the d.a.'s summary of the board of appeals. resident miguel: thank you. ]y commissioners, you are now at the 15 minute general public comment category. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission with the exception of agenda items. with respect to this category, each member of the public may address you up to three minutes, keeping in mind the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. i do not have any speaker cards for this category. president miguel: is there any general public comment at this point on items that are not agenda items? >> sue hester. a couple weeks ago you heard the case of 35 lloyd and continued the case to december 2. yes, december 2. i talked with staff to find out what the turnaround time is to be with the revision to get this back before the commission. because of the holidays, the turnaround time is the end of next week. my status report -- i am the attorney for the project, is the architect you gav

>> good evening, and welcome to the november 3, 2010 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. commissioner chris hwang will be absent this evening. francesca will provide the board with any legal advice this evening. i am the executive director, sent via gold steam. we're joined by the representatives of the department that will be presenting the cases. we have laurence kornfield with the department of building inspection. sitting next to him is the newly named zoning administrator, scott sanchez, and carl short, representing the department of public works bureau of urban forestry. if you could please go over the meeting guidelines and to at the swearing and process. >> the board request that you turn off all electronic devices so do not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules for presentation are as follows -- appellants, permit holders, and department responders each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rare bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within those times. m

of appeals which will hear about 95% of the appeals. and anything else that requires either a mument appeal entitlement -- multiple entitlement is to the board of supervisors so what the h.p.c. did is basically said they wanted to mirror over the current board of appeals processes which allows any interested party in a project to appeal something to the board of appeals, a variance, a d.r., a permit, what not. so within 30 days of their action, c of a can be appealed to the board of appeals or the booed of supervisors. and that's it. it's that simple. so that's all they changed it to. and then the last section i want to talk about is 1014. it's on page 33 to 34. and this is a section that directly relates back to the nomination and initiation process. this deals with what the city can and cannot do when a building is pending designation. when it has been initiated but not necessarily been formally designated by the board of supervisors. and it's also commonly known of as 180-day clock. basically, currently when a building is initiated by anybody, the city cannot issue any permits for 180 days. the h.p.c. wanted to amend this slightly. they k

i think i will jump to the board of appeals first. last night, the board of appeals heard the case i think you might be interested

the legislation. the appeals process section 342.6 has an appeal either to the board of supervisors if the board of supervisors has authority over the entitlement, or if the board of supervisors does not have authority, it would go to the board of appeals. >> "authority over entitlement" means potential use permit needs to be approved? >> i think the entitlement refers to the actual approval, like a conditional use permit legislation. the ceqa process is a separate process not directly addressed in this legislation. >> to appeal something with conditional use, there is one standard to appeal the environmental determination. what is the standard to appeal this consistency determination? four signatures? one signature? how do you get it to board? >> it is within 30 days of the issuance or denial of the consistency. any person may file an appeal. it may be one person. >> it mirrors the ceqa appeal route instead of the conditional use route, which means a certain percentage of the people within a radius, correct? >> that is correct. it is more like the ceqa appeal process where one person could appeal within that

i think i will jump to the board of appeals first. last night, the board of appeals heard the case i think you might be interested in, one of the lager, later hearings you have had in recent months, the medical cannabis dispensary at 2139 taravel street. there was a lot of testimony on that. the appellants appealed the issuing of the building permit and argued that the proposed mcd was located within 1,000 feet of community and recreation facilities and that the use would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. they also argued that the commission hearing was flawed because there was insufficient translation service. the department response was that the mcd code complying. what we identify as community facilities are not what the community was arguing would be those facilities. you argued that the mcd was neighborhood serving and that the nearest was more than 2 miles a -- 2 miles away. the board stood with the appellant on a unanimous vote that it was not appropriate for the neighborhood. they also found the commission hearing was

on the advice, they said it would be a good idea to try to resolve the issue outside of the board of appeals. i went down and visited him at his office. i did this so i could put the issue to rest. this is why i am bringing it now to you. i just asked about the evidence that i submitted. each year we start 10-15 new projects where similar permits are pulled and they have never been accused of such allegations and the board will recognize our credibility and we can move on and continue the remaining 12 states that we have on the existing permit. in addition, i am not looking for any extension or monetary reimbursement. in the duration that this whole appeals process happened, the permit was renewed on september 3rd which is a friday. on the following monday, we received a letter from mr. fung's office saying that the permit was revoked at which point we removed all of our employees from the property because we did not want to incur a fine. for about 15 days, i made an attempt to reach out and resolve the issue and before that 15 days, from the fifth until september 24th when we received anoth

commissioners, you are now under the director's report, item seven, director's announcements, item eight, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> thank you, and i had my for the congratulations to scott and i look forward to working together with him in the coming years. i went to the neighborhood at work friday afternoon to discuss a number of paulette. a number of topics with the residence. one of the things i wanted to mention to you is we will be, towards the end of the year, probably early december, giving you an update on the overall action plan, wrapping that up, and presenting to you some of our recommendations for changing the items under due process for internal procedural changes, primarily, and we will be convening with public stakeholders on that process in early december as well. that group requested that we hold that meeting on saturday morning rather than a weekday evening so we could have better attendance. so we will do that. the other thing i wanted to mention, as you may recall, several months ago, the mayor and supervisor chu had requested the department convene a p

the department commenced enforcement action, and after the complete enforcement process, it was appealed to the board ofappeals. at the appeal hearing, aau argued they had a complete imp and the department was abusing its power by not allowed to go forward. the department responded it was an undisputed fact that the use of the property was changed without the required c.u. and that aau did not have a valid institutional master plan because the planning commission did not have access to the document and had been more than two years with the most recent some middle and that the o

as applicable shall act on the appeal of a consistency determination at the same time it acts another entitlements for the proposed use. the board of supervisors or board of appeal as applicable may find countervailing public policy considerations justify approval of the entitlement despite any inconsistency with the healthcare services master plan." again, it confirms and clarifies what we have been saying all along in the event that there is any question that someone may have about that. so i make a motion to make that amendment. president chiu: supervisor campos has made a motion. seconded by supervisor dufty. without objection, it is accepted. now we go to supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to express by compliments to supervisor campos and supervisor maxwell and for the advocate union and private sector for their input in the composition of this ordinance in this master plan. second, is that, proudly, we all stood in celebrating the good work of then supervisor and then assembly member tom amiano and darren newsome in the birth of healthy san francisco and healthy san francisco was born out of the principle

we will have something to build, hopefully, moving to the board of appeals. there is still a ways to go and i think we have made significant progress. i wanted to thank the department, they have been excellent work with. >> of those notices are going out next week? >> perhaps even this week. >> public comment? >> good morning, commissioners. i will try to explain what is going on here. he knows three or four times i have sent a copy of the survey to them. they had a copy on file. you can go on these on-line requests for the property. the front of the building is more than 60 feet tall. on the side of the property it needs to be removed. encroaching on the back of the houses, this patio, which is never discussed, must be restored. they know what needs to be done. nothing has been done. according to information from your computer, it is on hold from january 7 of this year. they submitted some kind of claim, not through the building department. no one knows what is going on. ultimately it needs to be resolved before we move further. nothing to say they will move

on the advice, they said it would be a good idea to try to resolve the issue outside of the board of appeals. i went down and visited him at his office. i did this so i could put the issue to rest. this is why i am bringing it now to you. i just asked about the evidence that i submitted. each year we start 10-15 new projects where similar permits are pulled and they have never been accused of such allegations and the board will recognize our credibility and wca

i'm here to ask you to please confirm me, my reappointment for the relocation of appeals for. this board formed in 1967 and of his total fund in the city's administrative code, chapter 24b. -- and now is codified in the city's administrative code. we are here to give the grievance, and i think i am very qualified because i have been on the board for the past two years. i have an m.b.a. degree. my bs degree is in civil engineering. i work for the department of transportation california and also work for the federal government. i am very active in civic activity, and sit on the board of appeals for the water department. i am with citizens to work with the police department on central station. i am very much involved with community activity. i was the primary person for the association for the whole united states, and i have been living in san francisco with my wife, and i do speak chinese, mandarin and cantonese. please confirm my appointment. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next. is this ms. ramirez? >> good afternoon. thank you very much for giving me the pleasure for being here.

on the advice, they said it would be a good idea to try to resolve the issue outside of the board of appeals.

the appeal should be granted. vice president goh: i do support mcds and think there is a need for them in the city. however, our charge year for the board of appeals is to consider the impact of any development on the surrounding community and the adjacent properties. we have seen here today a really profound showing of what this particular district, this particular neighborhood, thinks about this business. i was impressed -- i will not say suede -- by the seven eleven owner who came forward and said that the mcd owners claimed he supported their business when he says he does not. the lack of a feeling of trust from the community toward them -- toward the project sponsor i think was represented by that. i do think the public process was flawed at the planning commission with the lack of having a translator. and i agree with what has been said so far about the other organizations within the 1,000 feet. i also think that edgewood being outside of that by 50 feet -- that is two houses, basically, outside the perimeter. that is an important consideration given that ed would is a treatment center. so i would -- given that edgewood is a treatmen

and i want to bring to your attention a problem, and should the commission or board of appeals choose to uphold this permit, we need to deal with this problem, and that is that this permit authorizes work on the main structure at the rear of the property and also the construction of a new structure at the front of the property. a person may not be issued for two separate structures. the building code is extremely clear. one section says "no building or structure may be erected and constructed, and center, lest a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained." in trying to think about how to deal with this, i think what i might recommend the board of appeals do, should you choose to uphold the permit, is to ask the permit older to strike all the references to the new front structure, small structure, and to apply for a separate permit for that small structure at the building department. we can all sign off on that quickly and easily, but it does have about a separate permit, and it does have to be removed from this permit in order to allow this permit it to pro

we will have something to build, hopefully, moving to the board of appeals. there is still a ways to go and i think we have made significant progress. i wanted to thank the department, they have been excellent work with. >> of those notices are going out next week? >> perhaps even this week. >> public comment? >> good morning, commissioners. i will try to explain what is going on here. he knows three or four times i have sent a copy of the ey

you would then have the opportunity to appeal the to the board of appeals, a public hearing opportunity, and your permit can be either reinstated or revoked. if it is revoked and then you come in for a new one, it would be treated as a new permit. >> in terms of feedback, there is often one department granting permits but different departments have to grant adherence to other things. dpthe department of health would need to make sure that they are operating in a healthy way. there is a way for them to go back to the permiting department, correct? >> yes, the feedback would then go back to them. then they would take the action necessary. >> is there a mechanism through which those complaints are given to dpw so that they can make the decision, as opposed to dpw having to go to other areas to find out? >> i would expect that they would do that as part of that process. we have not set that out in the legislation. >> city attorney? >> i just wanted to respond to those situations where a permit is subject to revocation or suspension. it is recognized that if a vendor is violating any of the