>> 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.