are allowing the american symbol of truth, beauty, power to be rounded up on land and slaughtered and sent to france for horse meat and meanwhile the french airforce using american jets is bombing women and children in libya. the constitution is what is number one and as long as we continue to disregard this, we will continue having all of these problems and all of these sure rates with lawyers. >> thank you, sir. >> please put this to your hard because we are better than commercialism and we are certainly better than lawyers. >> is any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal.

you have three minutes. >> the paperwork has been received. she was taking the interest of the friends of my mother had. it is possible that he advised her of her options. my mother did not find -- signed the letter. she had no knowledge that these notices of violation came along. on top of that, i had to take them to small claims court and ordered to collect on the balance. the balance has been collected through small claims court. lastly in regard to the gentlemen, i don't know the

procedures and policies, what i do know is that i think that my mother is the owner of the building. it would be logical for the owner to be involved in the whole process. there are certain procedures and policies. i think as the owner of the building, she could be aware of what is going on. they should have to file some kind of paper work and my mother needs to be in default. this would be before the signs that word given. the records to start the action. we have not even been notified as a currency. the second thing was presumably when the termination newsletter and the removal of this line has been conducted in 2009, my mother has never received a letter from the apartment building inspection stating that her signs has been done and this

has been removed. clearly, she had no knowledge that this line had been removed. she had no idea that the letter had been written and the course of action took place. in terms of the signs, possibly this is possibly good for the city of san francisco but at the same time, it would be made okay to have small businesses like a local business in san francisco to be promoted about the area. just to help out. maybe to generate some income and what not. my mother had a sign on the building with all local plumbing company. thank you. my mother is in the public again. she can talk. >> ok. >> maybe it would be helpful to hear from your mother.

>> maybe just a short statement she can make as to what happened. >> good afternoon. my name is regina ramos. my daughter said maybe i can and stand a little bit about this. i don't know much about it. she knows a little bit. >> did you sign the lease termination letter dated october

26th? >> no, i did not. >> do you have anything further? >> know. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the gentleman who spoke and left the room, none of us likes advertising. perhaps if you like for cbs, you like it. there was a time when when -- had a lighted sign on the eiffel tower in.

proposition g chemo long and i guess this could be considered an amortization schedule. the board of supervisors passed 604h. if this line is removed, it cannot be replaced. the effect of that was to create a severe in balance between an owner of a property who had previously had the right to display an outdoor advertising sign and the company to whom he least that right. such that by legislation would

have been created would have been a contractor, take-it-or- leave-it. fathey talk about whether this s voluntarily removed. they talk about whether this is a forced measure, an act of god, a calamity. this is a way that someone said up a way to find voluntarily.

if they said consciously, willfully denouncing the right to an advertising sign. i don't think that the members of the board of supervisors that voted for it would say that she chose to revoke her right to an advertising assignment.

a necessary ingredient of free will is that one fully and consciously chooses a cause with full foreknowledge of the effect. no one would suggest that she would know the effect of signing the letter or not sign that letter. i guess to me, anyone would recognize immediately that i am not a lawyer. to me, if this is a criminal case, we would say this is a voluntary. this is not voluntary. there is no intention to have said, take my sign, i renounce my right to display. that is what we're doing here. that is what we have done repeatedly. i think that this is unreasonable and i doubt that i would get anyone to appear to

agree with me. certainly not three other people so that we could overturn this. i a boat to not uphold the apartment. i vote to restore right to display out for advertising because i don't think that she chose to announce that right. i don't think that she voluntarily chose to do it. >> commissioners, it is interesting that we discussed the semantics in relation to the

actions that took place. we have had cases before where there was attorneys on both sides who filed for termination and the attorneys representing the property owner of lost in court. this is not an easy solution dealing with the contracts that the billboard companies have perfected over many years. it is not easy to deal with those particular rights on a purely legal basis. in this instance,, the reason i voted for the rehearing was that i thought it was a little bit novel in the sense that both the sign company and the property owner were talking about a

joint capability to terminate a sign and therefore the question is to what extent the property owner of participated and that is why i voted for the rehearing. what is cleared up in my mind is that there has been a sequence of events and there is a significant time gap between some of the initial paperwork that occurred to the point where the sign was removed. i guess what is a defining point in how i will vote is the fact that the property owner then put

up new signs and rented them out. to be, that entailed some knowledge and therefore some culpability if you will on the decision making as to whether this line was voluntarily removed and i am up -- i am prepared to uphold the department in this instance. >> other comments from the other commissioners? >> i appreciate the comments and i think i am more in agreement with vice president garcia. we also had testimony that she did not sign the lease termination letter and i agree with the vice-president that

there was not a knowing or intentional removal of the signs. i don't think the votes are there but i would be inclined to overturn the department. >> i'm leaning more towards the comments made by commissioner fong. is there a motion. >> i would move to uphold the department. >> on that motion to deny the appeal and uphold the department. >> i was not present at the march 16th it hearing but i did see the video and with that i vote aye. >> no. >> no.

>> aye. >> the motion carries. >> we will take a short break. >> welcome back to the april 20th, 2011 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. i am calling item number6, housing corp. inc. vs. the department of building inspection for a property at 281 church street protesting the issuance to a drug, permit to alter a building, remodel, upgrade the electrical,

partition walls, all work at commercial unit. jurisdiction was granted on june 30th, 2010. this is on calendar for rehearing. the public hearing was held in closed on october 6th, 2010. motion to grant the appeal conditioned upon adoption of finding was approved on october 13th, 2010. motion to reopen the public hearing and receive additional evidence was approved on december 15th, 2010. on january 19th, 2011, the board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. on march 23rd, 2011, the board voted to grant the rehearing request and to set the rehearing for today.

>> i apologize. there is another item i need to address before you began speaking. commissioners, the permit holder has requested that we designate the court reporter's transcript for this matter as the official record for this proceeding and we need a motion. >> so moved. >> is to any public comment? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you. the report will be the official transcript. >> thank you. i am appearing on behalf of the palate. -- on behalf of the appellant. thank you for agreeing to rehear this appeal.

this is a complex issue that has far reaching implications for the neighborhoods, quality of life, and safety, particularly given the impact on families, use, children, and seniors. secondly, the pharmacy in this location is unnecessary and undesirable given the number of pharmacies that already exist in close walking distance. that was a letter to you from former supervisor chris daly. more law enforcement agencies are reporting that pharmaceutical diversion and abuse pose the greatest threat to their areas in part because of increases in associated crime and gang involvement which puts additional strain on agency budgets and assets. that was from the national institute of justice's 2010 drug

threat assessment. finally, i am from the bay area and i visit all the time. all you have to do is go to civic center. this is called hill hill. this is like a blank market. that was from someone in las vegas about how easy it is to get prescription drugs at turk and jones and turk and leavenworth. the facts of this case are essentially undisputed. they drugs signed a lease, they hired a contractor for work totaling $103,000. -- bay drugs and signed a lease.

-- complete it site demolition work. they apply for and received a permit on may 24th to do work totaling $40,000. that is an exhibit one attached to my brief. that is the online tracking system that shows that they initially said the work would cost $40,000. shawn morgan filed a complaint on may 26th, 2010. they spent a total of $106,000 after may 24th, 2010. they signed the lease on april frist, they hired a contractor on april 16th. they would have you believe that they spent 106,000 after may 24th. there was a time when either nothing was spent or the amount spent was not accounted for.

there is no evidence to undermine the credibility of ms. morgan or miss sanchez. there are e-mail which is describing construction work which was written before any complaint was filed. ms. morgan is the building manager with a background in special education is still -- in special education. mr. sanchez has lived close of location. if all the documents are true, the $66,000 of work was performed before the work order was issued. they did not take any issue with the facts i have laid out. they did argue that an organization which it supports

the pharmacy should be sufficient to show there is support for this pharmacy. however, if you look at the is, we're talking about six votes. as to the law, they essentially ignored the lot in their brief except to make allegations that this body abused its allegations. they did not submit the case law on a vested rights. they do not address the evidence presented this board that a pharmacy in this neighborhood will increase illicit drug trafficking.

they argue that the permit in process is to blame for vacant storefronts. it is not the city's laws to protect the quality of life that results in vacancies. it is the very crime associated with the drug trafficking that has resulted in so much light in the tenderloin. it is not their operations plan that is opposed here. , this is the presence of another pharmacy. there are many underserved areas in san francisco. this is not one of those areas. at the end of the day, no pharmacists can guarantee that the narcotics it dispenses will not be resold on the street. no witness or attorney opposing a pharmacy has any financial interest at stake when the other hand, nearly every person

support this policy has a vested financial interest. indeed, they have submitted a declaration to you. where law is clear, this is not apply in a case where the half a permit holder will contain the permit in bad faith. the facts are equally clear that there is a flood of illicit prescription drugs in this neighborhood. the last the needs is another pharmacy. i respectfully ask for your vote to revoke the permit. think you. west review highlight for me the facts that go through this argument. -- >> could you review the facts that go through this argument?

>> in the exhibit that i submitted. if you look at exit 1, that is the online permit and complete tracking. this indicates that the name of the contractor was at the bottom. she if you look at exhibit 3, which is the inspection record and this section by rough framing, there is nothing checked at all. there is a discrepancy between what was reported on the are mine permit and complaint tracking. there is also another permit which says that the application was filed on may 21st but the other document indicates it was filed on may 24th.

bay drug hired a contractor and that is exhibit 16. the date of that contract is april 16th for an estimated total of $103,000 of work. that is two pages long and it goes on and on and on. they come in many months later and they declare that all $106,000 was spent after may 24th. it is not tenable to believe that for six weeks, they were

doing demolition, etc., during that time. there are many facts that don't add up. they have said that when he filed the application that the estimate of the work to be $40,000. there is no logical connection between that 40,1006000. the time line does not add up. that is just the evidence. if you look at the evidence from miss morgan and mr. sanchez, the statements that they have provided, the testimony they have provided, they have said and have documented that they saw work, they saw the construction of counters. they saw work happening, construction proceeding in a rapid progression prior to may 24th. as early as in april of 2010.

they have no reason, no motivation to go after this pharmacy. those were written well before any complaint was filed. well before they knew that this process would unfold. no evidence has been submitted that would undermine their credibility. in fact, in prior hearings, they are credible witnesses. they are credible people who do not have a vested interest except for the well-being and safety of the community. >> thank you. >> for your exhibit 5 is an e- mail -- anyway, it involves mr. sanchez. it talks about how construction has been going on for several days.

did someone contact you and say that there is illegal -- did someone contacted apartment building inspection and say there was illegal activity going on? >> i know that a complaint was filed on may 26th. >> there arem-k two weeks in between that. in other words, someone states, i think the someone is the appellant, that states that for several days construction next door has been taking place. is there some record of her contacting dbi?