with a local u.s. attorney and we had no problem, getting 50 letters from the neighbors, and you know, ten or 15 letters from the local businesses, and can you really say that the street is better after we left, i really don't think that that is the truth and i ask for your discretion and i am sorry for the unusual nature of this like i said we need a response from the city. and we didn't, too many, too little lack of response from you know our officials elected officials and a lot from... and not enough from most of them. (inaudible) you know, san francisco is a tax and san francisco values were taxed and if you dip in the permit tax, you know, and it is just about impossible that it will reopen there. but still, we would have that status for a new landlord, and so thanks for listening. >> mr. pappas, you understand

that this is site specific to that... >> let me finish my question. to you. you indicated in an earlier statement that you felt the current landlord is not going to talk to him. >> and i did talk to him. and we were not a good fit and they were notified of this hearing and they talked with the xwor don property management who managed it before and that thou knew what a good tenant we were and we did not lose the lease we gave it up. >> and so, i mean there was a, and this, i mean that this is

a... and i mean the responsibility to move back in, and we like to get in the bigger space if we move back in, we can do it right away, otherwise it will be at least four to six months to find a location. that is how long it takes to deal with planning and you know, i letter of determination tooks nine weeks not 4 to 6 like it was supposed to. it took me two months to prepare. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> to read from the letter of determination and requests that on september 28, 2011, local u.s. attorney forfeit tur fines and the present threats to the letter in the landlord for the (inaudible) when the storefront closed operations in november 11, 2011 our service continued to provide medicine to a

smaller portion of club members and until the geary leased determination on may 11, 2012. that is what we based the letter of determination request on that they had closed in may of 2012, that more than 18 months had passed and that the center section of 9.3 was deemed abandoned and given that the location was within 1,000 feet of a school, they could not seek to reopen under the planning code requirements they can avail themselves of the planning code provisions and seek another location, and admit that it can be challenging to find a location given the restrictions, however those are the restrictions in the code since 2005, and those are the regulations which we implement for all mtds in san francisco. so that i think it is fairly clear and the code is the u.s. and its language, regarding, the 18 month closure period but

i am available for any questions that the board may have. >> i don't dispute your count of the 18 months. i am just wondering if he had written december, 2012. that they could have matched the dph. and then they would not have exceeded the 18 months. >> well at the time of the request was submitted in june of this year, that it would have been i think greater than the 18 months, but again, if we are going by what the facts are, the facts are if they closed in may, they closed in may and we appreciate that they were honest and we had asked them for me evidence and any to be pleased for him to provide anything that they can to help us make a determination, that could be fafrable for them. >> but we did not get that information >> we had gone from the date that they had actually closed the storefront service which is what they ad proval for, and they didn't have approval for the delivery only. >> if they had closed the storefront in november it was stated on the record here tonight that the operation was a bit spotty and maybe they

were not entirely operating at that location every single day. but we, and we exercised the discretion to make it the last possible reasonable defensable date and even that is more than 18 months. >> and the expired and my question is the commissioner, i have and so 5-12, and 12, and so, dph's additional 7 months, for the jim what was that for? >> i can't say exactly, why it was, and i think that it was sort of a lapse in records and i think that brian from dph may actually be attending this hearing, and could be available to, i am sorry i often do this to him. >> as far as, but, perhaps he can elaborate on that. he is the head of the mcd program. >> and because, even after that, the time lapse would be august. >> no, and if it was december,

it would have been in may of june, >> okay. >> do you want to come forward? >> commissioners this is brian and the department of medical health, and medical cannabis program. this is prior to my managing the program and honestly there was a lot of transition between the managers of this program and the information that we have was may i think of sanchez was correct that i think that there was a document that i provided to mr. pappas at one point, that...ment >> you need to repeat what he is saying or he needs to come to the mic. >> he is is stating that there was a pdf form from batia that spoke on this. and regardless of well i took over in 2013, and i think that

as the lease is up in may, which we are kind of going with at this point. and it would be not be able to operate after that date any way. but we have stated in the past the environmental health, that if the location is we would be able to reinstate the permit because we do issue the permits but we cannot do without the approval from planning. and so there was a reconstituted form from dr. batia that is referencing. >> yeah. >> and it was a pdf. >> okay. >> i could thot comment on that. and i think that i sent you all of the information that i have that is in the official file. >> okay. >> but, from talking to the former manager, the last visit that he took was in i think, april, or march of this year. and it didn't see much activist. but we didn't officially close the business until may of that year. but i think that there was

correspondence with the former director after that time. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> could i ask a legal question? >> it is site specific and the site is no longer available. is it sorry? >> potentially unavailable. >> is the issue moot? >> your legal question has been addressed. >> to the lawyer. >> you frank. >> not you frank, sorry. >> well if the site is no longer available, i am not sure

what the benefit to the permit holder would be to get that back to the particular site. but, i don't know question, but if it is not available there would be no benefit to the permitee but the permit itself is not before the board, it is the building administrator determination and a legal determination as a question. if they are right or wrong and make another determination. >> okay. >> you know, contrary to what some of the supporters are saying this is not a referendum on the divinty tree, the question is in this specific instance, in terms of the

letter to the determination, in general, it is quite narrow, and the issue is whether he erred. and abused his discretion, is the common words within the law. unfortunately in this discretion in this case, the facts are quite clear, and i have until the bases to over turn the aca. but i could have had it again to me, it is not about this particular dispensary. it is about the facts as it results to the lod, and i have not heard anything to repeat those and i, and it is my understanding that it is prejudice them in any way, that you will continue to look for alternative locations and understanding that is not easy.

i agree that the za did not abuse or..., and the err. although, in this particular case, sympathetic, and the support letters that i read in the briefs i am compelling to allow. >> i will move to up hold the zoning administrator letter of determination and to deny it. >> and that is on the basis that there was no err, or an abuse of discretion. >> that is correct. >> okay >> we have a motion from commissioner fung. to up hold the letter of determination on the basis of the zoning administrator did not err or abuse his discretion. on that motion, to up hold,

president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> no. >> and commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> and thank you. >> the vote is 3-1 and this lod is upheld on that basis. >> we are going to take a short break. >> thanks.the representative.

>> good evening, members and president and board. i represent the two property owners adjacent to this building, with the permit. and the reason for the appeal is both property owners have been suffering for the last ten years. because, of the previous owner did not communicate with them, and in a building that is totally unacceptable and of course that permit application was revoked and came to this support for appeal and that was almost six years ago.

the new permit is allowing the leading information and we are not objecting the building itself. but we just like the plan to be more presentable to what is the actual situation. for example. they say to convert a two story single family home into a three story, two unit building, with two off street parking, so can you go and visit the site, there is no such thing as a single family home in there ever since the 2004, there is an unfinished building and unconformleing building, sitting in there and they should do is they should change the scope of work to be conforming a non-smoothing into a two-unit three story building, and that will be clear. and in the right condition as i

said earlier that there is objection for the builder to build a new building, and we would like to point out some discrepancy in the plan that has to be taken care of. for example, you look to the site plan of a1.2, and they show the width of the building is the same as the width of the lot and we don't normally do that, we leave an inch and a half gap between the new building and the existing building. and i think that that is one of the big et concerns of that neighbor. and that is just one of the biggest objections of the previous building, and because they were built without a gap, and in fact, their foundation was touching their foundation. >> and the other concern that we have is on the remaining wall. and i think that after we read the brief of the attorney representing the project owner, and they said that they are going to remove all of the

walls, the new walls. and that will a building, to the 2004 permits, and however, on the ground floor, they showed that almost, about 66 feet of the existing wall remaining, and according to the neighbor, the hardly any wall remaining on the ground floor and of course that all of the wall and i think that mostly ten or 15 feet. and you go back to dbi's on the demolition and they said that about 40 wall of is remaining and what we like to, and i mean, that their condition, and the annual, and to make it during the project and we like the idea and we support that idea. and you read the brief of the project sponsor, and the condition and the list under, and i think that we can accept, okay? because we are going to remove all of the wall and they are going to take care of all of

the violations and they are going to take care of the concern of the neighbor but however, we would like to that be one of the conditions on the plan. basically, we would like the project to move on. but, however, we would like to more communication with the project sponsor. and we would like to move ahead and we would like to ask for if they did a site survey, but we want to do better than a site survey, we want a few boundless survey, because the site survey you don't have to tie on, and it is not a recorder, however, if you found the survey it will be recorded and then we would like to also ask for a third party consultants, architect and engineers to go through with the building applicant and to see, what walls are being remaining and what parts of the old building are remaining and they are song and today's coat. and thirdly we would like to

have a five, and after we are premature in sighting the appeal and we have to fight the appeal and this is the only time that we can fight the appeal because we have not seen the architectural plans or the plans and we would like to have a copy of the final plan and we are able to go through it and what was the project sponsor, and what is right and what is wrong and what is to take care of. okay. and the next two items that we request by the adjacent owner, because they figured that they have suffered so long and they have just the three story wall right next to the light well and since they are doing most of the wall in there. and then, the new project will provide a one story light well on the first story, and i think that this is wishful thinking and and they hope that they can give them a two story light well to take care of the suffering there in the last too many years and, they would like also to ask that the set back

on the top third story deck to set back on both sides, and so that they, and there is a buffer zone between their property and the new deck, they are afraid that the people will jump over and this is just a wishful thinking that we hope that we can negotiate and get that, and that is so i have it at this time. thank you. >> okay. >> thank you, commissioners, john here with are you ban and rose here on behalf of the permit holders, and the permit before you tonight is the culmination of the ten year process to renovate and enlarge the property and the existing two story, one family building will be enlarged to three stories and three dwelling units and first i want to provide a little history about the project and so the previous owners applied for a permit for the project in 2004. and it was issued and in 2006 and 2007 they were cited for performing work outside of the scope of the permit and they

had been doing more demolition than was authorized by the permit and after an investigation by dbi and a director's hearing, they, and it was confirmed that the work was outside of the scope of the permit and it was so egregious that a moratorium was placed on the issuance of any of the new permits for five years other than to reconstruct the original building back in the original place. >> if we could take a look at the projector. and this is what the building has looked like since 2005. it is not, it is not pretty. >> the previous owner then declared bankruptcy, and the permit holder then purchased the property. the permit holder filed a building permit, application, and in october of 2011, which was permitted by the moratorium and it just said that you could not issue any permits. three years of plan check and planning review went on with this permit and dbi issued the permit in august of 2010, so it

has been heavily scrutized, in fact if you take a look at the project plan they show both the condition before the 2000 permit and the current condition and although we don't know if it was done to the code or not and the third images are what are proposed today and you will also see that the walls are broken down to the degree of what was the original construction and what was the construction since 2004 and what walls are being removed and very, very detailed information. >> and planning dbi and all of the relevant agencies have approved the current permit and so we have spoken with john and the appellant representative about the construction concerns and i think that we can respond to all of them. first, all of the exterior walls, were constructed and they are going to be demolished and john did mention that there is some disagreement as to how much of the, and how much there is from the original building

and how much is from the 2004 permit, and we, we agree that we don't want to leave and there is no intent to leave me of the walls that were constructed since 2004 ip and in fact that one of the goals here is to have dbi closely involved with the demolition and reconstruction of the structure because we don't want to build on bad construction that is already there either and that is a violation of the building code any way. so in everyone's interest to have dbi very closely involved. and make sure that when we do rip down the building we make sure that we are not building on top of any construction, that was done since 2004. and we have already reached out to mr. duffy about this and we have started talking about what we will do after the permit is issued. >> so, once that we have removed those walls and will also give us access to the two adjacent buildings, and so that we can respond to the number of damage that were done to the buildings by the previous owner and any overages. what do you got, encroachments

and we have done october survey and the woodsiding and a roof trim and all of the things that we are going to be able to take care of and it really gives us an opportunity of what happened to the adjacent homes since the 2004 permit and so we have also on the planning side we have incorporated the light wells to match the light wells on the adjacent property and with respect to the step back, that is something that the team requested of us and it is because the building to either side of us are two stories and it is typical that when you build a third story, they want to step back so that it is not the dem nant facade at the frontage of the building and the sponsor is happy to consider to reduce that set back if that is something that the board is interested in. now with respect to the third party consultant that john brought up and the potential

site survey, we don't really think that is necessary, we have got dbi, and everyone at the department is well aware of this building and we want to make sure that that gets done. and we think that is adequate and we refer to the board. but we are opened to hearing what you you commissioners think is appropriate. so we think that and the inspectors and we can insure that the building will be reconstructed consistent with the building code and the concerns of the neighbors and now i would like to have one of the permit holders come up and say a couple of words to say something about the project sponsors. >> my name is michael diane and i am one of the permit holders that my family purchased the property three years ago. and we have every intention to repair the condition and bring it up to code.

working the real he is initiate business for many years, we have been remodeling for over 15 years. i have a good and a close relationship with dbi. >> and we have every intention of addressing every issue that is in violation of building code, and bring getting rid of the condition of this property. >> i am sorry. >> i have a question. are you finished with your presentation? >> yeah. >> so yeah. you guys your family does this for on a regular basis as a professional? >> we have owned real estate since 1962 and on this project are you going to have an on sight project manager?

>> yes, we will. >> that was my question. sure. >> and the existing wall that you show, only on the first floor. correct. >> so that means that the walls that you want to remain plus their foundation. and we are required to keep those walls in place. >> correct. >> by, planning. >> correct. >> okay. >> and they ruled this as a defacto demolition. >> no. they said that we were not to complete a demolition permit. >> it will cost you more if you keep them. >> i am working within the guidelines. that is set forth. >> right. >> thank you. >> okay.

mr. sanchez. >> thank you, good evening scott sanchez planning department i will be brief and obviously this project has a long history of going back to the 2004 permit for which and it will authorize the third story with a ten foot, six inch set back and no light wells in of course, there is the history with the unlawful demolition and the five year prohibition and reviewing the current application and the residential design team that did not exist at the time of the 2004 and we had the guidelines but not a approach to implementing them to the design team and we reviewed that in order to comply with the guidelines we need to be revised to have the 15 foot set back at the third story as well as to add the light wells at the third story only and the building as it existed previously did not have light wells at the first and second stories and so the

residential design team to appropriate to only require that for the third story in this case. and as it was stated in there. the plans it is some what more complex in this case, because we have the plans showing as it existed originally prior to the construction in 2004 as it exists now. and as it will exist if the project is approved. and it would thought that that was necessary, and in these cases where there is work, either unpermitted or beyond the scope of work that break it out into three like this. and when we did the notification, we would say said that it is going to two to three stories because it was last legally a two story building and yes, he can go out there and see that there are three stories but that is not a properly built with the proper permits. so, with that, i am available for any questions any of the building inspector i think that it would be best equipped to

address the concerns related to the closeness of the buildings. >> i have two questions, scott. >> and the drawings show only light wells on the adjacent property starting above the second floor. so on the third floor they put the light wells matching. ; is that correct?? >> on the site plan. the site plan does not show any light well. well the site plan that i have shows the light wells on both of the adjacent properties and the existing light wells, but does not, it is not clear from when we go to the individual floor plans, at what levels they would be. it looks like they are showing it as you stated only the adjacent light wells are only on the third floor, which at the adjacent or the dr or the

appellants can best address that. but my assumption is it. >> you made the comment about the light wells, and i was just reflecting on that because i thought that the building on the left was only two stories. >> it is, correct. >> yeah. it is only two stories. >> let's go back to the issue of most of this existing structure and by the way commissioners, >> you were here. >> i was here. >> i was thinking about that. >> yeah. >> and the, and it was a mess. >> it was a total mess, usually i think that i tried to find some things the way that i can offer some suggestions, but that one was impossible. >> but, the existing walls which are under the two phases and it is own partial, the planning department is saying that those have