>> good evening and welcome to the may 8, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. in case anyone needs it, we do have an overflow room set up in room 42 1 on this floor so you can go into that room if you'd like and come back in when your item is called. the presiding officer this evening is board president chris fong and she is joined tonight by our vice president ann lazarus, commissioner frank fong, commissioner darrell honda and commissioner darrell [speaker not understood]. to my left is city attorney robert brian he will provide the board with any legal advice

at the controls is our a sis at that point victor pacheco. i'm cynthia goldstein, the department's director. scott sanchez is here, the zoning administrator, he is also representing the planning department and planning commission. joseph did you e duffy is here representing the department of building inspection. john [speaker not understood], manager at the department of public works bureau of street use and mapping is here as well as jasper cain, executive director of the san francisco entertainment commission. at this time, mr. pacheco, if you could please go over the board's meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> professor: the board requests that you turnoff all cell phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceeding. please carry on conversations in the hallway. and the board rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, public holders and department representatives each have 7 minutes to present their cases and 3 minutes for

rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3-minute periods. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate prepaon minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked, but not required, to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during the break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304, between duboce and van ness avenues. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government

television, sfgovtv, cable channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgov tv. thank you for your attention. at this time we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, plea stand, raise your right hand, and say "i do" after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code. thank you. do you solemnly wear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. again, i want it remind folks we have an overflow room in 42 1. because of the fire code, we

can't have supervisor people standing on the side of the room. you'll need to find a seat or move to room 42 1. thank you. item number 1 on our calendar is general public comment. for any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that's not on our agenda, is there any member of the public who wishes to speak under this item? okay, seeing none, then we'll move to item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? okay, seeing none, then we'll move to item number 3, which is the adoption of minutes. commissioners, for your consideration this evening are the board's meeting minutes of the april 24th, 2013 meeting. so, no comments, i move their adoption. is there any public comment on the minutes? okay, seeing none, mr. pacheco, if you could please call the roll. >> professor: on that motion from the president to adopt the

april 24th, 2013 minutes, commissioner fong? >> professor: aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5 to zero, those minutes are adopted. >> thank you. we'll call item 4a. rehearing request, subject property is at 125 crown terrace. the board received a letter from stephen williams appellant requesting rehearing of appeal number 1-59 william versus the department of building inspection with planning department approval decided march 20th, 2013. at that time the board voted 3 to 2 to uphold the subject permit on the basis of the permit is code conforming. the permit holder is crown terrace llc and the project is a horizon' and vertical addition for a building permit application no. 201 11 00 66 31 5s. mr. williams, you have three minutes. >> thank you.

good evening, president and members of the board. steve williams on behalf of the appellant requesting a rehearing in this matter. at the original hearing, the board was told that the proposed plan for the project is calculated right up to a threshold. you were told that by both representatives of the departments that this was a new standard that was set and, therefore, they were shaving it as close as they could to the edge of that standard. meeting the standard of what calculates -- how do you calculate a demolition as opposed to an alteration? and that was the thrust of our appeal last time, is describing this as a de facto demolition. mr. sanchez describes the situation where an architect, a project designs to the standard . but that's not what's happening here and the evidence in front of you, the new evidence that

we presented show that those calculations are not what's being done. what's actually being done is a complete replacement of the building and that's what mr. washington described at the planning commission. and what's been presented to the board as new is the fact that one of the neighbors has consulted with a structural engineer and provides an analysis to the board which shows as a fact that the, the assertions that the planning department ha made accepting the plans from the project sponsor simply cannot be, and that's attached as pages 1 through 3 as the first exhibit to the neighbor's submission to the board. as you recall, the project sponsor asserts that 90% -- and i reattach this. this was the first time around,

it was exhibit 16. it's exhibit a this time around. the project sponsor asserts that 90% of the foundations and walls are being retained in this house, and this is how they qualified as an alteration, not as a demolition. >> mr. williams, if you're using the overhead, you need to refer to it so that it can be switched over. >> in froth of you is exhibit a. ~ front mr. santos says 90% of the walls and foundations are being retained. that's how they arrived at an alteration, not a demolition. what is being presented from the engineer consulted by the neighbor establishes as a fact that under the building code that no part of the foundation can be reused. no part of the exterior walls can be reused. and, in fact, what's happening is they are being replaced in kind, as mr. washington

described at the planning commission. and, so, that's what this board needs to do is rehere this and interpret section 317. i think we missed that lootv time. we didn't get to the interpretation issue because there was so much confusion. that's the narrow issue that i'm asking this board to rehear this matter on. thank you. ~ >> good evening, commissioners, lou blajay for respondent. basically mr. williams holds up a memo dated march 14, 2011, memo from mr. santos as the "smoking gun." things have been misrepresented and this has been misanalyzed. the fact is that the department or the building department and the planning department did not

rely on that memo and the project even changed since that time. it's been two years ago, more than two years since that memo was written. the department did its own independent analysis of section 311 and concluded that everything was done properly. mr. scott sanchez -- mr. williams extensively quotes what happened at the last hearing. he he basically recaps what was said. and mr. scott sanchez is quoted in mr. williams' brief here. it said, in this case they are meeting the requirements of the planning code. and that is not because mr. santos wrote a memo in 2011, but because the department did its own independent analysis of the plans. those plans are part of the record. they were brief, and obviously the plans that are being appealed -- if you look at demolition page sheet d.5, it has a detailed analysis of

demolition and it has both a demolition as it is calculated by the building department and demolition as is calculated by the planning department. and in although analyses, the threshold are substantially below what the department would consider a demolition. that was in the record. commissioners, there is no new information. that wasn't discussed the last time. and i just implore you not to have it rehearing because you have heard this. all the material was in the dockets. it was in the records. this is mr. williams' brief. he admitted it himself. all of the five exhibits that he presented to you are included in the march 20th brief in the original brief. all did he was resubmit them and basically says, well, i disagree with your conclusion. i'd like you to debate section 317. and you did debate section 317 and it's not a perfect law, but it is the law and the

departments have conclude that had this project complies with the law the way it's being interpreted to you and presented to you. all we ask for is equity and trust your staff. don't trust me, don't trust mr. santos. trust your staff. thank you very much, commissioners. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, president fong, member of the board. scott sanchez, planning department. the matter before you is a rehearing request so whether or not there is any new evidence that wasn't presented at the previous hearing or previous breech. while it is [speaker not understood], i don't think the appellant has raised either of these issues successfully. the appellant has raised issues regarding interpretation of the section 317. i think that we did have a very in-depth, very thorough discussion about the requirements of section 317 at our march 20th hearing when the board chose not to grant the appeal on the subject permit.

so, with that, i would respectfully request you deny the hearing request. it's been notice that the building up to the requirements up to what is allowed in the code and the appellant has raised concerns that they have -- during the course of the construction they may exceed that. as stated at the previous hearing, if there is a change in the scope of the permit, if more walls are demolished, we will have to review that and make a determination whether section 317 has been violated. so, the plans that are before you do comply with section 317 in the planning code. there has been no new information presented that disputes that fact and resetfully request you deny the hearing request and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> mr. duffy, please, no? is there any public comment on this item, show of hands anyone who wants to speak on this item.

>> president, commissioner, i'm john kilgan. seven long years i'm still no sod turned. this must be the longest single-family home delay to this process in the history of san francisco. since mr. williams joined the appellants, this project has become the ultimate in nimbiism . through legal cicanery, frivolous distortion ~ and hair splitting misrepresentation of the facts, mr. williams has only one agenda, and that is to

stop this project for as long as he he can. and so that [speaker not understood] incur additional costs and delay the opportunity for them to move into their new family home. mr. williams, you're a disgrace to our profession for the way that you have treated madelein noe and her daughter marianne a. all of them are at the back here today. and you have further, mr. williams, tried to smear mike murphy and his good name and his recent appointment to the port commission. i know a lot of people around this city and i've never heard anyone have a good word to say about you. this whole saga has become

grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre, and unprecedented. president, commissioners, i'll ask you tonight for the people of san francisco, i trust that you as the board of appeals will do the right thing. let the sod now be turned. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? >> i have my notes on here. my name is warren sheets. i live at 10 crown terrace. i've lived in the neighborhood for over 14 years, and i've watched this disgraceful saga

go on. and i was once on the other side where i was in opposition to this project. but after several revisions and after the owner had met with the neighbors one on one and in group format, time after time, i recalled that the proper -- the primary opposition was really being stirred up by an ambulance chaser named mr. steve williams. he has turned this into something absolutely disgraceful. he represents a landlord that does not even live at the property, not to mention live in the state of california, not to mention pay california state taxes. and yet this whole thing is being turned on an innocent

individual whose turn has come to build his house the way he wants to. i own a design firm, one of the largest in the city. i believe that what he has presented is a beautiful project and complementary to the neighborhood. and i think it is time for this to be over. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> [speaker not understood]. you are not entitled to speak at this time. is there anyone else who is not affiliated with the parties that would like to speak? okay, seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i actually have a question for mr. sanchez. the attorney for the permit holder stated that the planning

and building did not rely on exhibit a, the 90% from reservation or preservation of the [speaker not understood] foundation. is that a true statement? >> that is correct. we did a separate analysis using the requirements of section 317. one was done prior to the discretionary review hearing and i did the evaluation prior to our last board of appeals hearing. >> just wanted confirmation for the record. thank you. >> commissioners, the information that was provided in the brief was basically a repeat of what we heard. the testimony tonight is basically a repeat of what we heard. i see no new information and i see no manifest injustice being presented. >> i agree with you, commissioner vaughan. i see no manifest unjust

either. this was just reiteration of what was said at our last hearing and highlighted. so -- >> i'm going to move to deny the rehearing request. >> okay. mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll, please. >> on that motion from commissioner fong to deny the hearing request, president fong? aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? aye. >> [speaker not understood]. >> aye. >> the motion is denied and it will be released. >> we need to clear this aisle. we can't have it blocked. if people who are here for the next item can step out and go to the overflow room in room 42 1 or find a seat, that would be great. the next item is a jurisdiction request at 52 34 mission street, item 4b.

the board received a letter from marc terbeek, attorney for institute laber de la raza, issued by the building inspection february 14, 2013, appeal period ended march 1st 2013, request what filed at the board office on april 22nd, 2013. the permit holder is inna yakabova doing business as tree med. the project is a proposed change use from a lighting fixture sales store to a medical cannabis dispensary. we will begin by hearing from beverly foster. >> good evening, thank you. the issue is pretty straightforward here. our contention is that notice was required to be posted and was not. section 5 of the san francisco

business tax regulations code requires that with respect to a change in use or a permit affecting change of use of building structure requires approval of the planning commission shall be posted on the property affected. and if within two days of the issuance of that the city shall cause that permit to be posted on the property. ~ opposing party admits as much that there was no permit posted . their position is that because it was a cannabis permit that no posting of that or giving of notice of that permit was required. but, in fact, this being a change of use, it is clearly required under section 5 of the san francisco business and tax code. section 6 describes the form and content of that and one of the aspects of that section 6 is to specifically advise those

neighboring persons of the right to appeal and of the time period for appealing. that was denied in this case because no permit was posted on the premises and no notice was given to the neighboring store fronts. and for that reason we believe alone that the board should take jurisdiction over this and suspend the permit and allow a full hearing, a more full hearing to be had on the other derelictionses that were outlined in my letter that give pause for the opening of this particular permit, particularly issues as regarding the nature of how this facility is going to intake patients. we can't have people just standing around the street, waiting on the street and having the street as a lobby. as has been suggested in some of the documentation that i've seen in this one. but that's really beside the

point. what we have here is a very clear issue. it's not in dispute. no notice was given and it's our position that notice was required to be given pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the san francisco business and tax regulations code. thank you. >> sir, did your institution attend the d.r. hearing? >> say that again. >> did your institution attend the discretionary review hearing? >> not as a formal institution, no. >> or did individuals? >> i am unaware of any -- whether anybody that the community serves, that the institute serve attended the hearings, the d.r. hearings. >> how about the constituents that you listed in your brief? >> i believe mr. fernandez attended the hearings, yes. >> and did anyone consider appealing the discretionary

review finding? >> i am unaware of whether there was any appeal of that or intent to appeal that. the appeal period began with the issuance of the permit in february. >> if we can hear from the permit holder. >> aye. ~ ~ >> good evening, commissioners. my name is brendan halloran and i represent tree med cannabis dispensary, 5 234 mission street. the permit holder. this process began in the spring of 2010 when tree med submitted their application to the health department. subsequently that summer they submitted a building permit for change of use to cannabis dispensary as well as planning

department ac application. these applications weren't heard by the department or planning commission until october 2012. this two-year period allowed for significant public outreach and participation and also for the planning department to do a very thorough analysis of this project and impact on the surrounding area and the community in general. however, the issue we're here for tonight is a jurisdiction request. the permit was issued february 14, valentine's day. it would have expired on march 1st. approximately two months later after the expiration date, this appeal or this jurisdiction request was filed. during this two-month period, of course, the permit applicant redid the entire facade of the building and did the entire interior remodel in reliance on the permit issuance and the fact that there was no timely appeal filed.

the only item outstanding right now is to put sand on the ground surrounding the newly planted trees in front of the collective and this final sign off -- pardon me. final is scheduled for this friday, final inspection. the basis for this jurisdiction request is that we failed or the city failed to provide notice to the community. however, this type of permit does not require notice to be issued at the time of or notice to be given to the community at the time of issuance. there are two separate notices given during this process, a section 312 notice which was mailed to the community. everies are department within 150 feet of the collective at the time the permit was applied for. and a second notice for the d.r. hearing in front of the planning commission for a change of use. both requirements were satisfied on time and complete. the postings were put up on the front of the building and all of the residents were mailed the required notices. in fact, there were two complaints lodged with the d-b-i about posting of the

permit. both were investigating and abated. both complaints around action by d-b-i for the same reasons. article 108c of the building code said posting is not required if at issuance for this type of permit. i have that. in exhibit h. in our brief. lastly, the grounds say the underlying appeal for this if approved are procedurally incorrect. they are issued by the department of public health. prior to the issuance of the permit department of public health holds a public hearing to review the permit application for completeness and compliance. if the applicant has not received sign off from all required departments which include fire, police, planning, building, mayor's office of disability, then the permit -- the health department has a right to reject the permit application at that time. therefore, i request that this jurisdiction request be rejected and would be allowed to continue in slur suit of our permit. thank you. >> give us an exhibit reference again. >> h.

>> i apologize. >> okay. in my brief it's under h, permit complaints. >> i thought you were referencing the code section. >> the code section -- well, this is the inspector's complaint report where it says per section 108 building permit notice does not have to be placed in the window for two separate complaints. section 108 i have -- >> h? >> it's in h, yes. section 108 is, i believe -- >> okay, i've got it. i see. >> i believe i have it in there. i apologize. inspector duffy is more of an expert. >> we have it. thank you.

mr. duffy? >> hello again, commissioners. just on the notification process, d-b-i would not notify on this type of permit. i checked that with central permit. there is nothing in the code for that at the time of permit issuance. the building code does address and posting of a card in a conspicuous readily accessible [speaker not understood] to allow inspectors to make necessary entries. a lot of people do think that that means the front window, that it must be. some people do put the job card and make a copy and put them in the front. but that is not required by the code. it just needs to be inside the property at all times, accessible to the inspector to make his entries on the job card.