Appellants brief it says the notice it hereby given that your client intends to apply for the permit to demolish or audits permanently remove this unit from houshgs use is that the intent of your client to apply for that permit. To permanently remove. But to apply for the permit. Yes. Maybe a little bit classification that language is for per verbatim from the section. Okay. And its placed in there. Theres some legal agreement whether or not in some circumstances a permit is necessary to remove a unit period, however, if a permanent is do required then to get the necessary permits removing the unit pursuant to a plumbing unit and its our good faith intent to remove this from the housing use its appropriated under the circumstances so its your clients position if theres a debate to the Planning Department its required is it your appellants position not required. Its my position now, its not determined given the testimony given here today particularly by the representatives of the city its not been determined whether or not a further permit is needed if the city says yes, thats exactly what well do. Okay. Thank you thank you. Anything further from the department. Mr. Duffy ill say the attorney wanted to hear from the city a permit will be required ill say yes, a Building Permit is required we see the documents where the area has been remodeled and i dont see any permits so weve got that issue and the plumbing permit we need a Building Permit in my opinion to show what the true intent is in the area and if you want to keep it as a legal use or whatever you need a Building Permit to show that and that will forever be on the record but the plumbing permit we cant do that. Okay. Okay commissioners the matter is submitted my take is that it should be continued because the permit itself the plumbing permit the permit holder should have time to get the necessary permits required to complete the plumbing permit work does that makes sense. Thats my hunch im interested in hearing from others but seems like it is an adequate in and of itself to say the Department Heads are saying it is required because of the tint removal of the unit i appreciated what the attorney said let the chips fall where they may the unit can be properly moved moved of removed but it should be removed properly and trying to get it in this manner through a plumbing permit is proper. Im going to say why not remove the permit. It permit was not issued in error but it requires something else. I wouldnt say it of the issued correctly otherwise we wouldnt be continuing it is it being used in a manner thats improper because i think its been used to circumvent another appropriate processes from what of the stated thats where im at. I think both sides are using those processes improperly but to use this board in dealing with the plumbing permit is another way how theyre to use the processes the question is whether this permit was illegal issued and it was not. I think both sides clearly know what theyre going to do next theres another venues and they have litigation i held my tongue on the types of action ill contemplate and im sure the attorneys representing the clients are trying to help their respective clients. I know if we were to uphold the permit that is otherwise on its face in isolation not improper i think we would be advancing not advancing the interests of the public in and i think continuance where im removing like commissioner honda stietdz in order for the public to have their interests represented and allow the parties some time to do it right i would agree in general if it was truly de facto but its not de facto. Why not. The parties knows exactly whats going on. I dont see an, an example i would use a slightly different example if someone had a water heater go out you know they leak all over your garage and something goes in for an over the counter that water heater it out. I dont 7, 8, 9 to read into all actions of the city. Other things that have their own venues for resolution i think normally that thinking surely where the red board has jurisdiction i agree we dont want to step into that roll but weve got a permit and thats the most compelling to hear if mr. Duffy and mr. Sanchez about what they would like to see and havent seen its clear what is intended by this. Thats i dont know if continuance i dont know what others think about continuance continuance to the call of the chair until they decide if theyre going to get a permit or go further with what theyre planning on doing. Mr. Duffy. May i. I guess im going back to the question i asked before what was was this permit perhaps erroneously issued ill try to find. If we continue f this thats information youll supply. If people are going to be coming in and getting plumbing permits for the purposes of making illegal units im not a fan i agree with commissioner fung we cant surmise what people are doing its not right in my opinion thats not the way to do that we typically and mr. Sanchez and i have seen this before the board the proper way to remove an illegal unit get a permit and if they want to appeal it theyll be going there to Planning Commission but when i look at the permits our Department Issues several permits a year and permits are taken out in good faith by contractors and homeowners and we dont think anyone in this case was to remove a stove in an illegal unit and maybe this one is the case well use to if were going to see that i wouldnt want to be here every week doing this i dont think its at if thats what theyre doing in my opinion not right. I think you said before or maybe mr. Sanchez said it 2340i9s typical i dont think mr. Sanchez stated you dont normally see the stand alone type of permit without the benefit of a building or permit to accommodate a removal of a unit. In this case it would be issued in error it will change the usage that requires another permit. The City Attorney if this permit was taken out for the permitting use its part of the process but you need the Building Permit with it. By removing the stove it changes usage. No. No that is. What was the use. Removing something that the Building Code requires then, of course, it would be chang the use. Okay. A stove does not set that condition. Yes. We dont know what the use is we know its a 94 permit for the space on behalf of it was the top floor being used for a commercial use and conferred back to a residential use theres nothing it on the Building Permit that told us what the use is. Okay. Thank you. You know what we have the Housing Inspection Services with the open complaint maybe let them do their investigation i think theres no doubt there will be multiple actions. Question is what action do we take. Suggestions commissioners. We can continue to what mr. Duffy said wait until after the housing inspection process. Do we want to have to the to the call of the chair. Im leery of having this go on too long. Inspector duffey how long will the take to estimate for the housing inspection investigation to conclude. Oh, they do a thorough investigations it could be a month or two but the other thing i could do if we continue with this well check with our chief plumbing inspector and all be it the Building Permit would they typically give that permit i cant say yes or no the person i spoke with today, the plumbing inspector didnt seem to think it was a problem but if the i would like to speak to someone at a higher level to get that answered. Okay. But time wise probably a month would be enough and let them know its part of the process and do our research a little bit quicker. I dont know if the Housing Inspection Services im not sure where their coming up with their information. We can put heat. Especially, if increase a deadline i can definitely tell them that. Perfect. Director. Do you want to propose it. Ill suggest a date in october perhaps the second or third meeting in the month. Perhaps the 15th. Its easy for chris to say and why not do it a little bit sooner october 8th. Okay. Im not sure whos motion. Okay. Ill make the motion to continue to october 8th for the housing inspectors to continue and conclude its investigation as well as the department of the building inspection to explore whether or not the permit at issue should have a Building Permit. Would you want any additional briefing . No no. She wants lots. Im leaving this for everyone else mr. Pacheco. We have a motion then from commissioner hwang to continue this to octobers 8 any Public Comment . 2014 the public hearing has been held to allow the dbi time to conclude its analysis. On that motion and no additional briefing is allowed. Commissioner fung. No. The Vice President is absent. Commissioner president lazarus. Commissioner honda. Thank you. The vote is 3 to one the matter is continued actually october 8th well take a 5 minute break. Welcome back to the wednesday, july 23, 2014, board of appeals there is an overflow room available for people not able to find space in this room room 421. So i want everyone to know were calling item 8 greg vs. The department of health on the issuance of may 23rd to the Wellness Health center for the medical cannabis dispensary hearing i want to swear in the individuals that want to testify at tonight hamburger that were not here previously im wondering if people in the halfway can come into the room if you could invite them in to the extent we dont violate any fire codes. Some people are coming in office of the city administrator not all are going to speak act at this time were to conduct a second swearing in process if you wish to have the board tell our testify explain stand and raise your right hand after youve been sworn under please note any member of the public may take this without oath according to the sunset ordinance. No one worries about to take the oath. Dvd dvd. Thank you. Thank you so well start with mr. Robert for the appellant that has 7 minutes. Good evening chair and the members of the board of appeals were here tonight an, an nc d permit that was issued to waterfall wellness to operate an mc d the board need only consider the simple facts not get imbroiltd with a lot of extraneous stuff decide the litigation too the permit and the commission and really dont need to entertain a dispute between the parties. The motivations dont matter what we have a simple case should the city entrust the gentleman and its stepdaughter with an mc d permit they are the urban relieve before mr. Shep came in and began operating the waterfall wellness at the location. Im sorry, i have a couple of things for the overhead. And, of course, you had it correct the first time. Now again, you dont need to get into the disputes between the parties are those issues that are being litigated between them we know in 2011 shortly after the location had a fire caused by unpermitted i uninspected Electrical Work throughout the building and an, anlogically grow specific to conditions the Planning Commission placed on the permit the upstairs unit was to remain an residential unit the d b. A. Staff mr. Larry who ran the mc d program made a recommendation as the doctor that this operator you can see should be barred from operatidispensary they fou they were stealing power and bypassed the pg e meter and had installed the grow contrary to the grow permissions in state law and caused the fire that endargd obviously everyone in the neighborhood he essentially and the building burnt so it was redtagged by the dbi. To my understanding and from there the place was closed down and dbi issued the notice and post fines and dph thought they addressed the issue to water wellness and mr. Shep and the permit from north cal was revoked in the initial attachment to our brief. So we know about that history thats not stuff you need to obtain from newspapers or need to look at unscrub i cannot obligations only from the staff stay and the dph and City Police Department and i guess those are those 3. Now you is well, that was several years ago why should we take away the permit now mr. Will there are a number of reasons the first this is is an overwhelming need to treat that as a business as the City Attorney put it a lack active business because of personal income tax those are personal debt that create a need for a potentially great amount of money those taxes have been taking care of by the way, in fact, the documents submitted to this board clearly shouz shows we are talking two different tax more than 1 3rd of a Million Dollars a substantial amount balloons to the city was unpaid by the time he burned down the building and now he summits a document showing a zero balance owed on a different sales account dont be fooled theres a liability but at the time waterfall was run by mr. Shep it was more than a 3rd of a Million Dollars theres a compelling reason you shouldnt trust it as a nonprofit that the state requires and the citys own owners we know this operator and hes on the permit so the fact he had his stepdaughter sign the operation at the hearing fwrts d b h he wasnt an applicant and it was issued. To both mr. Mendez and at that time, hearing they referred to it as a Family Business it was not a Family Business it was about a nonprofit that helped patient were happy to answer our esquires questions if you have questions about the litigation all of the history behind it but i dont think you need to go there when he was entrusted with the permittee stole the pg e so if you have any questions, ill be happy to answer them okay. We can hear if the permit holder now. Permit holder first then the department. The permit holder will speak first then the department thank you. Good evening. Im paul, i represent the permit holder whos present. Im not going to address the points in my brief i assume the panel has read it i want to add one point there are a Vantage Point in the presentation this evening. A lot of misty and muddy waters i dont know which documents are claimed to be forged and youve not been apprised it seems like theres a lot of lose allegations i want you to keep in mind theres a situation were going to through everything against the wall and see what sticks he know that mr. Shep was an insiderer of waterfall at some point he had access to very imitate Financial Information regarding the company he presented in his opening brief and he was structural he was an officer and director which is what the background for that litigation and that litigation is still that pending where those issues will be worked out and not done here they should addressed in the proper forum we have the permit issued by department of health ancient history is ancient history four months ago might be ancient history the permit has bun issued i dont see anything in the brief this was a rehash of what happened before and its against a backdrop of a rivalry a business rifley its apparent from the litigation and the documents that have been submitted to you. So unless theres questions were ready to summit the matters theres litigations that have to go to the bona fide of the appeal itself why is it being done. My submission its being done that to take away the permit under from the permit hordes so mr. Shep casca get his own permit this is not a benign member of the public he has his own permit and unless theres questions ill summit open the briefing thank you very much we can hear from the department