>> good evening, and welcome to the board of appeals meeting for december 15, 2010. heading our meeting is president

peterson, and joining her are supervisor mcgoldrick and -- supervisor goh -- vice president goh and others. we also have secretary pache co, scott sanchez, the zoning administrator, laurence kornfield, carla short, with the department of urban forestry. at this time, mr. pacheco, if you could go over the guidelines? >> the board asks that you turn off all of your cell phones said they do not disturb the proceedings. please carry on all conversations in the hallway.

each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for a bottle. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within the three-minute or seven-minute period. those not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate presentation of minutes, members of the public wishing to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or a business card to board staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker cards and pans are available to the left side of the podium behind the board also welcomes your comments and questions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the left side of the podium, as well. if you of questions about a rehearing or board rules, please speak to board staff during a break or call the office tomorrow morning. the board of this is located on mission street, room 304.

this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv cable channel 78, and d b d -- dvd's are available from sfgtv. thank you for your in. attention. we will conduct our swearing in. please stand and say "i do" after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. supervisor peskin: -- >> thank you, mr. pacheco. president peterson, commissioners, an appeal before

the board of supervisors regarding the environment determination was deemed timely, and the matter should be rescheduled until after the board of supervisors can hear that case. it is scheduled for january 11 before the board of supervisors. the parties have requested february 9 as the date to which this matter would be continued, but, of course, the matter can be continued to any data you wish. supervisor peskin: pick february 9. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll, please. supervisor sandoval: -- secretary pacheco: [reading

roll] that is scheduled for february 9. >> is there anyone who would like to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda? seeing none, we will move on to item two, which are questions and comments. commissioners? seeing none, a number three, which is the adoption of minutes. , the minutes of december 8, 2010. supervisor peskinterson: i move. secretary pacheco: on that motion -- [reading roll]

the vote is 5-0, those minutes are adopted. >> if you could read the first item, please. secretary pacheco: the board voted 4-1 to revoke the permit with the adoption of findings at a later time for the subject property at 281 turk street. >> thank you. commissioners, there is a court reporter to transcribe this hearing, and with your permission, we can make that the official record of this proceeding.

is there any public comment on the use of the court reporter? you call the roll? secretary pacheco: on that motion from commissioner peterson to accept this as a record, [reading roll] the transcription is deemed official. thank you. >> oh, president peterson, with each consent, we will give them three minutes.

commissioner garcia: i think you have to move the microphone closer. >> i appreciate the concern of the board have an extra work, but this case is unique. there was never a fair opportunity to respond to the accusation that they did work without a permit. this was because the pharmacy would be bad for the neighborhood. the appellant filed a brief that said nothing about this issue. believing the opponent had dropped this issue, they dropped and did not address it. they were blindsided when the proposed findings relied on this issue. you'd be quite unfair for the board not to reconsider given the new evidence submitted. it is unlikely that a similar

case will ever come before this board. here is of the evidence in the record comes down. secretary pacheco: could the court reporter move that? the tv department has said is an issue. >> here is of the evidence in the record comes down. you have testimony from the permit holders say no permit work was done prior to the time of this issue. you have the contractors saying the same thing. ddi has no evidence and has said nothing about work being done prior to the issue of this -- ddi -- dbi. first, the appellant is biased.

second, the opponents said no way of knowing that the work was done by the contractors. in fact, it was done by a prior owner. the appellant states in her april 16 email, quote, "all of the old had been removed." the implication is that they did this on or before april 16, but in the exhibits, those pictures show that the space was an empty shell. there were no counters there, so any counters that were taken out or taken out by the previous tenant and certainly taken out before february 25. also, the palin states, quote, the perimeter wall had been

sheetrock. again, if you look at the exhibit, with pictures taken on february 25, the perimeter walls had already been sheetrocked. 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 would approach and get a prescription filled. there are two openings here. this wall, this exact wall, which was done by their contractor after they were in there doing construction and perpendicular wall that those of you that you cannot see, the two walls formed to the waiting room of the building. those two walls were the walls i was referring to in the emails, clearly done by their contractor. now, i understand that they have spent a lot of money, and i feel but they probably think they can use a sliding scale of morality in order to testify here, but the truth of the matter is that the fact that they spent the money does not alter the fact that they were doing construction prior to the issuance of the permit, and whether advised or not, it is still a fact, and i do not know how much they pay the contractor overall. we know how much has been invested, and it seems that they

both feel that that is enough of a monetary value to be able to not tell the truth. i mean, that is just all there is to it. you know, i am not an attorney. i do not know the exact legal terms, at that point whether the permit was invalid or illegal or what it is. i am sure the city attorney can tell us, but the permit should have been fios prior to the construction of the two main walls that comprise the waiting room, and it was not, and there is time the evidence that proves that. daiichi for all of your time and all of your consideration. you really are terrific. -- thank you for all of your time and consideration. >> is there any public comment? i am sorry. mr. corn field -- kornfield. >> laurence kornfield,

department of building inspection. we have no direct knowledge of work that may have been done. we did receive complaints, where no one actually personally that i understand saw work that had been done prior. president peterson: i am just going to follow up on when those complaints were lodged. ok, thank you.

>> ok, one complaint. it was received on june 8. 2010. for -- i need to get -- let's see. let me look at this other one here. june 8, ok, 2010, started construction before the permit was issued, a large amount of construction going on, construction should be in the commercial unix only, and it was received on june eightball -- on june 8, but i do not see that an inspector went out.

there is a complete from may 28. -- a complaint. that complaint was received in the building inspection division, and it appears to be -- it says police department. i do not know if it is from the police department. construction is in accordance with approved plans, and that is may 28, and, let's see, we have a complaint received on june 1, which says was abated by inspector kevin mchug, and it

may continue to be worked without permits. that was june 1. further information for the border, in september, the inspector gave a rough grading inspection which allows them to cover the work that they have done, and that was issued on june 25, according to our records. does that help? president peterson: i was just going to suggest that you show council and the appellant. >> these are printouts of the dbi tracking log which are available for anyone who wants

to find them. president peterson: did you review your file to see if there were any complaints prior to may 24? >> yes, and those are the complaints that i have. year is a complete list. i may have to review that. this is specifically what they are. ok, so this is complaints at this address. there are different addresses, to lead marine 1 tu -- there are

different addresses. commissioner hwang: it is out of focus. >> maybe i can focus it. president peterson: i think it was about complaints on or before may 24. >> it is not all of electronic. sometimes it is physical sayings. the problem is is that the addresses are a little bit awry. so we have complaints year from june, may 28, g-20, and this is the housing inspection division complete. mr. bagley has to deal with residential conditions, so the

building inspection complaints, the may 28 and the g-8 complaint, -- the june 8 complaint. president peterson: thank you. vice president goh: are sinks and toilets considered fixtures? >> can you repeat the question? vice president goh: yes, they are fixtures -- are sinks and toilets considered fixtures? >> yes, they are fixtures. vice president goh: do you need a permit? >> you can take out a toilet and put in a toilet without a permit at the same location. vice president goh: it is my and a standing that one could not take out a toilet or a sink without a permit.

is that true? >> i do not think that is true. you can take out a toilet to just replace it. you have not touched the plumbing or relocated it. vice president goh: what about removal? >> as as taking it out and not putting another one in approve a permit is required to remove the fixture such that it is not being replaced. vice president goh: thinks. commissioner garcia: mr. kornfield, did you have a chance to read these? >> i read them, but not thoroughly. vice president goh: item four, written by the deputy city attorney gessner, it makes one wonder that in ordinary circumstances, if someone comes before this