 bustles -- 43 brussels. that expired because they failed to renew in a timely manner.

it will have to go three reapplication process, which will undergo article 25. i'm not sure what the commissioner's decision is on this given that the permit has expired. it is invalid. president garcia: under article 25, all the things they are requesting have to do with notice. at that time, when they got the notice that this was going to happen, then they would be able to file anyway. but it is still your choice as to what -- commissioner hillis: i would have to vote to either accept or deny its jurisdiction request on an expired merriment -- expired permit. if it is moot, i would just accept the jurisdiction request. >> there are two jurisdiction request. you can make a separate motion for each of the permits.

it sounds like the board is inclined to grant jurisdiction on the one that is denied, and not the other. president garcia: your first motion applies to morris, which would be 10wr-0145. director goldstein: and that is on the basis that the permit holder has conceded that to juror -- jurisdiction. cracks on that motion, with respect to permit -- >> on that motion, with respect to permit number 10wr-145, president garcia. commissioner fung: before you vote, may i make a short statement? i am willing to go along with

that vote, but the brief and what has been presented does not give me the issues i would normally consider to be pertinent to a jurisdiction request. president garcia: for the benefit of the requestor, it might pay to listen to that comment, because i would agree with that comment, but i'm going to vote yes on the motion. director goldstein: commissioners, shall i can sit -- continue with the roll call? vice-president hon-- vice presit hwang: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. is there a motion to request? commissioner hillis: i will

motion to grant the permit. president garcia: how would you describe the different between as granting jurisdiction and not granting jurisdiction, and they would still have the opportunity to lay the file. which is simpler for the department and which is simpler for the requestor? or is there a difference at all? director goldstein: i think there's a difference a few grant jurisdiction over this expired permit, and an appeal is expired, it does not touch the new permit that would be filed. they would have to file an appeal separately on that new permit. commissioner hillis: which they would have to do if we denied jurisdiction request, right? but if the permits expired, i do not understand why even if we approved jurisdictional request today we would ever hear of this again if there is no valid permit. president garcia: what might create more confusion, too, to grant jurisdiction unexpired

permits that would to be allowed the processes however they would happen. vice president hwang: the jurisdiction requestor is in the room. if there is any question of places, this is the time to get it clarified. if it is expired and there are no issues, then the jurisdiction requestor would not take an appeal. president garcia: you cannot speak from there. >> i do not think the officers would accept an expired permit appeal. >> i would suggest a continuance just to look into that. i think there's a question as to whether the board can take jurisdiction. president garcia: if far more elegant solution would be for us to vote not to take

jurisdiction. >> i would agree with that. we were not aware that this permit has expired. i was not aware that next g had responded to the request. if you deny the jr request for the brussels street vacation, then those property owners have opportunity for the process to get to unfold. they will have the opportunity to respond. president garcia: thank you. commissioner hillis: with the caveat that i still do not understand why i am voting on an expired permit. president garcia: do whatever you are most comfortable with. commissioner hillis: i withdraw my motion. president garcia: and i would make a motion that we deny jurisdiction on brussels for the reason that there has been a

technical glitch. the permit has expired. now they will have to go through article 25 procedures rather than 11.09b. notice will be given to whoever lives within a certain radius of that particular installation. vice president hwang: aye. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. that motion carries -- director goldstein: that motion carries 5-0. we will move onto item #5, appeal number 11-145. it is appealing the denial on december 14th, 2011 of the

mobile phone for to lead permit for the sale of african coffee, exotic teas and sweets. application no. 11mff-0111. you need to speak into that microphone. >> b i t guy told me to speak with this. >> and we need to have the corte switch to the other microphone. are you ready with the seven minutes? >> yes. >> excellent, please begin. >> thank you for allowing me to talk about might permit and are wrongly denied a permit. >> state your name for the record. >> absolutely. i am shasha lewis, the owner of exotic coffees and teas. >> -- president garcia: use that

platform over there and rotate the microphone and you can use the equipment and rotate back. now move the microphone closer to yourself, if you would. >> this one? president garcia: there you go. >> my name. shasha lewis, the sole owner of exotic coffees and teas. i specialize in a specialty coffee only grown in africa. i worked with dpw to put together at the permit. and in doing so, i was informed by dpw that it was appealed. i went to a hearing and the hearing determined that i have like food. i completely disagree with that. i did it go and interview each business that was a restaurant

and asked them specifically if they have like food, coffee beans or tee boxes that they sold. and all of them said no. i'm not quite sure why my permit was denied. it specifically says in the ordinance, "like food shop take into consideration the ethnicity of the food and the composition of each menu, as well as other issues if it is appropriate. but if a conflict of like food exist -- for example, a coffee cart should not affect a traditional diner just because it awful -- also offers coffee on the menu. while a hot dog cart could affect adversely restaurant that sells sandwiches. with my card, i am a seller of coffee beans only, and tee

boxes, that are african. -- tea boxes, that are offered in. i do not see that being offered. i do awful -- also provide brewed coffee and tea. but i do not see how it will conflict with a pizza restaurant, or a sit-down restaurant. i'm not in front of anybody is building. i'm not competing with anyone directly near me, or within the 300 radius. i would like for someone to consider what i did when i first started this process, which is, i did set myself up with a representative from dpw to design a business that did not fall into the light category -- like category and did not impact

any bodies business in a negative way. and i think i did come together with that business. the fact that i serve coffee and tea, i should not be denied a permit because of that. because my primary business is the been for my country's, and for my continent. i do have as evidence, if necessary, every single business in my 300 mi. radius -- president garcia: 300 ft. >> 300 ft., thank you. whether or not they had african coffee beans or tee boxes for sale. they said, no. many of them did not have any specific type of coffee that they were pursuing, and many served lipton tea.

thank you. do you have any questions? president garcia: i'm sure i do, but i will wait for others to respond. commissioner fung: miss the was, what is the size of your card? >> is about two and a half feet by 5 ft.. commissioner fung: and as i understand it, you are asking for 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.? >> i was asking for 24 hours, but at the beginning of the process, a dpw representative went to the police department and came back with a modified time, and i agreed with that. that was the time that was published in the noi and we went forward with it. but i had originally asked for 24 hours. in retrospect, we will probably

not use all those hours, only because it is completely dead in the area. from that standpoint, the hours are not set in stone, but we did request 24 hours. and the police department on the 20th, prior to the noi, came back with the modified time. the dpw person talked to me about it and i agreed to modify my time, and we went forward. commissioner fung: the last question is, you indicated you had a considerable amount of expenditures for this. did you purchase the court already -- the cart already before you got the final permits? >> i had to. that is why i was trying to get a hold of somebody at dpw to make sure i was not going to make a mistake in that, in

purchasing the cart, the card itself is very expensive, especially with the rights are rights of the health department. the health department would not allow me to get the health permit without seeing the car. even though i went to the health department initially with a layout of the cart and all of the dynamics before purchasing, the health department said they had to see it before they could issue the permit. i called dpw and told them that this is what i needed to do and if there was any problem, anything in the way, tell me now. they said to continue, and i did. and they gave me the permit. president garcia: since the question had to do with cost, what are the non-recoverable costs. let's say, you were given a permit some routes, are there any -- somewhere else, are there any non-recoverable costs that

you are aware of? >> yes, sir. president garcia: you can just tell me there are and -- i don't need exact figures. >> yes, there are. i had to partner with a business that is currently operating a food-service business. i had to purchase inventory. president garcia: i'm not being argumentative. if he were to set up somewhere else, the inventory would still be salable. i get a better way to ask the question is, if you had to move, are you paying for the site that you are currently seeking, and you would have to go through a process where you would have additional new costs? >> yes, sir. i would have to start all over going back three the permit process, going back through the expense of the noi, getting the addresses, which themselves cost $3,000, having to mail them out, which is another four

hundred dollars. and it goes up from there. president garcia: since i have you, i will keep asking my questions. i hope i will be forgiven for that. what else is in your cart beside coffee and tea? >> we serve coffee and tea, and we have some sweets that are available. i think it is otis spunk minor. president garcia: some pastries. cracks not really pastries -- >> not really pastries. they're just -- i think it is two muffins. we only have them more for just looks, because we are not really selling the muffins. that is why we have eight more the instant. we're just taking them out and putting them there. that is if somebody wants coffee, they can also get a muffin.

president garcia: this will be my last question. do you happen to know the with of the sidewalk where you want to set up? >> yes. president garcia: what is it from curb to wall? cracks this location is within the wicked -- >> this location is within the with the of the ordinance. and my car is also within the width on the sidewalk. that was determined at a time with the dpw staff. -- i had of time with the dpw staff. in my notes i do have the coffee cart. president garcia: the idea is that you are within compliance. >> oh, yes. i am within the permitted -- in- line president garcia: required pedestrian space on the sidewalk.