Issuance on august 22, 2014 to 834 44th avenue building with two off Street Parking spaces. Public hearing was held on november 19, 2014 and the matter is on for further consideration today. It was continued to allow time for dbi to conduct a site inspection and for the permit holder to submit revised plans. No additional briefing was allowed. Perhaps we will start with mr. Duffy then from dbi. I have a financial situation with the law firm on a separate matter but im prepared to hear this case with no prejudice or bias. Thank you. Inspector duffy. Good evening. The case as you know was deferred last night. I did a site visit, been out there twice since the last hearing. I was out there yesterday and last week as well. So one of the reasons i was out there was because of the existing walls that were to remain and the concern about the demolition of those walls so i went there and then we measured the wall, chief building inspector was also there as well. We met with both sites, contractor, attorney, neighbors, their consultants so there was a lot of people there. Theres two remaining walls at the property that are left, one is on the north side Property Line wall, 79 feet high, consists of 2 by 6 studs with redwood siding on the ground floor only. The only remaining is on the south Property Line, 27 feet long, 7 foot high, 2 by 6 studs with redwood siding on the ground floor. We basically have two actuals on the Property Line. My recommendation on those walls is, weve done this on a few projects and the walls lack any fire resistant construction and Water Proofing so you have siding nailed on to the studs. Its the old style. Now, the rest of the building is going to be demolished down to those areas, thats showing on the scope of work already approved on the permit and if it would be a recommendation from dbi would be to dismantle the existing walls along with the other walls, incorporate the existing lumber into along with some new framing. At the same time we will have the minimum of new siding with jet board or equivalent and a vapor barrier. So we have basically on some existing lumber it will be incorporated with new lumber and will also give the fire resistance and Water Proofing the rest of the building will have. Thats my recommendation on that. I believe both sites are okay with that. Ive spoken to them and there are other issues on the appeal that probably you need to hear from the permit holders attorney on that. There was discussions as late as this afternoon. I saw plans in the hall in while other cases were going on. One issue that dbi will have an issue with, i think, or we will need further verification at this time with the building being there its hard for us to tell the foundation. Theres some concerns from the neighbors that theres an issue with the foundation being over Property Line, touching their foundation. I couldnt determine if there was any separation. Typically when you put in a new foundation you should keep it separate from neighbors foundation. In San Francisco with the lot lines the foundations are close together bull they should never be touching. Thats not a building code, i believe. I cant tell if theyre touching. That would need to be determined when the building would be demolished. Wed be able to see much better and more analysis is needed on that. That is something that we can deal with that dbi, a respect i of the appeal. I think wed get that and know how to deal with it with regards to getting engineers involved and bring out a dbi engineer, figure out what needs to be the fix for that. So one thing i did notice is on the inspection history on the previous permit that got revoked and then because of the unlawful demolition we did have three reinforcing steel inspections by a building inspector back in 2005 and 2006 so thats encouraging from a point of view is that at least im pretty confident theres the proper rebar in there but the contact with the other building could be a concern but its something i think we can deal with when they do construction if the permit shh upheld and the work goes on. Im available for any questions. Theres an old story about rebar cages being inspected and once they leave they can move to another part of the site. Ive heard that. Thats never happened to me. I hope it never does but ive heard of that happening. We do special inspections as well so i think the engineer of record on previous permits is long gone at this point. This buildings been sitting for seven years and thats pretty close to what they need to. Theres some issues they need to figure out. They made some Good Progress since the last hearing. Maybe its a good idea to hear from both sides now if thats what the board wishes. Ive got a question, inspector. So the two walls that are remaining, if theyre replacing or partly replaced, if you take those two walls down doesnt that require a demolition permit to put the property back together again . No. It doesnt . No. Okay. Because youre incorporating that back in there again. In this case i think thats what were going to do. Okay. It wouldnt be typical. Its a very thorny issue in San Francisco. I think here its a very unusual case thats gone on for so long, that you just stated there could believe right. Maybe in this case we should have had a demolition permit and a new construction permit, but i think its gone that long yeah, eight years. To put them back into that process again, i think would be a little unusual. Sometimes we deal with driel rot issues, inferior lumber size. Sometimes we do have the situation we let them do a revision on an alteration permit for some of the walls that need to be strengthened to in this case the lack of Water Proofing is actually i think it was last week, or maybe one of the recent rainy days and you could see the water coming through the siding so youre going to have a building then if we didnt do this weve got a building 99 that has proper walls, you need these two walls as they are, you dont do anything with them you have water coming through there so i think it makes sense to do this. That was my recommendation. Best of two evils. The demolition on the new construction, thats anotherish shuch that i dont think we want to go there. Thank you. Commissioners you want to hear from the permit holders next . Thank you. Im here on behalf of the permit holders. We have made progress in the last month, happy to say. I believe weve gotten agreement tonight. Weve had a lot of conversations late into the day and also want to hear from the appellant as well but we did do a site visit two weeks ago, determined a number of things. First the pre2000 walls that were in place do match what was in the plans so we did verify that. We are able to remove those panels to get access to the exterior walls of the adjacent buildings and replace them in a cocompliant matter with todays standards of the building code. The Foundation Issue is inconclusive at this point. We have a number of folks with a number of opinions and its not something we can get into before we start taking down the walls of this building. We were seeing definitely a separator at the front and back of the building, somewhat inconclusive. Theres only so much we can get into at this stage of the process. And then the last i think i mentioned that we did determine that the north light well only goes down to the second story before theres a wall on the first floor of the north light well so like i said, fortunately, i believe weve come to an agreement and i think it shows the permit holders flexibility in this situation. Weve agreed to provide light wells on the north and south side down to the second story. That matches the south light well in its entirety and matches the north light well to that first floor wall thats in place. Weve also agreed to provide 5 foot side setbacks on that front third story deck. There was some concern from the neighbors about access to the top of the their roofs. We provided 5 foot setbacks on either side of that. What were asking tonight, and i believe the appellants are in agreement with this, is to defer the Foundation Issue to the Building Department and their Structural Engineers who are experts over there. Like i said, there are folks saying this is adequate, folks saying its not and we have a foundation that we cant see right now until we get into the work so i believe were in agreement to defer and if youd like to put this on the record and say dbi would confirm that is a cocompliant foundation before theydish issue any site permit a den that. Addenda. Some sort of reasonable notice period two weeks in advance we let them know the walls were going to come down to paint and give them two weeks to whatever they need to do to their walls. Like i said, im happy weve made this progress in the last month and believe we all on the same page and i would say certainly listen to what mr. Has to say and im here for questions. What do you mean by separators . Im sorry. You used the term semiray tors. Semiray tors. Separators. What do you mean by that . There are these boards that we can see in the front and back. Theres a board in between the two concrete foundations. Board or styrofoam. Not styrofoam. I would defer to inspector duffy on this, but somethings there. We dont know exactly what it is and how far it goes. Now we can hear from the appellants. Good eveninging commissioners. We have come a long way and my client is willing together put an end to this thing. We [inaudible] the survey so that make sure that nothing is go over the [inaudible]. So you all have a Merry Christmas and happy new year. Thank you john. Mr. Tigue. Good evening president lazarus and commissioners, corey tigue for Planning Department. We feel like this project was approved appropriately by Planning Department. Sounds like the proposed changes between the two parties would, if anything, result in a smaller project overall so wouldnt trigger any additional notification requirements and i dont think we have any issues for the compromise thats been reached. Im available for any questions you may have. Any Public Comment . Seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. Mr. Duffy, commissioners are you willing to entertain him again . Yes. As long as he entertains that. Sorry commissioners for the time. Just one point of clarification, i heard mr. Calvin there saying that the it would take the walls down prior to any the addendum being issued. You cant start the work until the addenda has to be issued before you take the walls down so we wont know what the foundation is until the a ddenda is issued. Well you can have multiple addenda. They could do something but the structure is usually on the first addenda. I dont know if its set up like that, but we could make see. We could work on the addenda details. We could do a demolition addenda, that could be an idea. Thank you commissioner fung. Thank you for your help. Thank you. Timically its an evaluation of the foundation. If they want to keep that foundation we want to make sure its code compliant. Thats what we want. I want to make sure these plans you submitted reflect the ideas of the department and have been reviewed by building inspection. Yes, weve circulated before the meeting both with mr. Lau, mr. Duffy and mr. Lee. Mr. Lau youre nodding your head so you agree. I believe that the commissioners are in in agreement and the appropriate motion would be to grant the appeal and to condition its actually a site permit to condition is site permit on the new drawings provided, dated todays date i think. December 17. And to allow the Building Department to review the foundation for code compliance upon completion of demolition. Did i miss anything . And on the basis of the agreement that is on the agreement of the parties . That is unusual, but yes. Okay. We have a motion to withhold this permit with adoption of revised plans. A further condition that the dbi review the subject foundation for code compliance upon completion of the demolition and this motion is on the basis of an agreement between the parties. On that motion to up hold with revised plans and further conditions, president lazarus. I. Commissioner honda. I. Commissioner wilson . I. Thank you. The vote is 4 to zero. This appeal is upheld with further revised plans and conditions. Moving on to item 7. The subject property is at 958 geary street. The Zoning Administrator decided december 19, 2014. At that time upon motion of commissioner fung the board voted three to one to one with commissioner honda decenting and one vacancy to up hold the [inaudible] discretion. The letter of determination is regarding whether a medical cannabis dispensary may be reestablished at the retail space at the subjects property and well start with mr. Papas who has three minutes. Could we switch the mic . Good evening commissioners and secretary and the attorney. On the screen i have some reasoning for [inaudible] request. Ill just quote here i get quoted a lot of stuff last week, a month ago. A hearing request only in extraordinary cases to prevent manifest injustice. That is whats occurring to divinity tree at the moment. I dont have new circumstances, but id like you to review the circumstances we discussed last time and ill list them after i state the injustice. You know, last time was kind of a popularity contest, kind of a referendum. Thats not what i wanted and i think the facts got lost somewhere in that. Why did i present the planning emails. I presented the planning emails from january to march and they were just about word for word what was said. I dont understand why planning made me go through two months of this if they knew the 18 months closure period had already ended. Thats another [inaudible] of the 18 month closure administration. I reviewed the last statements of the last hearing in 18 months of discussions, that included divinity tree was made aware of the 18 month closure dates are important. Thats part of what Public Health did was offer consideration and before i submitted this time showed there were four other dispensary received later closure dates and these [inaudible] should be offered and thats my last point that dph offers consideration and i feel planning should too. Thank you. Youve exceeded your time. . Is there anyone here representing the Property Owner . Seeing none, then mr. Tigue. H sfwloo for the appellants situation, but unfortunate will the code language is clear and ambiguous about the 18th month abandonment. It treats that like a non conforming use. When we have a non conforming use we have the abandonment clause its under the stipulation that space will be converted. The abandonment clausings have specific purposes and in this case it was very clear. The appellant flexibility within their licensing, but unfortunately the way the code works that doesnt exist in this situation. Im available for any questions you may have. I just want to make the point that the issue of manifesting injustice is not necessarily an issue relate ed to the interpretation of the code but will lead to the wisdom of the commission. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. I dont see any new information that would, for me, allow the granting or jurisdiction. I agree with my fellow commissioner. Although i voted in favor of the guarding the Property Owner, but we are here to determine whether a rehearing will happen and at this point i dont believe the threshold has been made for that to happen. Move to deny the rehearing request. Thank you. Theres a motion on the floor from mr. Fung to of to deny the hearing request. The vote the 4 to zero. The rehearing request is denied and a notice shall be released. Thank you. Our next item is item 8, another rehearing request. The subject property is [inaudible] 6th a. Avenue. The board received a letter from appellants with Planning Department approval decided november 19, 2014