would there be any change with the demolition because we heard from mr. duffy that it will not impact the change to the kurpt retail use, so i'd like to hear you help clarify that question. >> i'll see if i can. i think it's relatively straight forward and that's -- the billing is already zoned as a retail use establishment and that's simply not at issue today. today the issue is some demolition work that will be done in the interior of the building. >> is it currently being used for any reason? >> no, it's vacant. >> and there will not be use of any -- you will not be selling any medical cannabis or dispensing with any medical cannabis unless and until this future permit is issued? all the appeals have been resolved? >> that's absolutely correct, mr. read is always having the necessary permits, he's not going to start selling marijuana until he gets his permit to do so. >> okay, thank you. >> just a general question because i don't really know is sequence, so the planning department has okayed the use, is that correct? go ahead. >> yes, i think it's very impor

. >> mr. duffy, anything further, any other questions for mr. duffy at this time? no? okay. so, then we are ready for public comment. >> i'd like a show of hands of how many people intend to speak. okay, and do we know if anyone in the overflow rooms intend to speak? >> i believe they do, so i'm going to limit testimony to one and a half minutes. >> can you do one and a half minutes? no? >> okay, two minutes. >> well, can we find out of the people that plan to give public comment, how many people are speak tog the mcd issue which is not before us? i don't think it's relevant. >> well, we have to give them an opportunity to speak. >> can we get a head count in the overflow rooms, i think that would help me make a determination whether we do one minute or two minutes. why don't we take a two minute break here to make that determination. (break for two minutes, to resume at 8:06). >> we are resuming the september 12, 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals, we are still on item number 7, appeal number 12-070 and we are abto take public comment. >> i understand there

i will perhaps -- perhaps mr. duffy, commissioner richard and can respond to that. -- reardon can respond to that. president hwang: thank you. mr. sanchez. >> the subject property is located within a public zoning district. while it is unknown historic resource, it is not an individual landmark. it is not required to have a review from the historic preservation commission for the modifications. given that it is in -- not in a p district. review was done by the project. most of the concerns raised relate to the environmental aspects and not the permits themselves. this are best addressed in a separate appeal. the permit that is before you that appears that everything is proper in terms of the environmental review on the scope of the work that is before you and the permit and it did receive the proper environmental review. the analysis of the categorical exemption did outline the character defining features of the park and found the proposal would not make any adverse impacts on the character defining features and therefo

mr. duffy, representing the department of building inspection, and we also have patrick o'riordan, and john. -- john kwong. if you could, please, mr. pacheco, go over the royals. secretary pacheco please turn off yourself funds -- secretary pacheco: please turn off your cell phones and have conversations in the hall. the comments must be within the seven to three-minute periods, and some not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the after preparation of minutes, members who wish to speak on item are asked, but not required, to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer-satisfaction forms on the left side of the podium, as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing or rules, please discuss this with staff after the break or meeting or

vice president fung: mr. duffy, you have questions, comments? >> sorry about complicating things.the moving back of 3 feet of the gate could create the level landing issue, because i believe that slopes down towards the street -- from the street towards the alley. even if they apply for a permit, i hope they get approval for it. if that permit was not approval, then the p.w. -- and the dpw would be revoked? i was looking at the gate and it's correct location, moving it, it is very hard to get that, and you have to have a level landing at the gate. i don't know if it will be a problem, but if it was, how that would affect if they would not be able to get the building permit, on their condition, then that would revoke the permit? vice president fung: yes. >> ok, that's fine. sorry. vice president fung: counselor? >> i just want to remind everyone, including my commissioners, what would happen in the event the permit is revoked, and that the applicants would not be able to apply for the same permit for another year, and if the circumstances. unless the circumstances that lead to revo

know you've waited a little while but i wanted to take this out of order and i wanted to hear from mr. duffy first just so i can focus on what the permit is that we're dealing with today. >> good evening, commissioners, this building permit's for 4218 mission street is only for dem -- demolition on the ground floor and basement, no exterior work, it lets some people do some interior demo, it's not a change of use, a lot of people use it and simply because it's sometimes for demolition, it's easier to find out what the structural elements of the building are and it exempts them from doing any accessibility work because it can be done then on the future permit, so this is only simply for interior demolition, it doesn't change the use and occupancy of the building. >> do you know what that is? >> yes, on the building permit application, it stated there's retail and occupancy and a single family home on r3, a single family dwelling unit and it's a basement type 5 construction, so the existing use is retail and as of this permit, the use does not change, it's still retail. i believe there is a fu

also happy birthday to mr. duffy. what better way to spend it than with us. keep up with daily developments on the pbs news however and we'll sum it -- pbs newshour and we'll sum it up here. good night. >> funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> this rock has never stood still. since 1875, we've been there for our clients through good times and bad. when their needs changed, we were there to meet them. through the years, from insurance to investment management, from real estate to retirement solutions, we've developed new ideas for the financial challenges ahead. this rock has never stood still. and that's one thing that will never change. prudential. >> additional corporate funding is provided by norfolk southern. boeing. and american queens steamboat company. proud to support "washington week" on pbs. additional funding is provided by the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> trusted

mr. santos? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. i will speak to the planning issues, the city planning representatives are here, joe duffy and pat o'riordan. this is located within a single- family detached zoning district. it is approximately 46 feet wide and varies up to 100 feet deep, 100 feet on the west side, and it has an irregular, sawtooth rear property line. there is a single family dwelling constructed in 1935. as has been noted, the key event that started this was the sinkhole, so in 1995, a significant runoff from a storm when ruptured a bricks were line under the avenue, and that resulted in the destruction of the residence, causing significant damage to the subsequent property. in 1998, the building permit was issued to restore the residents at 135 el camino del mar back to its original condition and also allowed an edition over the garage. the floor plans were inaccurate, and it never received a variance for the planning code for the one-story addition that was over the garage. additionally, the appellate exceeded the scope of the building permit applications and expanded the building to the side, rear, and fraud without th