go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the location open. you are set to go.

>> victor pacheco. i am the executive director. from the front row, we have some of the people who will be involved. the deputy director for the department of building inspector laurence cornfield -- kornfield is in. at this time, mr. pacheco, if you could go over the guidelines and then conduct the swearing in process? secretary pacheco: please turn

of cell phones and carry on conversations in the hallway. the board rules are as follows. each of seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for a bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments with in the seven or three-minute period. members of the public who are not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes to address the board no rebuttal. members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a business card or speaker card when you come up to the lectern. cards and pans are available on the left side of the podium, -- cards and pans -- pens are available, and customers vanished action -- customer satisfaction forms or also available. you can call the board of this tomorrow morning.

-- customer satisfaction forms are also available. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, it channel 70, and ddbvd's are available directly from sfgtv -- live on san francisco government television, channel 70. please raise your hand and say "i do" after you have been affirmed. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. -- and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you, mr. pacheco. we have two housekeeping items. one item has been withdrawn and

will not be heard. also, for item number six, an appeal regarding the property at 530 liberty street, the parties have requested that this meeting be continued to september 15, 2010, to finalize the agreement. with the motion, we can move it to that date. commissioner garcia: so moved. >> ok. >> good evening, members of the board. i am an attorney for the parties with item number 5a, which has been withdrawn. i did not get any notice about it being withdrawn. i got something 87 days after the permit was issued, and i think he would be some sort of -- i think it would be appropriate to get some sort of action, and both the requester in the permit holder had submitted briefs to members of

the board on the issue. president peterson: i think we received that withdrawal notice just yesterday. >> yes, yesterday afternoon, and we put something in the mail even to pacific heights inc.. the paperwork is called a notice of withdrawal, and it is a memo to the department telling them that it has been withdrawn and that the division -- decision was final. vice president goh: -- commissioner garcia: can we make sure that dbi knows that these are new windows and not replacements? thank you. president peterson: so we then have a motion to reschedule.

secretary pacheco: on that motion, commissioner fung, vice president goh, president peterson, commissioner hwang is absent, so that is rescheduled. >> now we can move into item one, which is public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak? president peterson: just a reminder about cell phones. thank you. >> members of the board of appeals, according to the sunshine ordinance, i ask the following statement be entered into the minutes of this meeting. for the above listed section, any person speaking during the public, and period may supply a brief written summary of their

comments which will be no more than 150 words. i believe this board of appeals as presently constituted is unqualified to act upon the appeals brought before it. there are serious questions as to whether california state law is applicable. the board hides behind attorney- client privilege to avoid answering this question. they simply say that the qualifications are listed in the charter, which essentially requires nothing other than a warm body. without a basic level of understanding about the intricacies of the matters before it, the matters of the board are totally dependent on the recommendations of various agencies. the board of appeals in becomes nothing more than a rubber stamp for those recommendations. -- the board of appeals becomes nothing more than a rubber-stamp for those recommendations. i do not think the members of this board have the courage to discuss publicly and allow public comment on their qualifications.

one of the things that i have come to appreciate about several of the boards here in the city is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. if someone does not agree with what you do, who do you appeal it to? you. if someone disagrees with a recommendation made by the city, who do you appeal it to prove not view, we are told, "it is not our problem" -- who do you appeal it to? not you. we are told, "it is not our problem." as far as the content goes, what i have seen in a number of these meetings, and it is really interesting, the more of them you attend, the more you learn, is that what board members do is that they make up their mind, and then they ask the questions of the building department that will allow them to come to that determination. they do not ask questions that will challenge the building

department or the planning department. what they will say is, "can you answer this question for me?" and then they will get up and substantiate the things they have decided to do. i have looked at the city charter, and it says that the people basically have to be reflective of the community as a whole. that is the only qualification they have. in other words, i have to be a man or a woman from some ethnic background. i have to be, i do not know, basically some warm body, and i do not think that in a lot of cases, this case, in particular, that this board of appeals is constituted in a way that -- [bell] president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president, commissionaires. i am addressing my comments to commissioners fung and others.

very recently, we had an appeal before you three commissioners. an illegal project which concealed the entire scope of the project. they are attempting to convert a crawlspace into a garage without a permit, and the cost would be $500,000. building and planning approved this project. when our building started to shake and vibrate because there was an intended to remove 5000 cubic feet of soil without a permit, it cost us several thousand dollars for an engineering report. this report revealed many haute items that are required in the code but had been admitted from the plan -- this report revealed many items that are required. but they had been omitted from the plan.

we do not need outside engineers telling us what to do, what a pompous attitude, especially when you are not qualified to be a commissioner on the board. this does nothing to do with construction. president peterson, your decision to our appeal is everyone has a right to replace the foundation. you have no knowledge of building and planning codes. this is a completely different project and replacing a crawlspace foundation. everybody does set a right to replace their foundation but not to make things unsafe for a jason neighbors. this is why the code requires you to of qualifications -- to make things unsafe for a adjacent region for adjacent -- to make things and save for -- things unsafe for adjacent

neighbors. the actions from you three commissioners took away our due process and our constitutional rights. how do you live with ourselves? someone could have died because you supported this illegal project. codes are the laws. you three commissioners should remove yourself from this board. commissioner garcia, you say you take this position very seriously, but you allow these officials to testify and make false statements. i do not count that seriously. i do not kill what just happened -- do not count what just happened. >> for the fourth time, commissioners, i thank you for your service.

i am a resident. my neighbor down the way could not be here today because she had a flat tire. i am sad to report that the board of appeals' decision on june 2 has not been carried out to your specifications. the dbi approved a nonstandard work, which i have evidence here wrote -- but approved nonstandard -- the dbi approved nonstandard work, which i have evidence hereof. i was essentially showed that. dbi has more important things to

do. after that, mr. duffy visited my house and took pictures being he recommended i got an expert to offer opinions -- and took pictures. he recommended i get an expert to offer opinions. i did that. a document has been submitted saying that the wood use is fir, not redwood, certainly not complying with what was directed to be done. so i am in a quandary. what should i do next? do i continue to work with the board of appeals and dbi or do i start a lawsuit in court?

president peterson: and that finishes your comment? does anyone from the department want to respond? >> lawrence -- laurence kornfield, i will definitely look into that. president peterson: is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move on to item number two. some questions? commissioner garcia: yes, i have some comments about whether or not the people who set up your qualified to be here, and in front of me, i have a memorandum -- the people who sit up here are qualified to be here, and i will give a brief summary of what it says. the first paragraph has to do

with what the question is that has been raised, and the question is for those of you who are probably disinterested in this, as most people would be, you've asked for an opinion regarding the legally mandated -- this is not addressed to any member of the board, because we have not asked. it was addressed to those people who raised the issue. you have asked for this. specifically, in response to concerns voiced by members of the public, you of asked whether we do you have asked whether a section of the california building codes -- voiced by members of the public, you webcast -- you have asked about those whose members are qualified and specifically knowledgeable in the california

building standards codes and applicable ordinances. this will be available to anyone who wants it from the board of appeals, and perhaps those people who have raised the issue, we will email them a copy. the conclusion reads as follows. under the state constitution, the city charter governs the qualifications of members of the board of appeals. the charter requires the members to be electors of the city, to be broadly representative of the city's community and diversity. another charter section and another. the examiners satisfy the requirements for a local appeals board. another section, membership

requirements do not apply to the city because the membership of the board of appeals is a municipal affair that falls under the city's home rule powers under the constitution. accordingly, the qualifications could not apply it in the charter city but only in a general -- could not apply in the charter city but only in a general law city. >> anymore? commissioner garcia: we can give you one of these if you would like? >> you're still not qualified. commissioner hwang: = -- vice president goh: we heard mention a particular case. it is my understanding that those cases, once our decision

is final, we no longer have jurisdiction. is that right? >> that is right, the board would not have jurisdiction over that, and the enforcement of the board's decision is left to planning in -- and dbi. vice president goh: the case was not agendized, so a responses were limited, or we were not meant to respond, is that right -- so our responses were limited? i think he was saying the we ignored him because we did not respond. >> i would be happy to respond to him tomorrow. vice president goh: thank you. president peterson: seen no public comment -- >> si no public comment, we move to the adoption of minutes. -- see no public comment. -- seeing no public comment.

president peterson: any comments on the amendment -- on the minutes? seeing none, mr. pacheco, if you could please call the roll? secretary pacheco: on the motion to adopt the minutes, [reading roll]. those minutes are adopted. president peterson: thank you. mr. pacheco, if we can move on to item number four? if you could read that item, please? secretary pacheco: this is a subject property at 270 roosevelt wait -- way, which

was decided on august 18, 2010. it was to uphold the permit on condition that the scope modified as a new window assembly at. ? -- a new assembly for the window. >> this is back before you because it refers to fire escapes, and i think what the board attended was dealing with item nine. so in order to issue this motion, we had to bring it back to the board. vice president goh: -- commissioner garcia: if we can do that right now, i make the motion. >> is there any public comment on that motion? seeing none, then, mr. pacheco,

if you could call the roll, please? secretary pacheco: the motion is from commissioner garcia for it to be no. 9, not 19. on that motion, [reading roll]. that matter is clarified. thank you. >> number filea -- number 5 has been withdrawn. if you could read item seven, please? secretary pacheco: calling item seven, appeal no. 10-073, a property at 281 turk st., a

protest of a permit to alter a building. it was the application of the 2010/5/21/02975. -- it was the application number. >> i guess contrary to what has been said before, i would like to think of you for your time in your consideration. as suggested in the appeal flier, -- in your consideration. as suggested -- i want to thank you for your time and your

consideration. i feel we are in good hands. i would also like to point out that this is a very awkward time for the majority of residents to be able to be here. most are still at work, going off to a second job, or by necessity at home with their children. we would like to thank you for coming. as i stated, the objection is first and foremost about the location of the proposed pharmacy. irrespective of the business model of bay drugs, this is the worst possible location for another place to provide prescription are calm. these gentlemen are from out of state -- this is the worst

possible location for another place to provide prescription narcotics. truly, been there, done that. we do not want to repeat it. the neighborhood started to recover a little bit about one year ago. we have already discovered what happens when a pharmacy opens on this block. too much of a risk, especially for the elderly -- it simply poses too much of a risk, especially for the elderly. this will be mostly on turk st., and now i am concerned about the kind of congestion it would create on the sidewalk. it stands to reason that the dealers go around the corners. this is an organization that serves 59 children, and it would

likely that the bulk of the problem. my office when there -- oh, -- my office window looks out on the 200 block of turk st. if they move around to jones, -- they say that the area is under surge. i would disagree with that. -- they say that the area is underserved. i would disagree with that. this is where the pharmacy would be. this is where another pharmacy is, on the corner of golden gate and leavenworth. i think they specialize on a

chubbies last age, -- specialized in hiv/aids. -- i think they specialize in hiv/aids. right next door is the tenderloin health clinic. that is one, two, three, four you are, five. if this were to go in, it would actually be seven on the block. i think this block is very well served, and there are numerous blocks in the tenderloin. that really could use the benefit of an independent pharmacy -- there are numerous blocks in the tenderloin that really could use the benefit of an independent pharmacy. i discussed at length in my rebuttal the fact that they did

not properly apply for their building permit, so i will not go into that any further? they chose to continue construction of the facility even after they were fully informed there were unable to protests -- so i will not go into that any further. they chose to continue construction. they could have avoided most of this by simply applying for the permit and stopping construction. also, there were two people who brought me letters, and i would like to give them to victor. i have 27 signatures, and i believe there are 21 signatures here in support of the appeal, so i think you very much. -- thank you very much. commissioner fung: the appellant and the pharmacy owners? >> we have been to several

meetings. yes, we have. >> you mentioned there are folks here in support of your position. could you ask them to raise their hand? president peterson: ok, thank you very much. >> i actually expect more to be late, because they were coming from work, and as you know, i assume you all got a letter from chris daly, right? and i do not know if you are aware, but this gentleman is from channel 5 who has been filming the block for the last couple of days. we are not going to have a finished product until after tonight because they did do extensive filming around the extensive filming around the block where you could really se