by both part ies. it's stated whereas they don't have objections to subito's itself, the concern is about the path of travel and accessible to the sidewalk leading to their facility. so it was evaluated on how wide the sidewalk is also. our minimum requirements are 6' path of travel at all times, perour regulations. i would like to find out from the gentleman who showed that picture from senor sigs of that location and the time it was, so we can notify that mobile food truck that they are in violation, based upon how it was set up, the permitting requirements in this case. >> because of the email, would you follow up on that, or does your department normally follow-up on emails regarding

dispute or not dispute? i don't know if i'm saying that right. >> in this case the email, along with the documentation is submitted during the director's hearing process. >> did you get any feedback from that email, or the department decided that they weighted and decided not to follow-up? >> i'm uncertain if the hearing officer followed up. >> thank you >> thank you. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> who is going to start? >> i have an opinion. >> i always have opinions. >> go ahead.

>> commissioners, it's interesting that both sides spent so much time arguing -- not arguing, but detailing out their position on notice and that portion of due ?

>> thank you and commissioner honda? >> aye [tpwhr-rbgs/] . the vote is 4-0 and this matter is continued >> i will call for a short break.

[ gavel ] >> we're resuming the board of appeals meeting for january 16th, 2013 and i'm going to call item 12, appeal no. 12-142, poa with an kothari doing business as as the chai chart versus the department of public works bureau of street use and mapping. application nato 12mff0083. is the appellant in the room? i do not see the apellant in the room and we have not seen the appellant here this evening. we have the department here.

if you would like to have the department speak? >> sure. >> good evening commissioners. john kwong from the department of public works once again. in this specific case for this permit for the service of chai tea at 79 new montgomery, the department denied in it this case for like foods. in the evaluation there is a starbucks coffee and jumba juice, who serve similar types of drinks it's relates to tai chi or chai coffee in this case. we denied it and we believe in the evaluation what was appropriate based upon the guidelines. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment?

i'm going to give you two. i'm barry hearing it right now. >> eke. i also have 102-degree fever. i would like my three minutes. thank you. >> i have to give you two. >> you can have three. let's not fight about this. go ahead and take your three. >> i wasn't notified about the chai cart at the new montgomery. >> state your name record. >> my name is allison rowe. they are within the 300' radius and only tonight is the first time i heard of it. referring to the overhead projector we have chai latte on our morning beverage menu. i find it odd that the chai cart was rejected because jamba juice with cold drinks had chai on their menu and therefore it

would be a competing product. what we just heard on 2nd street, [ inaudible ]. so if a juice store has chai and is too much, why is a coffee street across from a coffee cart not too much? i wasn't notified. i agree that consistent application of guidelines should be practiced by all departments of the city. and this is a really egregious, i think is the word, bordering on arbitrary. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> anybody else? thank you. >> thank you. i'm jim patrick with patrick and company of we have a store which is very close to 79 new montgomery street, probably 150'. i don't know 200'. we were not notified and the first thing i heard about this is when i saw it on the agenda when i got here. what is going

on with the notification? it just seems like it just doesn't exist. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. kwong, anything further? commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i am inclined to deny the appeal, uphold -- i'm sorry, deny the appeal, and strike the permit. uphold the department. sorry. based on what was presented. >> i agree. are you making that a motion? >> yes. >> i will second that motion. >> the motion then to deny the appeal and uphold the department? >> yes. >> so on that motion from the president to deny this appeal, up hold the denial. and it was on the basis of the testimony presented? >> on the record. >> by mr. kwong. >> thank you. >> i think i would prefer it's

on the basis of the department's analysis. >> i will take that amendment to my motion. i will accept. >> so again, on that motion from the president to uphold this denial. on the basis of the dpw's analysis. on that motion, commisioner fung? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado is absent. vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4-0, with denial is upheld on that basis. >> we'll call item no. 9, appeal no. 12-101,shumei fang doing business as ceo health club, inc., versus department of public health, appealing a 90-day suspension issued on august 14th, 2012 of a massage establishment permit. director's case no. msg12 -39.

this matter is on for hearing. we'll start with the appellant mr. horcher, you have 7 minutes. >> it's getting late. i am soring you are feeling ill and congratulations president hwang and vice president lazarus on your ascension. all of that talk about coffee and the gentleman talking about going through law school in the '70s and i can relate to that experience going through night school. having a hard time trying to stay awake during procedures class. i recall a professor making key points and one thing he always said, you should always examine the issue of jurisdiction. i have two primary points on that issue. today as indicated or foreshadowed by brief the