>> >> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. tuesday, june 21, 2016, of the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer is commissioner honda and commissioner ann lazardus and commissioner bobbie wilson and commissioner swig has indicated he'll need to leave the meeting at 7:30 to my left is thomas owen for legal advice on the first set that appeals to be heard and later joined by thomas owen for legal advice at the controls is the board cloak alec my name is cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we will be joined this befrg we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. spent to say joe duffy dbi

representing the department of department of building inspection and scott sanchez planning department. shall be here representing the planning department's and planning commission as well as chris burke with the san francisco bureau please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium.

the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, and thank you. please stand now do you solemnly swear or affirm

the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you, very much okay. so commissioners we will start then with the first item general public comment and that's forces any member of the public to address the boards on items not an tonight agenda any. patricia merchant i'm not sure how many of us at this moments i'm very concerned about the municipal transportation authority not doing the corrects public outreach has nothing to do with with that meeting and not having the rights communication towards the public you'll each will be getting a letter from me thank you >> okay. any the general

public comment? seeing none, move on to item 2 commissioners questions or comments commissioners >> okay. no questions or comments okay then move on to item 3 the boards consideration of may 18, 2016, meeting. >> do they have and additions, deletions, or changes if not a motion. >> a motion. >> thank you commissioner swig any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, then have a motion commissioner fung commissioner hyde commissioner honda and commissioner wilson okay peck's that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero 4a

there v appeal numbers those 22 appeals were you filed by the academy of art university protesting the notice of violation by the zoning administrator alleging violations of the planning code as follows the change of us from an office hotel to a post secondary use without a building permit on las vegas worth 48 to 66 federal and stockton street and post street and feder the contention of residential units to student housing for bush street 1055 pine and 1916 octavia the educational use and the service light industrial zoning district the establishment of group housing as part of a post

secondary without a conditional use authorization at lombard street and fteer the establishment of a post secondarily educational street on pine street, (calling names) and 1821 van ness conversion of a single-family dwelling to student housing for an constitutional use vanessa avenue the change of use from an industrial chairs without an approved building permit the change of use of seating 4 thousand square feet would not providing the off-street parking required by a post secondary educational use and the cage without an approved permit own taylor street and the post

secondary institution used in an unauthorized vehicle shortage without a conditional use authorization 509s van ness avenue and 0'farrell street i want to thank the palo alto city attorney's office and district attorney albert for providing legal counsel to the board since the san francisco dennis herrera filed a separate illuminate and city attorney state your name for the record, sir and jackson grayish agreed to assist us thank you for your help >> separately we want to commend explain to the party and public we need 4 board members to hear the notice of violations penalty due to the super majority and because there are two 3 members commissioner honda and commissioner swig conflict

of interest staff has a drawing names out of hat to see what conflict of interest board member and commissioner swig will hear the appeal and commissioner president honda will disclose their conflict. >> i'd like to is the conflict is due to ownership in a property win 5 hundred feet of subject properties but that conflict has no barbara garcia on a conflict. >> i'm renewing on advice from the attorney doctor stevens with one of my wife's clients there's a potential conflict. >> okay. thank you as president leaves the room we'll have the - appellant come

forward and the representative of the appellant and the parties agreed for a presentation take no more than 14 minutes we have 6 minutes that we have to set the clock to 14. >> good evening. i'm george harris on behalf of found appellant the academy of art university the each of the nov p decisions it issued on those appeals sets a july 1st deadline for completion of environmental reviews the eir and the estn and suppressors discretionary authority to assess administrative penalties in the deadlines are not met assessment beginning on july 2nd as starting i can assure the

board that without regards to the accrual of any penalties none wants that eir and estn to be completes on times more than the xhaufrdz action as you may know knows on the academies pending theoreticians o authorizes for the subject properties have been pending for many years a charge to the filings that lists all the applications and they've been on hold they've been no action taken on them until those extensive environmental reviews can be completed we're almost there there are about to be completed and the man very much wants to process of reviewing that action on the applications to begin and the july 1st deadline and the

operative trigger for the assessment of those discretionary penalties was set in late 2015 and the record will show the academy provided full coordination and working diligently to meet that goal since it was announced and the good news is this is an update on what we put in our filing the parties remain on track to meet the july 1st deadline this is despite some recent minor delays by the consultant that is we're talking about working under the direction of the city but the most recently schedules still show a completion by july 1st on the rtc the last thing on the eir is in the screen check stage

which means there are - the academy provided comments on june 16th on schedule and now going review by the environmental reviews officer and the consultant and the final edits and printed in public absolutely no reason that will not happen by july 1st and this is the 4r589 estn schedule we got this morning and again, it still shows on track for that deadline a originally the consultants were to circulate and estn we got this this morning and we got the revised schedule and everything on the revised schedule has been adjusted but still allows for explosion by july 1st deadline so the operative part of the nov

decisions the assessment of penalties discretionary assessment of the administrative penalties from the deadlines are not met remains very, very likely to happy this will be met so what i would suggest propose urge the board to do is to postpone any action on the appeal until july 1st and only then if that's not met would it be necessary to assess why it wasn't met and anything that the academy accident or dependent do to keep that deadline made he did r the subject of the nov p issued in march of this year i think what you'll find any kind of delays that was not due to

the academy since the department announced the revised plans it was provided comments on administrative drafts of estn and authorized and funded new transportation survey and an analysis by transportation consultant that the at a city's request and new site diagrams in the estn at the city's request and approved all the change and budget increases and have been several that have occurred during this period of time so at this point in the city and controls whether the documents are on time the city argues it is reasonable to tie the assessment the

penalties to this deadline this is a quote to insure the academy brings the facilities into compliance where the planning code and the city points out to catalogs historical delays since this project began in 2008, and in fact, during that period of time since 2008 the academies work with 4 different consultants selected by the city and revised over thirty worker change orders and participated in more than one hundred site visits and paid consultants for 15 hours of work more than $6 million those those are directed by the city so, yeah at this point the academy has provided information requested, is provided the comments on time

since this announcement of the july 1st deadline for that reason unless there is a showing that somehow off the track for the deadlines i don't think that will happen the assessment of penalties is inappropriate and not reasonable and exercise discretion at this time and finally the last point i want to address in the papers the underlying premise of the requirements and the actually the process that caused this long delay it taking i think the permits that's the requirement of eir and estn so acting on those those applications it is a false premise not really any

needs or requirement not any to continue to defer the action on the applications for these environmental reviews now the city agrees the eir required because the academy had plans for future expansion; right? dividing it into smaller parts is peas e piecemealing but no position that little eir for future growth should hold of approval for this existing uses and in fact, inappropriate circumstances a sprat point they may say well, your combining all the categorical exemptions, in fact, exception maybe applied to a project for improvements at multiple sites we're funding

something in the city submission that we didn't site but the san francisco beautiful versus city and county of san francisco the 2014 court of appeals case with multiple exemption and robison versus the city and county of san francisco envelope and the court appeal decision the same thing the city recently approved a shuttle program and that involved 200 muni deposits o bus stops throughout the city nothing that prevents that from being done the second thing the city argues the key consideration for ceqa smgsz whether no expansion on one hand or some changes on the other the occupations the building by the academy involve a change in use

at the time they began to use them in fact, there is clear and uncontested ceqa doesn't require analysis of changes unless they're changes in existing uses so the bottom line for an environmental review is what the use was at the time of the initiation and whether or not it was a permitted use and in fact, in the planning planning department memo september 2011 which the city exhibits k f two they say due to the fact that prongs are evaluated at the time of publication of a notice of preparation to the future conditions past actions eve they occurred out objecting the necessary permits are accepted

conditions ceqa didn't require a review of what changes might have been made prior to the time the review was initiated i'm not going to go through this we cited those cases in the memo that the county of sacramento an airport operating for 20 years without permits and the carpool reversed no, it said that the persuade is to look at the use as it you exists at the time and the u yes, the 2004 court of appeals case we cited in our submission the appellants argued the eir failed to consider prior illegal activities likes the historic conservation zoning violations and the court of appeals said no, it said any

alleged code violations motivate relevant of the variance requested is not a ceqa consideration so you know we're not saying the city shouldn't consider those the change or look at it a single project in the permitting process doing so does for the require a ceqa review which is been the basis for the long period of time the long clay this acting on the applications that the academy made beginning in 2007 so, so others operative question the on thing that effects things going forward is the july one deadline that a reasonable trigger for the assessment of these penalties and i think the deadline will be met it will be

moved so i don't think the board needs to weigh into those issues until siege if this is true every indication and we're just a little bit over a week from this deadline that will be met but if we look at that issue then i think that is unreasonable to begin to assess penalties on that date because on one hand that any remaining things that could have delayed or didn't delay that since that goal was announced in 2015 out of the academies controls not attributable it would be inappropriate in this case thank you very much. >> i have a question.

>> the good faith efforts to comply you're saying that is as of july 2015; right? >> in lastly 2015 a history of other deadlines and when it mattered or a penalty accrued and came up to this board a whole history of that; right? but the determinations were made and ethics discretion woos was made not to assess those penalties this deadline was sit down in late 2015 and just no record that the academy has not done everything in their power. >> we shouldn't look at the academy since july 2015. >> it is really last night 2015 i think the deadline was announced yes, that's the

operative deadline here the issues with regards to previous deadlines were in previous filings. >> thank you. >> ma'am, can you explain to the audience about the overflow room. >> yes. i was going to do that our 0 so if you find a seat please do if not an overflow room in the light court the board has questions and we'll hear in the other folks. >> thank you good afternoon commissioner fung scott sanchez planning department. so where to begin as a matter that is before you on several versions in the past maybe i should going go back to the program in the beginning the academy 1975 and 7 six the city

of san francisco adopted a master plan the institutions like the academy of art providing the city with information how they will manage their growth in the 2006 the code compliant issued a notice of violation to the academy of art university for failing to have a master plan the building permit was sought for one of the properties we submitted that enforcements requirement and submitted and institutional master plan in 2006 that was inadequate by our review not listing all the properties that the academy had listed on their website subsequent to that we reviewed the list of properties and reviewed feeling against land use records to determine whether or not they've gotten appropriate permit we found scores of violations on those

properties at the time, we issued did first enforcement notice in 23406 the academy of art university had 26 properties at that point they have operate 40 we are aware of during that time we did issue an enforcement notice about their issues they continues to acquire properties and being made aware of the issues i was in a merging with stevens i thought informed the k345u6r78d will definitely come into compliance i go back to i desk they're a voicemail their replying windows they're only testing out the windows we definitely had them into to the appropriate process and reviewed their imp to get it up to a

higher standard and through this process they submitted in appropriate entitlements we informed them the deputy and of the process they needed to go though the proper environmental review in 2008, the commission looked at the updated version and at the time the commission found it was lacking and requested previous information and made the same promise and subsequent wisp working in growth with them on the environmental review and september of 2011 we learned it despite not to require or convert or otherwise occupy and use the properties they've continues to do so this caused delay in the environmental review the environmental review was to analyze the impacts of the project that is more difficult to analyze the impacts of a moving target that's what

we had the project description changing because of the new properties that were acquired it caused a delay to the environmental review we did then begin to initiate enforcement we also did get the imp to a state where they felt that was acceptable in 2011 we did in 2013 issued notice of violations and at that point subtracted to a stay to compel compliance to set guidelines a list of conditions through that process they're not abiding by those conditions as outlined so we readily that day the following year in 2014 and we actually had a host of appeals at that point many were withdrawn and one was a

withdrawal and stay that was withdrawn by this academy that's not the issues we've raised in the letter withdrawing the stay is no longer openable we went through a during the course we're on our 7 counsel working with the city there are other attorneys that may have been involved by the second set of attorneys change was last year their attorney at that time when we went to the hearing those are the items before you when they were under my review did not contest the notice of violation penalties acknowledging overseeing violations did our subsequent to that we were at this point without an attorney

number 6 i belive we were making progress on the environmental review we set a deadline of having a draft eir by november of that year and didn't meet that deadline but have at draft eir issued last year over the course of time i know the academy represented they have been working diligently we'll not find that the case instances i had to get directly involved to request of their attorneys to pay their bills with consultants we had failure or lack of wilson to allow site visits for historic conservation review the matter before you is the notice of violation penalties and whether or not those properties are in violation the academy not limited to they're no violation ultimately what the

dispute is whether or not penalties should or could be assessed at this point we are and have been very patient and diligent working with the xhaurmd and chelsea is here with the staff dedicated district attorney tremendous amount of time working with the academy for several, several years dethat's a great question from works on the important city projects we've made 24 a priority the academy has not done that through their disregard of their practices to acquire properties and going through the willingness we've not find that helpful in terms of expediting the review usually changing course in the mid stream is not the best course of action and those notices went out we're pleased to say that we'll meet the deadline of

july 1st which in this case no penalties assessed on the properties i'm noting that is too administrative penalties under the planning department's for those 22 properties there are additional penalties that maybe accrued by the collected by the city attorney's office we're speaking to the penalties that are under this section 176 process and other properties before you before and 2010 the propensity on townsend street that was the subject of an appeal we have been assessing penalties since that time is close to half a mental illness and other penalties that be aau cu forward by the academy why those violations and penalties shouldn't continued if we believe we'll get to the july 1st deadline as you may

know there's a - we replacing ask you to uphold the decisions as part of board rules the ability to file one 10 days at this point by my calculations it is chufdz by the board until tuesday july 5th at this time anyway and have the right to file and rehearing request if they find new information at a later time i'll agree that there is no reason to continue this matter any further housing doing that would just delay the incentive for the academy to meet others deadlines on by establishing the penalties that we've ever been to have an experience with the academies we're happy we're achieving that only by the notice of violations so that's why we respectfully request i uphold those violations i'm available to answer any questions.

>> i have i'm sorry, i have a couple of questions in our submissions there were copies of letters going back to 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and 2013 no responses from the academy do you know if go, in fact, any responses. >> in some cases we received responses in our history the academy has not been the most responsive but so i can't say whether or not responses to those those letters they've responded to some. >> and counsel referred to exercise the discretionary authority i mean that is fundamentally what is about; right? you could with experienced another authority during the process. >> absolutely we could have issued the notice of violation in 2008, and 9 and 10 if there

is a preferable decision the academy would have preferred i done so but we're using the process and leverage in a fair fashion we don't think we've been met with the same responsiveness from the academy. >> anyone else so i look at all those notices of violation we sit here month after month the same thing someone builds a bathroom and the neighbor complains notice of violation is filed if you tells us that there is a violation and they didn't file for a permit then we take action on that and we do that quickly it seems that here is serial

notifications of violations and also serial case of not handing those violations why - why has speaking of discretion why has there been such a casual i'm looking for another word casual way of dealing with the academy when if it was me or any other citizen in this this room and we had a notice of violation that was valid by yourselves we'll be slapped really fast i think some of the matters that you also hear are maybe under building code issues life safety issues that is a fair point our policy in general to compel compliance and you know certainly the complexities of

the case may delicate a longer timeline i think that is fair to say the academy halls abused our policies of working towards experience we you are committed to see they don't abuse that that's why we have the notifications of violations penalties with those deadlines we do acknowledge that the academy has gotten themselves into a mess with the serial conversion of properties an ongoing process we did notice with the fire department and others finding numerous violations they immediately addresses e addressed we tried to abate those violations like trying to compel them through the environmental review process to have a proper meeting to have proper decisions on those matters. >> i know i didn't have a question i do actually in

section c they talk about that the eir and is estn are not required you're in be agreement with that do i understand. >> not inspirational the environmental impact report is required for the projects moving forward one of the flaws from the environmental review it look at the baseline case the academy has acquired properties without environmental review and now arguing we don't need to do any analysis because we acquired those properties and converted them but don't have have to do the work you want us to we acknowledge an issue wrote ceqa and the policymakers have been

clear ceqa is not an experience that provide valuable answers and helps to analyze for appropriate conditions that help the estn is a document i mean we'll called it at an monument it is important document that i have a copy of it here i don't think i haall the appendixs it provides the information necessary for decision makers to make those decision and analyzing they have shuttle with a shuttle system and found double parking or parking in muni zones and we can insure we've identified those issues and impacts their appropriate conditions necessary to aid that so it is

very difficult it is clear be difficult to approve all the projects i'm certain the academy would like without this level of review without this information to help to inform their decisions. >> thank you before we take public comment we need to clear this aisle if there is a seat available north next to you raise your hand otherwise an overflow room but can't stand and block that aisle. >> we will not call another case out pope e people council u coming up to at that particular time we'll take public comment whoever wants to speak first

please step forward, please. >> how much time. >> two minutes pause because of length of the calendar and the number of people here. >> i hope you read my brief i'm putting on the list that is exhibit 32, 3, 4 my brief the xhaurmd has been flaunting the law for 25 years kept on acquiring projects since 1991 out of control when planning department has a hard time explaining they take no action they clear properties in the not name for profit, llc for every building nothing not city's records that says acquired we the academy of art i do the first two cases that

closed at the planning department ones was saint bridges and the flower mart both of those results in hiring new attorneys pr he attorney number 3 was hired leading up to the acquisition of flower mart and the attorney that was done since then we have 8 attorneys i've dealt what 8 attorneys the planning department has coordinated i r you need to be focusing on what they're asking for something you should give the planning department has tried very hard to make them comply with the law the xhaurd e xhaud has dragged their heels i've submitted lifts in exhibit 1 the properties they finally disclosed with attorney

number 3 after they started the environmental review they acquired 5 or 6 properties right here. >> we need the overhead. >> on exhibit 2 they acquired 6 properties while the eir was going on mr. sanchez is kind the biggest slot in the city i've never mets anyone out of control as the the academy of art. >> i'm tom jones a resident in san francisco and a past person with the cal poly i know about institutional master planning having sat on the presidents council in san louis abyss the

planning department has had a hard time dealing with the client i think that is for those are not small cases they're an institution without new acquisitions controls 1.5 million square feet of academic space that supports housing and commercial the 22 violations are associated with the real estate empire and the market-rate leases partly owns the bank of america building and ms. hester talked about the attorneys 2, 3, 4 and 5 were you acquiring other three hundred and 90 square feet since the eir process started they may have a new attorney but the zoning administrator is kind he can't take the gloves off they're playing a cynical game in the city it has to end all you need

to do to support our own planning department and not take on the advice of the attorneys asking for an extension thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> patricia i'm going to talk lombard street this is an interesting case because the property had two different types of noticed one for a molt whether which there were i believe thirty permanent residential housing one by one the people in the residential units should have had a conditional use just left this

case should have had two cus and didn't what do i tell other people that are here in the room up for cus how did this happen it is not there i support mr. sanchez thank you. >> any public comment? rebuttal starting where mr. harris. >> thank you. i'll be brief i guess i have more than 2 minutes but. >> 6 minutes. >> but i won't need that i know it's been a long process and lots of history we're wanting to finish that line ace mr. sanchez acknowledges that july one deadline will be met that means and believe me that

review of those applications property by property entitlements requested can begin wisconsin we think that will happen on july 1st mr. sanchez is right and if the decision didn't become final until july 5th look at whether or not this deadline a met the operative issue assessment of the penalties beginning july 2nd will indeed be mute and the other point i want to address whether or not the eir was required and mr. sanchez says you know you're saying we're not supposed look at what happened before, no that's not the point the point is whether this long delay and this longs legalization and path to legalization was necessary and whether a ceqa review is

necessary and as opposed to taking up the permits along the way i think legally clearly it was not required and it is a process that what everyone says it is at the cost of the academy that is the last exhibit 8 to our final you'll see $6 million was paid by the academy for this process that is required by the city thank you counselor. >> mr. harris back to the podium thank you. >> this is predominantly discussing the legal outlet of the instrument of planning -

now you're talking about the actions that that he took are illegal. >> what we're responding to say the issuance of those nov p decisions in march and april and in fact, a reasonable exercise of discretion and we're saying it is not a reasonable exercise in discretion one issue given you know the circumstances here to make that has a trigger this beginning of the assessment you know for the reasons that we state because it is stated without regard you know to any demonstration that a failure to meet that deadline there isn't but if there was no deems agency

a result of any negligence by the academy. >> in question. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. try to be brief a two notices of violation they don't contest they're in violation but the fact they may have to pay penlites those are property that have been converted decades in the past that have been used without the appropriate land use entitlements before 22 notices of violations and penalties i'll note they have 40 property we're aware of they operate 40 properties of those i think 34 are actually not having appropriate land use entitlements and others outside this batch in the past or in the future we've been using the

penalties structures and the penalties the threat of penalties to get compliance it has since we've issued we'll be happy to keep this on july 1st, i see no reason to disruptive disruptive this mechanism to assure compliance may not in a timely fashion given the environmental review was given 8 years ago i could firmly say that's not part of city when you have a project sponsor didn't doesn't have consultants a tons continues to change the property description not as cooperative that is a problem most people when their coagulate to the environmental review process want to go get their entitlements that's united

states way it is working you learn about the project and the decision makers make a decision on the project they're using the properties nothing in california environmental quality act as meant to have a that review to acquire the properties i understand the penalty are a concern the total is $5,500 a day under the planning code that's the maximum we can do for the totals of the properties if there are a problem not meeting the deadline and not wanting to pay the penalties they can stop levelingly using the property for overtime there is a method for them to address that unfortunately i mean that might not urban design the last time this matter is wrought before you there are other items assuming they met the deadline on sexual first it is a question

when is appropriate next stop to insure compliance at this time we have our certification the eir schedule for the planning department's on july 27th and look forward to bringing the entitlements to the planning commission in the fall depend on the outcomes some of those might come to you either as appeals for the project entitlements or notices of violation respectfully request you uphold this decision it is fair and just and long over due. >> mr. sanchez the townsend project properties that came before us previously you're saying is now accruing perpetrates that are extensive. >> that's correct. >> any action from the project sponsor on that property other than being part of this process. >> so after that was december

of 2010 property 4602 henry adams penalties are being accruing at 200 and $50 a day about half a mental illness we've referred the matter to the city attorney's office they're looking at that has a court action at one up to this point in time we got a check settling it and paying the penalties as part of that we said you know we understand it is 200 and $50 a day we'll discount weekend no students and discount holidays and vacationed that was not acceptable to us and that's where we are with the city attorney's office. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> who would like to start. >> i would. >> so i spent a really great

weekend reading the entire brief over and over it was great and tremendously educational he like many of the citizens of san francisco drive around and the see the xhaurmd building that brought this into context for me of how this actual evolved from i've been around here for 65 years how this evolved and i was stunned and shocked and appalled i may go to the word second the services of san francisco has been because as our government by serial activities just basically saying we'll buy this property and pack make to go intoe this not zoned for this and not licenses for this but we'll do it anyway and that's

the way it is going to be that was kind of interesting and we see and hear a lot of folks as bringing in their appeals and i noticed there are utmost violations that comes as a result of a citizen complaint move on and deal with them swiveling consistently we'll rule against that - there was one million and half square feet to go on in a serial fashion is astonishing i'm hocked it is city this is a not taken more aggressive action in the past of

this behavior because of any of us tried it as normal citizens we'll gets slapped down in two seconds the final thing i respond to counsels request we push this forward i'm reminded the charles hills peanuts cartoon and amount times did lucy put the football for charlie brown to kick and he fell on his backside tha this is the joke of this process this is lucky and charlie brown lucy by the aclu and charlie brown by the citizens of san francisco nevertheless, to say i'll not support this appeal.

>> i concurring with what commissioner swig that is in close proximity to the july one is not significant i'll agree that larger than than it should you have been i've seen and heard nothing that makes me support the appeal. >> i agree. >> is there a motion? >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the penalty were appropriately issued. >> a error. >> on those basis the zoning administrator never erred. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny all 22 of those appeals and uphold the noifksz eye penalty on the basis that the zoning administrator didn't error on that motion commissioner fung

and commissioner honda a reconfused commissioner swig that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> with one recusal and we'll move to the next item we - i have commissioner honda is aware he's due back in the room and again tell the folks we need to have you sit or go to the overflow room you'll have an opportunity to participate in the matter you're interested in and thank the palo alto city attorney's office the city attorney and deputy albert for participating and helping out the board on this matter thank you very much.

>> oh, yeah step back a good

question. >> okay. we'll change the order have the attention of the room please okay we're going to change the matters coming up next it is to be item 8 the items be reordered cal hallow association versus the on lombard street from to noriega to establish a medical cannabis dispensary in a retail use for the ground floor in existing mixed use building with the non-structural petitioner for elimination no work and plumbing and remove the existing door and removing the streets of san francisco doors anyone in

the room and not necessarily interested in that item if you're relying willing to step out and give you our seat to someone that would be helpful otherwise take a seat or we need to have that area cleared so if you're here and not for that case we ask to please step out in the overflow room is in the light court we'll let you come up but not having people standing here all of you need to find a seat or go to the north light court we'll begin this meeting. >> can we have a continuance a request for a rehearing. >> my client this is an has an important place to be can we have a continuance on

that, please the item that comes up next. >> asked important a hearing please. i agreed to this date without checking with any client i found out she's supposed to be at a birthday hearing and unfortunately ms. hester we're stacked up so the access is going forward and the next two weeks with packed and we're over booked we had a missed session that's why the room is full we want to get through the calendars as fast and requests possibly can. >> i'm sorry can you step to

the platform. >> is project manager and attorney are not here for the item interest the medical cannabis dispensary the attorney has passed a message through me that according to him will be proper to reorder at the beginning so they are not available to be here right now. >> but at the time it is ignoring forward the hearing starts at 5 o'clock the client should be and hearing. >> i'm pga a message. >> so the attorney no longer present he left. >> they've stepped out in the anticipation the other items will be heard first. >> are they on their way back. >> do have any idea how long

it will take them to get back. >> commissioner honda we can call the rehearing request i'll ask you to please ask the gentleman to get here. >> they're on their way. >> okay go ms. hester you're going to call a pony item 8 and call item 5 the subject property on market street received a letter from sue hester requesting a rehearing versus the zoning administrator decided may 11 voted commissioner fung dissenting to uphold a letter on the basis the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his discretion the determination holder is sue hester regarding the planning code distinguishes within guest beds at the subject property we

begin ms. hester i want to make sure that the subject property owner or project sponsor is here recommended okay. great thank you very much. >> can i have the overhead please and overheads for ms. hester the underlying issue of the approval of this case was it a hotel a hostile changed from the hotel and from the project sponsor says oh, we've all dealt with this because you've been talking to larkin street they short circuited the analysis done by the zoning administrator and the planning department because they didn't either even deal with the employment the employment's hotel is 200 rooms not two inspires.

>> and that's what you got if sinners not larkin street unto a letter from sin x they're saying - they had conversation that results in two discerns at the property from market street what i've asked for is to go back and have a rehearing what factors the planning department is used when making the decision as appealed they short circuited dealing with their clients in the planning code when the hotel was changed and hostile was changed into a 94 room hostile to two hundred and 40 room hotel

they didn't castle with any of the required issues that are in part and parcel we're asking the board of appeals to go back and look at the zoning administrator's determination that basically was no change in the project there's a change of the project and two interns to hotels is not employment's of a hotel no matter what configuration of employment there is i've never seen a hotel that operated with two interns the zoning administrator needs to basically go back and explain his decision he submitted nothing except no

brief nothing i could put my hands on and we are asking for an additional hearing to deal with the rationale issue his interpretations that was the same. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner honda and commissioners go this is a requester for request for a rehearing the standard before you there is new evidence that is present and there's an extraordinary circumstance that justifies it nicole ms. hester to you in the prior oral racks made the same auctioned

arguments at the hearing we discussed them and in this commission considered the findings in the conditional use authorization talk about not a condition of the approval of the project that was done intentionally market street can choose not to offer employees not offer interns we've offered as dictated in the letter two larkin to state department to work with them and that offer remains this project didn't have a cu requiring employment inform market street and no new evidence presented thank you for your time. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez

planning department. just to go over the facts this is a letter of determination appeal of letter of determination any ms. hester and appealed by ms. hester on market street whether or not it was in enforcement with the approval by the planning commission just to confirm there was no conditions of approval in the motion from 2010 that require larkin street to provide those services we find that the project is in substantial conformation and appreciate what was described in 2010 didn't sounds like a pro tem program one of the factors considered by the planning commission but it is not adopted as a enforceable condition as approval within of the things having had the project not changed in shape or form and still the same hostile there was no obligation for them

to have if that note a condition of approval so not in this case. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the one who support the appellant and he didn't agree with the letter of determination, however, our standard of by the new information on market-rate justice would not support this. >> i also agree the information was provided that he last hearing the standard for rehearing is quite high i'll concur. >> care to make a motion move to deny the request

that motion by the vice president to deny the request commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 5 zero. >> again, i need to tell you tell the people standing in this aisle we need to find a seat or go to the overflow room room we can't block that because of fire codes any update on the presence of counsel for the project sponsor for item number 8? why not move to number 6 >> okay. >> item number 6 that's what he said. >> okay. so we'll call item 6 then this is appeal number valley and robert versus the san

francisco public works burger of urban forestry the permit think vallejo street the denial of 2014 of a tree removal to remove one tree and remove one with a minimum of 6 inch box tree we'll hear in the appellant's first. >> is this a reuben, junius & rose yes. i'm sorry hold on second before the board will not have an effect on my decision. the board will not have an effect on my decision. again before you bin the people standing over there leave the room or find a seat now

that excludes those two gentlemen standing against the back cludes those two gentlemen standing against the bac standing against the back icludn standing against the back nclud gentlemen standing against the back wall. >> is there anybody with a empty asset right hand one empty seat someone wants to tak it. >> i'm valley my husband bob and i are the owners of 2856 vallejo have the for the past years i feel embarrassed to

argue about one tree given the important matters you deal what but i love trees and love the natural beauties of the outdoor we have a situation that is dangerous to the public and neighbors 72 hours problem that will only get bigger with times as you may know there are two relatively young chinese elms in front of our home the block is flat the homes are builds on asz a hill that reaches to green streets our driveway slopes stoop and those two trees are dangerous they've matured as they drop thousands of tiny leaves that make the sidewalks slippery and clog our and our neighbors storm drain at the because of driveway those

clogged drains are caused multiple flooding of your garage and our neighbor's garage we applied to respective those with two magnolia trees and were denied permission. >> i'm sorry to interrupt i want to make sure that mr. burke buck is in the room. >> following the san francisco public works authorized the removal of east tree by denied the removal of west tree the east tree has phenomenon removed because it leans so dramatically into the street that cars sometimes drive into that we are here today to appeal the denial to remove and replace the west tree we understand that the policy of bureau of urban forestry to

obtain an established tree, however, there be many factors to support the removal and replacement of this west tree chris buck sided with us and confirms the continues the you're talking about is with me to answer any questions you may have first leaving the west tree will not solve our safety and reliability concerns magnificent numbers of leaves b will continue to creates slippery conditions a heavy traveled pedestrians pathway we're on the way to presidio - the leaves will cause flooding in the homes and our neighbors our neighbors the larson's are here in neither san jose submitted a letter explaining the hazardous conditions the west tree creates for them they are afraid to go

away in the winter fearing their garage will once again flood and be dpajd no other miles an hour to prevent the slippery conditions we prune twice a year and sweep the more we prune the faster the branches and leaves grow no way to put a protective screen to prevent closing the drains cover the widths of our driveway and neighbors driveway we are afraid this situation will only become more driveways and a as the tree is the heights of our third floor and double in size in addition there are

streetscape concerns if ear not allowed to replace this chris buck says when we plant a new tree in the etc. tree location that will languish under the common place of the west tree it is blocking the sun from the west he's understands that moving the east tree is not feasible. >> excuse me - ma'am, not lean against the - >> thank you. >> removing the east tree is the location of entrance to our home in addition a beautiful 50 plus-year-old laurel tree it drafrd by the canopy of this west tree and that condition will worsen it is our hope you'll allow us to the west tree to be removed so we can start over now and replace the east

and west tree at the same time what 36 inch box sized magnolia trees approved by our urban forestry because of the larger leaves will not clog our drains and cause flooding and cause slippery and hazardous conditions and flourish and beautify our streets all the neighbors support us thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> good evening and thank you for having us speak i'm roy with the consulting arborist that works with the ladies and the gentleman the tree in question is large but still young and growing very quickly we have other examples of those trees in the city and they overar

overarch arc major roadways a semi or semi evergreen tree they produce a lot of leaves and they shed leaves all year long so all of the leaves on the trees will shed during the course of the year and grow new leaves in the midwinter or spring centers a perpetual problem and therefore probation officers a - poses problems i want to make sure you have an understanding the nature of the tree and why it is, in fact, a bigger nuisance than a lot of the other trees thank

you. >> i believe your you planted those trees. >> we hires an arborist he said those trees will nodded grow and not shed leaves and we obviously made a big mistake the problem we made a mistake he realizes it now they're growing aggressively and the problem is not going to go away that's our problem. >> no trees there before. >> yes. two small dead trees they had to be removed because they were dead. >> okay. and you're satisfied that magnolia trees will be a good replacement. >> yes. i'm satisfied our arborist looked at the neighborhood and lots of beautiful magnolias and many of

the neighbors have them they don't shed leaves. >> okay. thank you. >> we'll hear in mr. buck now. >> good evening, commissioners chris buck with san francisco public works bureau ever urban forest we received an application for the removal them two chinese elm trees at the staff level we denied the trees for removal and upon apparel we approved the tree to the east and denied the removal of tree to the west and went head and met point property owner and their representative from reuben, junius & rose to look at the drain and looking at in the driveway to affirm the site conditions i'll show one

photograph at the, have the overhead thank you. >> the tree only the right is approved for removal the larger tree on the left one of the assumptions we approved tree one important removal that will be further away from the subject tree that is opposite the doorway during the site visit we were informed from the property owner that they do have elderly participants that park and exit their vehicle opposite the doorway in 0 prohibition from planting trees opposite of doorways it is fair to august in this location a rather formal entrance to their doorway removing the replacements tree

for tree won is not an option the property owner asked me removal of one tree replacing of one we'll prefer to keep the larger tree and the reason is the eco system services that larger trees provide i believe the appellants done a good job maintaining this tree and reason approach to the removal i listens closely to their concerns as a departments we have to stick our our proposal that larger trees provide better benefits that appears that the tree was plant about 18 years ago the tree can still be there many, many decades and will continue to get larger the issue is focused around the fact the

leaves are gathering in the drain located down the neighbors and their driveway i'll admit replacing this species with the magnolia tree is one way to address the issue he know that seems like an obvious decision to you but again, we just have to look at how many benefits are we losing by approving larger trees for removal ma many folks love this tree and in this case, we don't have many good options to offer up to the property owner we've visited adding a screen to the drain will create a physical tripping hazards to the neighbors there is a side entrance on the driveway so thousands not an option not

practical to conclude we have to be consistent and try to encourage people to deal with leave dropping as an issue in other ways the issue is the leaf drop issue no issues of public safety beyond that to be consistent with how we handle cases to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the tree removal application. >> i have a question mr. buck so considering our calendar and agenda you're telling me the city policy not to remove large canopy trees. >> i can qualify that, of course, reremove large canopy trees whether there is a keeping you informed stabilization of trees in severe decline when we

find a tree that is relatively health and safety the policy not to remove if it we have a project taken 15 years to approve that's a different story we approved tree number one is leaning in the path of travel you, you can't pull a van up against that curve we acknowledge that we approved one the two trees for removal but tree two is in too good a condition to approve at the departmental level i should have concluded i believe that replacing the magnolia will reduce the issue we could replace both trees with two 36 inch magnolia trees i'll not have a rebuttal if this is the decision of commission in light

of tonight's agenda. >> thank you, mr. buck okay public comment on this item pigmented please step forward and commissioner honda are we looking at 2 minutes. >> i'm the neighbor to the west. >> i'm sorry speak sweet spot mike. >> i'm the neighbors to the west we have to constantly it a steep driveway we went to the stream of putting in rough stones so we will not slip it didn't work and installed another drain at another expense we have to go out and lift this drain it is instant you know, i would say that those are really good neighbors and beautiful trees down the street magnolias their gorgeous it seems to me

that would be up to the community in the neighborhoods to have a beautiful tree someone is willing to pay for that. >> do you care state your name for the record ma'am, >> next speaker, please. >> trish we've recently had a big fight on a tree on richmond avenue where it is digging up the sidewalk literally 12 inches above the sidewalk and the departments has told the neighbors that we can't tear down the tree and then i hear this case and the other tree a much more serious case of healthy and safety i wonder in mr. buck a capricious with that, i suggest you look at the records how

they're taking away trees in one certain place and not those are is there any public comment seeing none, we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellate. >> nothing further? okay anything further from the departments okay nothing further commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i would think that i would take mr. bureaucrat on his offer to accept the two magnolia trees that will be in the interest of the landowners i understand the city's policy at the same time is a sometimes real life trumpets did i say trump.

>> stop. >> sometimes i think we have to use common sense and wisdom so witch to make the right decision so as mr. buck will approve two magnolias i'll suggest that we find for the appellate. >> are you with the exception of his recommendation of a 3 of replacement box a breach. >> that's my comments last year others. >> obviously i'm for big trees but i've adapted what the fellow commissioner have said in that you know with the burden being on the property owner so i appreciate the compromise i'll vote for a tree removal. >> that's what he said with the replacement. >> they've offered to replace

that. >> you said he will install an inch box. >> is that your motion. >> that's my motion. >> so the motion then commissioner swig is to grants the appeal overturn the departments on the condition that both trees are replaced with 36 inch boxed trees selected by the department. >> no magnolia suggested by the departments. >> okay magnolia trees on the basis of that. >> - same thing. >> it promotes - okay so then a motion if commissioner swig to dproonts the appeal and over turn the departments on the condition both trees are replaced with 36 inch box magnolia on the basis it

promotes safety commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner wilson okay. that carries with a vote of 5 to zero. >> mind if we take a 2 minute break. >> okay leave when you leave, leave when yoof appeals meetinappeals meeb tuesday, june 21, 2016, greenback on the board of appeals i appreciative people that don't have a seat go to the overflow room room in the light court we'll give you an opportunity to participate in public comment you'll listen to the proceedings from that room we feed to clear the israel to

proceed. >> we're going to return to item 8 if you're not here for item 8 and willing to give up our seat that would be appreciated. >> the representative for the appellant to please step forward whoever is going to speak on behalf of cal hallow step to the podium. >> madam secretary have. >> called it i wish to disclose i've received a call if mayor ed lee expressing the proximity to the two hour

projects. >> thank you we're going to begin as long as the gentleman starts this timer can you please start of timer we'll begin thank you. >> commissioner honda and board members aim president of the canceling hallow association and mother raising two daughters in the cal hallow area the association represents over 3 hundreds and 50 pedicab households in the 35 block area before pacific to lombard since 50 years i want to state the cal hallow association didn't have an issue are medical marijuana the hundred testimonies you'll hear this not our issue that is perfectly fine we do not have an

issue are the business practices you'll hear lots of people talk about a great organization we have no issue with with that we have filled this and stated pubically not oppose is one thousand feet from the many oth

authorized store locations in the north san francisco a positive beef for the lombard to today they've inquired off other possible locations eve they're made it is simply impossible

they're not willing to rent to us everyone has no struggle we ask the organization if they have any telephone records that might support of claims of refuse of all mcd property the answer we could a have yet and this is an affordable housing for history of housing insecurity that neglects the information on the mayor's office of housing and community development website on the question whether resident are not limited to that substance abuse issue with the edward the second and the larkin can speak to this the e hypotheses camper harmed the thread to defund and hold the disclosure if there

were that's to the community and saying they're the protector of the residents this is not true cal hallow gave up their premises when it will be approved we've for the asked to defund edward the second we hope of any organization and years before the apothecarium appeared we thought that edward the second would be comfortable by a benefit with larkin that prescribes the working relationship and we need walk and roll the apothecarium said those rules are all community housing partners not our rules finally the apothecarium go says the settle requires to coordinate for the cal hallow

and opposing any mcd not one word that every can be construed to mean that is it is surely untruly true you'll hear are missouri ambassador that that we don't oppose medical marijuana don't question the best practices we don't oppose looking out an mcd in our resident we're at risk and taken care of the young people and no commanding reason why their mcd should be across the street from the one and one door down from the other there is very substantial support in opposition from the new neighborhoods that is directly impacted by the mcds this board has the ability to deny this permit we ask in the caliber of our wise discretion

that you do so thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening board members i'll ryan i co-founded that apothecarium 20 years ago we didn't know the deliverance would be near each on the owner of edward the second hsa have 11 budget in san francisco and 5 of them within one thousand feet much closer a football of other dispensaries a map on the overhead the academy of art

university hypotheses has at risk for youth and addiction no problem the church as written us in support we're across the street from the marshall arts studios and letters saying we're good neighbors and close to 3 public schools their closer the marina middle school and are to the sites in the marina once again no problems this appellants briefs sites not problems with supportive housing near that i sympathize with the medical cannabis it new to the marina but not new to san francisco i've lived there in district 2 for 12 years the vast majority of our patients are seniors come

inside you'll see gray hair no patients under the age of 21 and no deliveries and offered to pay at edward foundation and - people suggested it is easy to find a location for medical cannabis dispensary in san francisco we had to buy this this few owners are not willing to sell we have more than 26 hundred patient on the north side of town that need their medication the survivors and grandmothers shouldn't have to take two bus trips to speak with a professional about their medication thank you. >> my name is sarah i'm here to talk about why our patients need their medication dispense in person in their

neighborhood i never it out i'll be a medical cannabis with stage 3 colin cancer during my therapy i'd spend time for the place today, the patient consultant and help the patients to navigate the same journey who are suffer like me when our fighting for your life it is not easy to travel crosstown by the time wrote no person use cannabis or disability should have to travel across town for medication patients need community advise that didn't come with delivery cancer patients taking their medication are not a threat to to children the stigma is not surprising the

more than marijuana was born in the crisis the stigma that surrounded people with hiv and gay men the fears and excused r excuses stay the same only the targets change. >> rick gladstone for the project sponsor it is fairly known this will not have smoking and substance abuse and food prep and consumption or growth of any products you may not know that formal medical director of the hospital was hired to be the medical director information physician for the apothecarium and will be providing information to the patients to answer questions from the patients today's medication are over the governor successfully passed a

bill that will require that the medical cannabis patient be written prescriptions by their primary physicians and things 53 have changed word is not gotten around and cal hallow represents the neighborhood i know you we're not sure if you look at the boundary? from their website it shows simply didn't cover lombard street not a sprays no neighbors this residential neighborhood not commercial there is a commercial neighbor association lombard merchant have chosen not to take a position remember that whether the edward the second came before the city 48 socialization of lombard cal hallow and other today only one neighborhood association opposes it and it is the cal hallow i think that

tells us something about representation of the whole neighborhood i'm not sproipd one left that opposes the statistics show that prop 215 when it passed 76.9 were protestants voted and legalized medical marijuana and, of course, you have a at least one and 40 letters if people if the northern portion the city mostly this area in support of this site it is important that you understand this is not a residential area this is a commercial area it is commercial area that actually is seven hundred and 50 feet because when you walk from cellist nut to the far side of geary you're walking seven hundred and 50 feet this is not

a residential neighborhood in fact, some residents lives love commercial in that one where few residents live above commercial the smelliest of the commercial district a great deal of noise and containing residents think of where it site it simply in the in a residential neighborhood and, of course not within the boundaries of such association thank you very much i'll leave the rest for rebuttal. >> unless that clock is wrong i'll continue. >> that's correct i have a question so in the location that you choose on lombard how long of a process in negotiates with the landlord. >> i'll let any client speak to that he is the landlord he

would rather an landlord but the government can exercise forfeiture of realtime and who's the owner. >> he is he found people willing to rent to. >> that answers any question the next question how long did you look for locations in the cal hallow marina area. >> i looked for more than two years and typically involved with the green zone map that properties were potential business maybe going out of business for example, are for sale i did that every saturday for two years before we found this location whenever we find a location for a lease we called the owner or whoever on record the first question unsurprising what's the intended use we said

medical cannabis dispensaries not only were we are one of the 15 that called them they should no way no thanks this was the end of that once we got the letter of determination that qualifies. >> further than i'm - and this is relevant to our question we asked did zoning administrator for a determination of this site in the green zone wanted to make sure because of the location it was good do go speaks for itself we got the green light to borrow money from friends and family no other option for us that zoning administrator the letter of determination in your packet came in june of 2014 and addressed several the issues that cal hallow it concerned with not appealed by way of that was an opportunity for an appeal. >> please then we have to give equal time to others the question so do you

work with a realtor or do all the reality transactions. >> we worked with a realtor i did did initial compact how hard did you look and what i know as a realtor myself we make phone calls and follow-up with e-mails do you have e-mails in other locations you've looked at. >> when there was an e-mail as you may know typically a sign with a phone number that's the indication i was not writing down or keeping a log my wife a could contest i've walked the streets of lombard and other parts of city.

>> noriega, llc is that correct. >> that's the stylist not. >> you're not noriega, llc. >> someone in the city mixed that up the, llc. >> you're not involved in the potential mcd on the industry. >> we are we're probably going to be withdrawing unfortunately. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> mr. sanchez. >> good evening scott sanchez planning department. . i think that both parties will have a thorough discussion just to highlight a few pots the subject project within the rh3 neighborhoods commercial moderate scale one of the most intense commercial districts we have so the history of this project

is a letter of determination request filed in april of 2014 prior to whatever the sale of the property to the owner they sector clarification based on the property is eligible as a medical cannabis dispensaries we reviewed the records accident a search for properties within one thousand feet and found it eligible from the planning codes to allow the medical cannabis dispensary to be clear in the subject for the commercial district and most district medical cannabis dispensary are allowed as of right their point of privilege permitted use not a cu not meeting the necessary and desirable uses it is allowed as of right of certain requirements with met so under the planning code the main requirement under the section the parcel containing the mcd can't be one one thousand feet of a school

are communities facility and recreation facility and not located on the same parcel providing substance abuse that certified by the state of california and no alcohol on the premises for on or outside consumption and adequate ventilation and under the requirement of the health code in this permit regulates the land use a permitting process that regulations the operator of the property and so this is to an entitled property to allow the medical cannabis dispensaries they'll have to meet all the requirements of department of health so in reviewing in the letter of determination the parcel is eligible they'll go through the discretionary review process a marnd here like other uses we send out a neighborhood use and

in this case we have a public hearing noted people they can cockamamy other hearing of last year staff recommended that we the commission take discretionary review in order to prose the conditions and that's the standard for review of the medical cannabis dispensaries because to order the condition to permit the project i think there was initially a vote to deny and that was a 3, 3 vote not prevailing had no other motion the project would have been approved as without any conditions that the staff requested incorporated so there was a subsequent motion that a vote of 4 to 3 prevailed and 4 to 2 prevailed and imposed the condition if staff asked for the three they'll not sell to

anyone under 21 years of age and no delivery and other conditions with regards to the liaisons so to the location requirements i didn't see anything in the brief detesting that they admit the property meets the planning code as you know those matters are not able so while we have the decision commission the decision of the commission for the matters before you to take into consideration all matters that are discussed tonight we have reviewed this the department has support the planning commission remain supportive of project and respectfully request you uphold the conditions imposed on the project a couple of things in regards to why the green space map that is a preliminary