that we were not addressed as part of the permit block, and we are part of the permit block. i do not know if she is a managing member and can speak on their behalf. it exceeds the maximum height and is not an open railing, which they stated earlier. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> my name is midori yoshira. i was born outside of tokyo and emigrated to the usa in 1981. in the 1970's, we in japan made a big mistake by constructing new buildings and destroying nature in the process. after many months of building,

we realized that. the people who must protect nature and historical romance must not destroy or change them. i hope the commission will consider my comments and not make the same mistake that we made. i have been in san francisco for 30 years and feel privileged to enjoy and appreciate the national -- the natural beauty of this city. i know many others from abroad that share this view. we all left our heart in san francisco. i have personally spoken to many of these visitors. when they look toward alcatraz, they are astonished that the view that was once there for many years is now gone. that is due to human error. how a human decides which of you should be protected or destroyed -- it is all human imperialism.

this pathway is the favorite many, not only because of views to of the trends and san francisco bay, but because it is rich with history and romance. it was a place for artists and writers. this cobblestone street was the setting of romance for american writer mark twain. one of the captors chained herself to the wooden steps to prevent the city replacing them with concrete steps. i am not prepared to change myself today, but i would highly appreciate it if you would listen to my view. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is jessica. i am here to voice my concern over preserving public views. i am a native of san francisco who is currently employed by a european airline company. when i did a farewell to the hundreds of passengers returning to their home country, they tell us how much they have enjoyed the in the scenery and aesthetics. mccaw underlain -- mccondry lane overlooks the most scenic destinations, alcatraz and the view of the san francisco bay. up holding my role as a concerned citizen, i have come to protest the construction if not obstruction of this deck which does not work with the lane. it obstructs the beautiful view that many visitors and locals love and enjoy. there is a saying -- you do not

know a good thing until it is gone. in no way does this that harmonize modern architecture alongside the natural landscape and historical landmarks. it is distasteful construction. i would like you to consider the preservation of this historical landmark that makes millions of tourists from all are around the world who leave their hearts in this distinct architecture and aesthetic of san francisco. thank you. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is man well broca -- manuel beroka. i only building across the street. i have lived there for quite a while. i know i am just across from the lane. i hear the wonderful comments of the visitors that come to san

francisco that it is a must see. every individual that comes to san francisco probably goes to the lane. this is a picture. this is a picture before the taj mahal was built. i was never notified about that. they used to send notices to neighbors that the project was in study are was going to be submitted to a committee -- the building committee. i never received one. i was in europe. i came back and i saw all this going on. for a couple of years, they were rebuilding the building.

i know the people -- knew the people who owned it. i knew the individuals who sold it. i did not expect what they built. they could have built something. they are entitled to it. but with limitations. are they going to start a business with several barbeques, a huge table? it has been said. is the building going to support them? i think that a review should be done properly and that the neighborhood should continue to be taken into consideration for their approval. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is andre. i am a realtor. i have to know every

neighborhood very well when i take my clients out. having sold in russian hill, i always went up mccondry lane, not only because of armas that milken and tales of the city. -- armistad maupin and "tales of the city." anybody who knows san francisco knows how valuable those stories are. i also know tom very well and i have seen photos of his property. even though this is not about tom, but is about the views of the people, his house was the only house remaining after the 1906 earthquake. all the homes burned around it. when they rebuild that area and gave us meditation and made it beautiful, the views were taken into consideration. that is what makes this part of

russian hill. i do hope they consider that. take a walk over there. look at my country lane -- mccondry lane. that is the main destination when people go to russian help. >> any other public comment? simenon, the matter is before you. -- seeing none, the matter is before you. commissioner garcia: mr. kornfield, the speaker mentioned vv? >> that is the type of construction of the building. it is a type five unrated building. that is any kind of bill permitted under the code. i understand this is a fully strengthened building. i want to point out that roof decks are not considered stories

under the building code. i do not think that is a particular issue. the strength of the building allows great increases in height and area. if i may respond to the question that was asked previously about the orientation, from the photographs i was able to look at, it looks like one of these kitchen units is in another direction from what the plan shows. thank you. commissioner fung: commissioners, the question before us is was the department

at fault, whether in the issuance of the permit. most of the speakers did not address that to the extent that the appellant did, or the jurisdiction requestor brought it up. and the points that he brought up related to where he thought the department was in error, or at a point more that are not totally definitive. however, the question is, in my own mind -- we have seen these kind of appeals on?

and views -- appeals on decks and views a lot. i think i have been quite vocal related to the intrusion they make. but that is not the issue before us. the issue is whether there was sufficient fault in the issuance of the permit and the revision to the permit, and then the final. at this time, i do not find it crosses to that level. vice president goh: i will jump in next. i did find that it crossed over. pending comments from my fellow commissioners, it looked to me, for a number of reasons, that the permit was issued in error. the first is a failure to

properly notice the people who might protest a protected public view corridor. in addition to that, the historic structure, the only building to survive a fire -- i do think special consideration needs to be given to that sort of structure. secondly, the neighbors should have been noticed. third, the increase in the roof height -- we heard it is already a non-conforming structure, so the increase in roof height should have triggered a broader notice. we heard there were 15 other differences between the drawing and the as built. i did not count them, so i do not know, but that is another reason. a second sort of broad area in addition to my feeling that the

permit was issued incorrectly is that i think the cfc was also issued in error. we heard from both departments that it appears that the kitchen was reconfigured and does not match the plans that were originally approved. it does, however, matched the plans that were submitted subsequently and then withdrawn. that raises a bunch of red flags for me. i am curious. i looked at the time line, and the jurisdiction request is filed, and we heard some questions. it was filed on september 2, and then the cfc is issued on september 9. that could be something that says to us you cannot grant jurisdiction now. you have a higher standard to hear this case. that the suspect to me. what kind of communication is going on back there that would

make somebody pushed through the cfc on a project? then have the hearing september 22 wherein we raised a lot of these questions are around what did the plans show in terms of the kitchen. that is september 22. then we see october 7 and the withdrawal of those plants that showed the reconfigured kitchen. that to me is a huge red flag that there is something going on here that is not right. for all those reasons, i would be inclined to grant jurisdiction and hear this case. commissioner garcia: when the commissioner talks about how

they should have been notified, i agree with that statement under the doctrine of what is reasonable, but i do not know what in the code would suggest that they had to have been notified. i think there are to policy issues here -- two policy issues here, and we are not a policy body. i think that given the impact on this particular neighborhood and the feelings behind it, there are possible implications having to do with public views and all of that. it would have been more reasonable to have brought the neighbors into this issue. but i do not know that it was required. we heard from planning that would never notice was required was given to whomever it was supposed to have been given to. that is one policy issue. the other was raised by commissioner hwang and has to do with the issue of the cfc/cio.

it was september 2 on the request, september 9 on granting. it does have implications for us, in that it does raise a certain standard. we do have to find error on the part of the city, or some violation of the code. i do not see error. i do not see a violation of code. the workings of government are some mysterious to me that i never worry -- i never wonder about some coincidence like something having been filed for on the second and granted on the ninth. i see nothing suspicious in that at all, other than the fact that the government seemed to work quickly and that is probably unusual. we heard also about the public right of way the use. mr. sanchez from the planning

department specifically looked at that issue. he also reference points having to do with the code that make that a non-issue. i do not personally have any problem with the configuration of kitchens or anything like that and whether that rises to a standard that we should then review this entire permit to determine if that represents the error that we would need, given the implication of a commissioner fung: having -- of a cfc having been granted. i intend at this point to deny a request for jurisdiction. commissioner hwang: i think commissioner garcia and vice president goh laid out many of the concerns i have. i am swayed by the timing of the filing of as jurisdiction requests. i find it troubling and

suspect, and i think that the questions presented with respect to the design and what planning had before it, the permits modification that was withdrawn the day before our hearing -- all of those create questions in my mind as far as what is really going on here. it is very compelling to hear people from the public, neighbors and neighborhood organizations, come here and talk about it. i personally have not been there. i appreciate hearing from the people that came to talk about that and the impact of this project on the public view. i would be inclined to grant the jurisdiction request. president peterson: i want to think the parties for returning and supplementing the documents to provide more clarity to all of us involved in this decision.

i recognize how frustrating some of the notice requirements in this matter are. commissioner garcia said we are not a policy-making body, but it does seem as we go forward and we make decisions about ruth? -- about roof dekcs and other additions to our city that we think about broader notice requirements. the decision before us is the one regarding the cfc and whether this permit was fundamentally flawed. the issue that jumped out to me is the orientation of the kitchen, but i do not think that is what was material to the neighbors. i think it is really the entirety of the roof deck. i understand their concerns, but it seems it is within the law,

and i am inclined to deny the jurisdiction request also. commissioner garcia: i would so move. i would move that we deny the request for jurisdiction. president peterson: call the roll, please. >> on that motion to deny jurisdiction. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: no. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: no. >> the boat is 3-2 to deny jurisdiction. -- the vote is 3-2 to deny jurisdiction. >> should we move on to the next item? should we take a short break now? president peterson: call item six, please. >> item 6, appeal no. 10-073.

the property is at 281 turk street. it is a protest of the issuance on may 24 to bay drugs llc a permit to alter a building, remodel bath, heating, upgrade electrical partition walls, replace ceiling tile in grid, vacant locksmith to pharmacy. the hearing was held and closed on october 6. it is for further consideration today. the matter was continued to allow commissioner hwang to participate. >> and the party may provide a certified court reporter to transcribe an appeal hearing. on request of the party, the board may designate the transcription as the official record of this proceeding, provided that the requestor agrees to provide the board with a certified copy at no cost. bay drugs has made such a

request and has agreed to provide a certified copy to the board and the appellant at no charge. if you are inclined to designate the transcript as the official record of this proceeding, we will need a motion to do so. vice president goh: can i ask you a question? the proceeding is potentially simply a vote, so everything you just said applies regardless? >> it is there wish to have whatever discussion is held on this matter transcribed and have that be the official record for tonight. vice president goh: ok. president peterson: is there any public comment on this motion? >> step forward, please. this is public comment on the question of the transcription of this item.

>> i live over at 50 golden gate, which is around the corner. just real briefly, there were quite a few people who spoke last week to how it would affect the quality of the neighborhood. commissioner garcia: you understand this purely has to do with -- what is before us right now is are we going to accept having a transcription of this. it has nothing to do with the merits of this or whether you are for or against it. >> ok. president peterson: thank you. >> the motion was by president peterson to agree to the request to have the transcription as the official record. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye.

>> the vote is 5-0. >commissioner garcia: i would never want to offend a court reporter. >> the permit holder requested that the board continue this case and allow their new council an opportunity to argue the case to the board. the appellant agreed to this request for a continuance. the parties have agreed among themselves to a december 8 hearing date. with the president's consent, we can have the parties argue to the board about the issue of a continuance. it is up to you. vice president goh: i thought we continue this case because there was emotion. it was my motion. the motion did not pass. we needed the fifth commissioner to be present. the hearing was held and closed,

and we reconvene today to allow that fifth commissioner to vote. we did not allow for more argument or presentation of anything. so i do not understand why they would have hired an attorney now, with our hearing held and closed. and i do not even -- i would not even want to entertain the reason, unless someone hired counsel for the appellant as well. commissioner hwang: our hearing is held enclosed. i think we should vote. president peterson: i am prepared to vote -- commissioner hwang: i am prepared to vote after the two hours of testimony i watched during my vacation. >> may i be heard on the matter? commissioner garcia: we are

discussing whether or not to hear him on that issue. vice president goh: i would remake my motion from last week and we would vote. president peterson: why don't we hear from all the commissioners on that? commissioner fung: commissioners, if he would like to speak on the issue of the continuance, i do not have a problem with him making that request. it is a procedural request. president peterson: i agree. i am fine with listening to argument on the continuance only. >> is that the consensus of the board? vice president goh: i would disagree with that, but if we are -- i do not know. i think it is the president's call. commissioner fung: i was going to say in response to the question it is only at this point his response to the issue of a continuance.

vice president goh: i guess i would keep in mind that the other side is not represented by counsel. commissioner fung: i think there were quite well represented less time. >> we will give each side two minutes to speak only on the issue of the continuance. >> i have been practicing law before the city and county of san francisco for over 41 years. i was retained on friday by the permit holder, they drugs -- bay drugs. i have submitted an extensive letter outlining the in the circumstances of this case, including issues raised after all the evidence and public comment had already been received. each commissioner should have a copy of that letter. i hope they read that letter before making any decisions. at stake is fundamental

fairness and due process. my client was not represented by counsel prior to this time, even though as a man here today was referred to as counsel. he was never an attorney. we believe there are unique issues to be presented, some of which were raised by members of the board itself. i have outlined those issues in that 2.5 page letter. i think it is fundamentally important that this be a matter of legal significance to the board, that the legal issues raised by the commissioners be addressed with the additional briefing that i am requesting any additional evidence that might be presented. i am more interested in the briefing than the evidence. i spent three days reviewing the video tapes of this matter. i am familiar with the facts and circumstances of this case. there is an agreement with the appellate to consider -- to continue this matter to december

8. both the appellant and the permit holder have agreed. i see no legitimate matter for not continuing this matter for further briefing or further evidence as necessary. let us have all the issues on the table and get all the issues of legal significance addressed. then the board should be able to take its vote. i would like to call the attention that the permit holder's rep is also present. president peterson: i want you to understand that when mr. horse field drop off your letters earlier today i explained to him that they would not be distributed to the board, that the board did not agree to any additional briefing, and that you would have the opportunity to speak to the board on this matter. they do not have your letter. >> i appreciate that. i think we are going to have a break. perhaps the board might consider reading that letter over the reading that letter over the break.