people president peterson: -- president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. i do not think there is anything in the record that warrants a rehearing. i think all the issues were addressed accurately at the two appeal hearings this board had in the item. there was also a discretionary rehearing before the planning commission. all the issues have been thoroughly vetted. i do not see how the arguments are directly related to the item on appeal before you. the issue of how it was raised. that is a residential plan guideline issue that should be addressed to the building permit, which would also be appealable to this body. we cannot approve it until the final action is taken on the variance. that would encompass the entire project. i am available for questions. president peterson: public comment on this item? >> how much time did you want to give for public comment? one minute per speaker? >> i am in the community. my children attend school near the open space. the open space -- i am very familiar with it. this is an area wit

president peterson: thank you. it next speaker, please? >> bin evening. i am from the school district. i am here on behalf of superintendent carlos garcia, and i like to read a letter that he submitted to the board. hear hon. commissioners, i am asking the board of appeals to reconsider and overturn the planning commission's may 2010 decision, appeal number 10-105, to approve a permit for a medical cannabis dispensary located at 2139 taraval street. our own internal review indicates the potential location for this dispensary sits in a densely populated hortons corridor. this is a popular draw for the students of like a high-school, many who are over the age of 18 and could have potential access to this facility. it furthermore, given this access, it could serve as a resource for providing cannabis to the broader student population, considering the type of products made available, for example at edible products. medical cannabis dispensary is are restricted from proximity to schools because of legitimate community n

president peterson: thank you. next speaker? >> good evening. and i'm here to speak on behalf of chinese gospel church. the people involved with the mcd in this case have asked that you apply a discretion standard. the definition of abuse of discretion in legal terms is if it exceeds the bounds of reason and results in a miscarriage of justice. when a police officer says that an mcd will attract filing criminals to a neighborhood, to a business that has large amount of drugs and cash on hand, and when one of the council members readily admits there is no place within the city of san francisco that control on a map and not put in mcd within 1,000 feet of a place that serves children in some way, then a completely defies the bounds of reason. their reasoning is an mcd has to go somewhere. safety to children be darned. it exceeds the bounds of reason. apply that standard to the mcd in this case. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? >> hello. i have lived in the sunset 16 years. thank you for allowing me to speak. i

president peterson: did you personally go to the site? >> i was one of the arborists who did the initial the vibration of the trees. president peterson: i think the appellate stated that all the chinese elms were going to be taken, where as you stated that one would be left? >> i can look at my notes and get back on that to you. president peterson: there is concern because we have heard from the appellant that at least one attempt to reach out to someone in your department got no response. i know i have seen you hear many times. i think in recent hearings you had awesome coordination with people that were going to be affected by your department decisions. what would your coordinated efforts look like if you could envision a post-hearing decision where we would uphold -- if we were to uphold your department's position? what would your coordinated efforts to look like? >> -- commissioner hwang: >> would meet with any neighbors who were interested to discuss the replacement and species selection. we frequently attend meetings outside of regu

president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please? >> hello. i have lived in the sunset 16 years. thank you for allowing me to speak. i feel the residents of my neighborhood are not being heard. we're very frustrated. it is a waste of time if the city is going to do as it pleases regardless of what we think. i think marijuana as a comfort ing role for individuals with serious illness, but think the city is allowing it to be too easily maintained. doctors' notes are easy to obtain and that allows those who may not need it medically to seek out for medical projects for recreational use. here are some advertisements and how easy it is to get a doctor's note. home delivery is available. if we are to ensure safe and affordable distribution of section c of the law states, why can't they get through their hmo or walgreens? i think the owners are deceiving the public and make this claim because of the medical aspect of the law, not requiring them to disclose how many clients they serve or how much sales are down at these

president peterson: let us take a short break.

president peterson: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is theresa, with the apa association center. today i want to urge you to revoke the license. and i really feel that you should listen to people. today, california recognized that legalizing marijuana would not make our citizens healthier. there was a deal struck in the city and state. i would urge you to please listen to the people, because to legalize would lead to more addiction, and especially driving accidents and emergency room submissions. i urge you to really revoke the license for this. thank you so much. president peterson: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is terry fong. i am the owner of the 711 500 feet from the proposed site of the mcd. there is something we call trust. the sponsors claimed that i support their cause, which i do not. how can we trust them in running a good operation and a safe operation for our neighborhood? remember in the 1990's, i tried to get a beer and wine license for a convenience store, a food mart. i had one complaint.

president peterson: mr. sanchez. >> good afternoon, president peterson, members of the board. scott sanchez, planning department. the academy argues there is a lack of justice to the students, that they have illegally moved into the subject building. this is not the first building the academy has acquired and converted without benefit of permit. this is just one of the most recent ones. as mentioned in the last hearing, the department has taken an approach to this. properties that were acquired and converted before they had their environmental impact -- we are allowing them to go to the process. those which were applied afterwards -- no one can say they did not have do notice. they knew very well the could not acquire a property and conferred it without going through this process. the acquired the property last year, moved students in. they did give the courtesy to the planning commission of sending a letter that there were going to do this, but they did not require -- they did not apply for acquired permits. their attorney has said the building does not represent a health and

president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. just to reiterate again, there are two issues that have been raised by the appellants -- whether or not the project is code complying. using their arguments would change how we review mcds in san francisco. if we were to consider child care facilities, which are a separate definition in the planning code -- and we do have many definitions in the planning code. it would be common to refer to one definition for one use and another for a different use. the important thing we look at is how we would process the application. the chapter facility we will process as a child care facility in planning code. we will not process it as something else. we will not process it as a social service. i think that is an important part to make. this is a code compliant project. we did review it against the requirements of the planning code for the 1,000 foot requirement. we did not find that there were any facilities with of the defis that are prohibited in

president peterson: it

and president peterson? president peterson: in light of the number of speakers and the need for a translator, we will have one minute for public comment. >> if you need translation services, if someone is not standing next to you to help you have that, let us know and we will make sure somebody does that. also, i need to make sure everybody understands that public, it is available for people who are not affiliated with any of the parties. so if you are on the board of directors, for example, of peter the appellant organizations or an owner of -- of the appellant organizations or the owner of one of those appellant organizations or the owner or agent of a permit holder, you are not allowed to speak under public comment. your time to speak would be of the party wants to share their time with you. at first speaker? also, it will help us preparing the minutes if you could provide us with a speaker card. if you don't have one filled out already, we ask you to wait until after you are done speaking to fill it out

president peterson: thank you. when you are ready, colorado item 5, please. -- call item five, please. >> item 5, appeal no. 10-113, alison faulkner -- eillison folk versus the department of public works bureau of urban forestry. it is a protest of an issuance to the department of public works of a tree removal permits for 14 trees, order # 178,902. president peterson: thank you. we will begin with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening. i am here today along with a number of people who live on the 1300 block of mcallister street because the department of public works is planning to remove 14 of the street trees that are on the street right now. that is about half of the trees on the street. these are all mature chinese elm trees that are really critical to forming the character of the street. the trees are, as i said, mature. they have been there a long time. it is not typical in san francisco to have a block where you have such a nice canopy of trees. and they have been really important to the aes

the presiding officer is board president tanya peterson. joining her are commissioners garcia, fung, and hwang. we expect commissioner goh momentarily. i wonder if ms. young is here, if she could raise her hand. i want to let the audience know we have translation device is here for anyone who needs translation services. i will ask again and see if she arrived and can help to translate that message and to set of the headphones. sitting to my left is the deputy city attorney. she will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. in the front row, we have representatives from some of the city departments you'll be hearing from this evening. we have senior building inspector joe duffey representing the department of building inspection. scott sanchez, the building administrator, is here representing the planning department and planning commission. jarvus murrais murray is represg the transportation department. john hwang represents st. use and mapping. the board's legal assistant is the boards except to director. >> the board re

president peterson: aye. >> the request is denied. president peterson: item 53, please. -- 5e, please. >> a jurisdiction request. we have a letter asking that the board takeover -- it was issued on december 14, 2009. and the jurisdiction request was received in our office on november 18, 2010. the request of the permit. president peterson: you have 3 minutes. >> i would rather read it then talk. since the purchase of the building, my mother has been receiving payments for advertising signs of the building. we are trying to contact them, but we were unsuccessful at the time. my mother did not take much notice and was working to implement the building from mortgage. she was approached by a small company in the neighborhood with a request to expose of the side of my mother's building. there has never been a written agreement. the actual background statement is as follows. there was a statement provided and you can review them. how was it possible for my mother to request to the number of the cancellation? she could not possibly have requ

president peterson: thank you. is there any other public speaker on this item? seeing none, we can move into rebuttal. we will start with mr. moody. you have three minutes. >> thank you very much. i would like to put a few things on the overhead. i will note that there is no exception to the ordinance about 1,000 feet based on access problems. if there is an access problem, you throw it out the window. that is not true. what we have here are the travel times to the four closest and cds -- mcds. by muni, the longest is 28. these are not that far away. there are 23 medical cannabis dispensaries in this town. oakland has four. as we have noted, there is free delivery available everywhere. sticking with the overhead, there are questions about how near schools are to the site. lincoln high school is 0.75 miles away. they do not have graced infant on this, but let us credit it. you have dianne feinstein at 0.57. you have abraham lincoln and 0.7. you have since cecilia's at one. 07. -- at 1.07. this is an educa

president peterson: that is correct. thank you. vice president goh: well, in regards to whether there was work done before, i have found that we have heard credible evidence tonight as well as in the submissions that we received in preparation for today. i am not sure if it makes sense to go ahead and suggest changes to the findings now or if we should hear from the other commissioners as to whether others would like a revoke or not -- a revote or not. and i think that the project sponsors admission that there was removal of fixtures, and i know from other cases that i have worked on that these kinds of plumbing fixtures do require a permit, that that is a concession. i think that is probably enough, but even setting that aside, we have heard credible evidence here tonight. commissioner hwang: i think we

president peterson: the letter. if witnesses are questioned by board members, they will extend the time. >> the motion is from commissioner hwang to continue this matter to january 19, 2011. additional briefing is allowed at one page per party and additional testimony will be allowed at 3 minutes per party. commisssioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: aye. >> the boat is 5-0. this matter is continued to january 19. president peterson: thank you. when you are ready, colorado item 5, please. -- call item five, please. >> item 5, appeal no. 10-113, alison faulkner -- eillison folk versus the department of public works bureau of urban forestry. it is a protest of an issuance to the department of public works of a tree removal permits for 14 trees, order # 178,902. president peterson: thank you. we will begin with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening. i am here today along with a nuer of people who live on the 1300 block of mcallister street because the

president peterson: thank you. >> thank you. president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department's staff. this evening i am lucky to be joined by the planner, who is involved and the legislation that led up to the requirements that we have, developed in 2005. if there are issues about the intent, it maybe he can address those. there were questions that came up during the testimony. i will jump around a little bit. bear with me. i want to begin with a procedural background of the application. the property is located at 2139 taraval street, between 31st and 32nd streets. the building is a mixed use building, built in 1924. that has a small retail presence at the front, and that is where the subject mcd would be located. it has one dwelling unit at the rear. bmc -- the mc-2 zoning district is principally permitted use. people like to throw around the term as of rights. there is a discretionary review, of course. the subject application, the bill to permit application was submitted at the end of december of last year. they submitted th

president peterson: that is correct. thank you.

president peterson: i just want

president peterson: but off the top you do not know. vice president goh: i am looking at the ceqa cadex. that was provided to the appellant? >> just today. we received it from planning last night. vice president goh: isn't this to be appealed to the board of supervisors? i see mr. sanchez nodding his head. >> i am not a ceqa expert, but probably. vice president goh: thanks. president peterson: and want to follow up on the heron. did your department look at which trees that had the impact of habitat loss? >> we did not look specifically at habitat loss. president peterson: is that not within your purview? is that some and you do not consider it? >> it is something we try to consider. i think in this case because of the condition of the trees, and there are still other trees on the block and other elements in the neighborhood, it is a little bit different than if you are looking at an impact habitat or when we do removals in areas that are more naturalistic areas. commisssioner fung: ms. short, is it the department intend to issue one con

president peterson: we are ready to move on. please call item 5a. >> calling item 5a, multiple jurisdiction requests. the subject property at 171 lee avenue. we have an attorney letter asking that the board to jurisdiction over 2 you will permit applications which were issued on november 16, 2009, and december 30, 2009. the appeal period ended, and the permit holder is chio leng cheong. >> lawrence cornfield, department of building inspection. -- kornfield. i had the chance to speak with the building older and appellate about this complex problem. there is a problem because the plants showed that the windows being proposed are 3 feet from the property line, which is ok. but there was a service provided in the appellant's documents that shows it is part of the building that is closer than 3 feet from the property line. it is 2 feet. because of that, they are both agreeable to a continuance where i can go back and reconsider what this project should actually include that would be compliant with the building code and a satisfactory

president peterson: we are combining these into one case. we will start with whoever is here to represent caanan tutoring. please step forward. >> go ahead. >> my name is ross moody. i am here to speak on behalf of caanan tutoring service. i am a 20-year resident. i have three kids in public school. i married a native. i was lucky enough to do that. it is working out great. i want to talk about what this appeal is not about. what this appeal is not about is the pros and cons of medical marijuana, medical cannabis. i voted for proposition 215 back in the day. it has been the lot in the state for 20 years. i personally support the right of people to use medical cannabis to assist them in staying healthy. but what this appeal is about is san francisco's policy of where to locate medical cannabis dispensaries. the board of supervisors has seen fit to protect a zone around a medical cannabis dispensary. it really relates to the secondary market for marijuana. marijuana makes medicine, and i am not here to dispute that. but so it does toxic conten

president peterson: thank you. commissioner hwang: i move to continue the matter in order to give additional information. >> one other thing. the appeal said there was a change of use for this by tenant number one, and i think we provided information to the commission that hopefully would have convinced you that we are not trying to change the use of the property from a sort of hobby-type of use of versus commercial use for a sculpture studio, and nothing was mentioned about that at the last meeting or this meeting, as well, and i am hoping that we can at least make a decision on that. commissioner garcia: i agree. it would be unreasonable to have another hearing and then have this issue arise. i think the person to weigh in on that would be the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. a variety of uses are allowed for a legal dwelling units, and there are certain provisions. you cannot have members of the public coming and visiting. you cannot have signs up, display that you are essen

president peterson: thank you. ms. morgan? >> good evening. i would just sort of get right to it here. the jurisdiction request are largely a group of emails i submitted with the jurisdiction requests that were sent as interoffice communication long prior to any knowledge on my part of what people process was, what they might be used for in the future, or anything else. i will agree that perhaps the counters were removed by somebody else. that is not the point. the real point is that the counter wall for the pharmacy, which is pictured in their exhibit e i believe in the exhibit down in the corner, shows two window cut out here. it is clearly a counter wall. this is the wall that i referred to in the email dated may 11 in may 25. prior to the actual filing of the jurisdiction request. i am sorry? commissioner hwang: can you put your exhibit on the overhead, please? >> you can see right here -- let me put it up a little bit. you can see that right here, there is a counter, like an opening, as there would be in any pharmacy where a customer woul

president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez, we again apologize. that night was confusing, but we should have a parade in your honor as well. any other commissioner comments? any public comment on the commission of commons? seeing at non-, we will move on to item 3, the adoption of the minutes. before you for your consideration are the minutes of the board meeting of november 3, 2010. i move to adopt the november 3, 2010 minutes. any public comment on the minutes? seeing non-, call the roll, please. >> on that motion from the president to adopt those minutes, commissioner fund. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> item 48 is your consideration of findings to do with -- item 4a is an adoption of finding to an appeal you heard recently. it is appeal no. 10-092, up banks versus dbi. you voted to overrule in grant the approval on the condition that the utilities be capped and maintained. these findings were drafted with your motion in mind. the parties have agreed to the findings as writ

president peterson: what they can try to do is something.

president peterson: sorry. let's say that someone goes to the site. >> anyone can walk by a site, drive by a site, and many do, and that is not what i am talking about. i am talking about a schedule decided it isn't -- piped -- i am talking about a schedule will decide to visit. -- a scheduled site visit. animosity in issues of fairness. -- and issues of fairness. commissioner hwang: you want both sides, the appellant and the project sponsor, to have notice of that in an opportunity to go to the other side? >> no, i am not suggesting. to have the right to go to the other side's side. commissioner hwang: you just want them to have notice? >> that the commissioner is coming out to see one side, and if they want the commissioner to view their side, they can have that. they may choose not to. commissioner fung: i will determine which side i want to visit. commissioner hwang: what you're going to say is that if we want to. the board will maintain, again, the discretion to go to whichever we want to. >> i think in th

president peterson: i might have missed it earlier. would you be willing to let them push the entire building backs of the front said but is acceptable to you? >> yes. they have already been granted a variance in the rare large. -- rear yard. other neighbors might not like it, but we are really only concerned about the front and how it will stick out. that is what we are concerned about. president peterson: who drew that picture you put on the overhead? >> this is from their architect. president peterson: the dark line. >> i did that. that is the house. i did it so you could see that better. >> thank you. >> ms. roman murray and mr. murray, you also have three minutes of rebuttals. >> i would like to answer some of the things that have come up. ms. fulks has pointed that a few times that they tried to build on the lot and were unsuccessful. as mr. sanchez pointed out, they were not designed -- they were not denied the permit because of the design. they did not follow through on the process. that is the telling argument. it is not fair

president peterson: that is correct. thank you. vice president goh: well, in regards to whether there was work done before, i have found that we have heard credible evidence tonight as well as in the submissions that we received in preparation for today. i am not sure if it makes sense to go ahead and suggest changes to the findings now or if we should hear from the other commissioners as to whether others would like a revoke or not -- a revote or not. and i think that the project sponsors admission that there was removal of fixtures, and i know from other cases that i have worked on that these kinds of plumbing fixtures do require a permit, that that is a concession. i think that is probably enough, but even setting that aside, we have heard credible evidence here tonight. commissioner hwang: i think we are supposed to hear from everybody first, and then we will address. president peterson: i just want to say that i think this is unusual that we are taking in additional evidence, and this was at the request of the permit holder. a

president peterson: why do we not go with you vote? secretary pacheco: the motion is to continue until february 16, 2011, to allow for the permit holder to conduct additional acoustical tests and review permit issues. additional briefing is allowed at three pages per party. it is due prior. on that notion, commissioner fung, vice president goh, commissioner garcia, president peterson. the motion is continued. president peterson: mr. pacheco, thank you. we are ready to call item no. 7. secretary pacheco: i think he has another question about the directive? president peterson: the parties have left. you can call me. here is my card. secretary pacheco: item number seven, appeal no. 10-110, john horvers and f. joseph butler, 1269 lombard, versus the zone in the administrator, protesting the grading on a two-for-one, 2010, for the rear yard variance disconcerting demolishing the existing two story single- family building and constructing two new buildings at front and near -- we are of a lot. >> -- note the front and rear of the lot. >> goo

president peterson: what they can try to do is something. this has to deal with a new rule on draft findings. piss is more guan

president peterson: can w>> wous back inde? president peterson: we are going to resume the meeting. please call 6. >> appeal 10-077. it is the appeal of a denial on june 30, 2010 of eight ramp taxicab the nile. mr. murray and the appellate have agreed the public should go first because he has to leave. >> is that ok? president peterson: ok. >> a good evening. i am medallion # 239, royal taxi. i have worked three years as a cabdriver. i know mr. farid omar about 15 years. he worked with me almost 15 years. if i have a vacation or am sick, or something like that, he covers me with a cap. -- cab. he has worked with other companies, too. he is a hard worker. he is a good man, a family man. he applied for it. thank you. president peterson: thank you. mr. murray? hopefully our issue will be more brief than the last one. this is a relatively simple matter. it is -- i am sorry. jervis murray. mr. omar applied for a medallion and was denied his permit, primarily because he has not fulfilled his full-time driving requirement. it is that simple. even by his own count, which was in the opening