>> we are moving on to item number 7 rkts appeal number 12-707. protest thing issuance on may 18, 2012 to pickle/besser family trust of a permit to alter a building, interior soft

dem in addition only on ground floor and basement, no exterior work per ab-017, the application number is 2012/05/14/0406, it's on today. have you gotten confirmation pr the interpreter that they are set up and ready to go. >> the last day that ms. wong left, she didn't mention it. >> she said she needed one more minute. >> i can go double check. >> if you would nlt mind or maybe she'll see me asking for it and maybe she'll come in. >> to come to this room? >> well, i just want to make sure -- >> okay, thank you so much, okay. so, president hwang. >> yes, and i just wanted to say, thank you all for coming out here, i know you've waited a little while but i wanted to take this out of order and i

wanted to hear from mr. duffy first just so i can focus on what the permit is that we're dealing with today. >> good evening, commissioners, this building permit's for 4218 mission street is only for dem -- demolition on the ground floor and basement, no exterior work, it lets some people do some interior demo, it's not a change of use, a lot of people use it and simply because it's sometimes for demolition, it's easier to find out what the structural elements of the building are and it exempts

them from doing any accessibility work because it can be done then on the future permit, so this is only simply for interior demolition, it doesn't change the use and occupancy of the building. >> do you know what that is? >> yes, on the building permit application, it stated there's retail and occupancy and a single family home on r3, a single family dwelling unit and it's a basement type 5 construction, so the existing use is retail and as of this permit, the use does not change, it's still retail. i believe there is a future permit file for a change of use. >> and that is not before us today? >> that is not before us tonight, no. >> okay. >> okay. and i might ask you to come back up after the appellants

have spoken. >> so should we hear from the appellant then? >> yes. >> we'll hear from the appellant now, 7 minutes. >> good evening, board members, i'm leon chow, the appellant and probably it will take less than 7 minutes. first, i want to address to the board that, yeah, i do understand that this is an interior permit, but my brief is an argument is opposing the permit on the unit used for the mcd, medical cannabis dispensary, so my argument is that it is not necessarily limited to -- for the details of interior is, and i

understand that the permit departments that have talked about that the use is the retail, but you also understand that the use for the retail is more the medical cannabis dispensary, so i stand with what i submitted on my brief and i will be very short on that as i said before and real clear that i state my position that the permits should be repealed because it lies within 1 thousand feet of schools and this needs to be repealed because it lies within 1 thousand feet of certain recreation buildings and schools and child care facilities, and it also should be repealed because it also lies within the radius of

accessible to children under 18 either on a facility or also within heavy traffic like fast food chains like kfc or other religious organizations that heavily traffics within the districts, within the, you know, distance, and i also want to address that, you know, on my brief that this is about the high density, high concentrations of the mcd and i continue to say that this is my condition, there will be proceedings later on for this hearing that argument will be up to the board member here

whether there is certain organization of facility is tribute within -- prohibited within a thousand feet or not prohibited within a thousand feet. a similar case two years ago in 2010, 3139teraville about the mcd which i believe the board member is here and you have your decisions on, i understand there will be a difference in between each mcd permit and because of different locations, i just want to emphasize that the concern about closer distance within the distance on child care, on schools and other organizations serving people under 18 is more in 4218 mission street, so i'd like you

to take the considerations on that. i know there will be a lot of speakers who want to also address the case. i want the board member to really consider this is really about the neighborhood, the residents who live, raise their children around the area. thank you. >> i just want to be clear of the arguments you made today and in your briefing are for a future permit that has not yet been issued, correct? we've got a likeness issue, don't you agree? >> i have discussion with mr. pacheko when i submitted by appeal filing, and you know, understanding that without understanding the process of

difference in between the two permits, that, you know, i will proceed it, but it's also been rescheduled hopefully looking for the exterior permit has been issued. that's why i also make a request on rescheduling and state my reasons for that because i want to actually address all the exterior permits too, but it was -- i believe it was denied by you. >> it was objected to by the other party and that other party has a due ro kress right when an appeal is filed to have a hearing scheduled, go as scheduled. i'm not going to take away anyone's due process right, i'm not going to take away your right to appeal, but if you look at this room and look at the hour, it's within your rights to bring this appeal and to argue for something that is

not before us, that's within your right but i just wanted to make clear for the record that the arguments you're making are for a future permit that's not been issued, correct? >> i hear you. >> correct? yes, okay, thank you. >> mr. chow, do you have any arguments that go to the permit? excuse me, let me finish my question, please. do you have any arguments as to why the permit that is before us tonight should be revoked? i'd like to hear about those if you have any arguments relevant to this permit. >> as i hear from the department that you call for and before me and the argument is that this unit is using for retail and i believe -- i believe, you can correct me if

my belief is wrong, the use is for medical cannabis dispensary and i'm here opposing the retail use. i know and understand that the technicalities of arguments about this is interior and there will be exterior permits coming up, i also understand too, but, you know, my argument today, i know that it's late, but i'm arguing about the use of this unit area that the parcel that's been using is for the medical cannabis dispensary. >> okay, i understand your argument and obviously it's up to us to determine whether it's relevant to what we're hearing tonight which is this permit before us, so do you have anything else to add?

>> no, you know, i will -- i totally understand about this is the board decision, board member decision, and i try the best i can to actually make it my case. i understand that there will be at the beginning, there's two permits, and i do try to also look into combining the two, but you know, as i said, as president hwang has been talking about and there's a due process and -- >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you, we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, board members, i'm joe al ford, i represent the permit holder, kevin read is also president here today, i will try to be brief.

as this board is well aware, there's no jurisdiction here. i understand the appellant would like to challenge all mcd's at any level in any proceeding. i suppose due process allows him to do that no matter how frivolous these appeals may be, in particular here, the appellant is seeking to drive up the cost associated with constructing a well managed medical cannabis dispensary, he's driving up those costs by filing what is a frivolous appeal for purposes of these proceedings. his arguments are all directed to the use of this facility, that was already determined in a different proceeding back in february, on february 16th of 2012, the planning commission approved the use permit or at least prelim nailer approved the use permit, the appellant is seeking to challenge that determination but this isn't the appropriate method of doing

that. there was an appeals process that he could have employed connection with that approval, that process wasn't used, instead he waited until the dispensary tried to bring the dispensary into compliance with san francisco rules dealing with that and then he tries to challenge a building permit or a demolition permit which is what's at issue here, and there is a tremendous distinction between a use permit which is not in issue today versus a demolition permit which is at issue today. this demolition permit is for the interior of the facility, it has no impact on the outside neighborhood or no detrimental impact on the outside neighborhood, there hasn't been a contention made that there's no reason to overturn the granting of this demolition permit, so in short, the members of the board recognize,

there's simply no jurisdiction here. there may be -- it may be true that down the road, there might be some rightness to a right permit challenge, but that's not what we're here today. we're here today to see if we should make important interior renovations, there was a reason why the green cross got the use permit. the green cross got the first medical cannabis dispensary permit and it did so because the various boards that the green cross has been in front of recognized mr. read to be a responsible dispensary operator. they decided that medical cannabis dispensary are important there the seriously ill patients would rely on

marijuana as medicine, the general plan in san francisco is to allow for medical cannabis dispensary and it is important for parents to be given to responsible mcd operators, as far back as 2005, he's known to be a med can dispensary cannabis operator, he brings enhanced security to the neighborhood, he received an a plus rate -- rating from the better business bureau. he will enhance this neighborhood, but in short, the argument that is are being made here about the place being located within a thousand feet of a daycare facility, planning code section 790.141

specifically exempts daycare facilities from the thousand foot rule. he is admittedly according to the appellant not within a thousand feet of a school, there is no reason to deny the permit or revoke this permit on that basis and that's exactly what the planning commission found back in february when it approved the use permit, but again, board members, we're not here about the use permit, we're here about the demolition permit. there's no argument made why the demolition permit should be revoked and for that, i would submit that the appeal should be denied. thank you. >> thank you. >> i do want to ask you -- first of all, i want to correct the record, we do have jurisdiction over this appeal. i know what the point is you were trying to make but there was a question raised by the appellant on the retail use. would there be any change with the demolition because we heard from mr. duffy that it will not

impact the change to the kurpt retail use, so i'd like to hear you help clarify that question. >> i'll see if i can. i think it's relatively straight forward and that's -- the billing is already zoned as a retail use establishment and that's simply not at issue today. today the issue is some demolition work that will be done in the interior of the building. >> is it currently being used for any reason? >> no, it's vacant. >> and there will not be use of any -- you will not be selling any medical cannabis or dispensing with any medical cannabis unless and until this future permit is issued? all the appeals have been resolved? >> that's absolutely correct, mr. read is always having the necessary permits, he's not going to start selling marijuana until he gets his

permit to do so. >> okay, thank you. >> just a general question because i don't really know is sequence, so the planning department has okayed the use, is that correct? go ahead. >> yes, i think it's very important distinction twob made here, the board has made this distinction, the appellant has understood this distinction, the item that's on appeal here is a building permit, this permit was not reviewed by planning, it's an interior soft demolition, it does not allow a change of use. if they were to operate an mcd after, the f the board allows this permit to move forward, if they were to operate tomorrow, the planning department would enforce that. >> you approve the use and they have to come back after they've completed their work?

>> so, they submitted, the building permit that authorizes the change of use was submitted in 2011, in february of 2011 went through a lengthy process in our department including neighborhood notification and a public hearing at the planning commission where it was approved by the planning commission in february. we approved the permit in april and routed it on to other agencies, we're not the only ones that review building permits and one like this needs more reviews. it's my understanding that it was just approved by that department on august 31, it still has to go [inaudible] at which time it would be right for appeal within a 15 day period to this board. the permit that is on appeal now which is a different permit number all together was

submitted in may and issued in may, and mr. duffy noted, it is to do some interior demolition, it does not authorize a change of use, and to be clear and before we enter into several hours of public comment, this permit would not allow the mcd, the permit that is on appeal right now has no authorization to go with the mcd, they have decided to come forward with this hearing, this has no bearing whether an mcd is located at this property. that permit is separately working its way through the system. we've been in contact with the board's offices and everyone is well aware of this fact, it's been monitored by all parties, that would be the proper permit to appeal if you have concerns

about the mcd, this permit, it makes no reference to an mcd, it doesn't allow an mcd. if they were to operate an mcd under this permit, they would be in violation of the department of public health code requirements, the other permit which is the right permit would be issued, it would appeal to this board, you would have proper jurisdiction to make determination of the mcd, appropriateness of that use, then depending on the decision of the board, if this board approves the permit, they would be able to start construction, they need to complete a process with the department of public health which handles the use related issues, they have to get their proper licensing there but at least they would have a use under the planning code at that point after the building permit, not this building permit, the other building permit would be issued. i'm available for any questions. >> absolutely.