there's no permit to do that, there's not a building permit, it would require a conditional use authorization in order to ob pain a professional and business use at this location so with those facts i thought it was pretty clear cut to have revocation of this permit, i think what was stated on the permit was somewhat inaccurate and that led to the revocation. i'm surprised there's four minutes left, i guess it was more straight forward than i was thinking. i'm available for questions. >> how did this come to your attention? >> this came from the district supervisor's office when they proposed this legislation a couple of years ago, they wanted to make sure they had limited applications because of the concern about proliferation of medical services and the proximity that cpmc, they wanted to maintain a balance, it's a restrictive district, so

they're very concerned about that and when they heard about this conversion and how it seemed to be done out of the offices, the co-change they implemented i think that raised concerns we invest painted and found this was not properly issued. >> do you have a documented permit history of what was there prior? >> i would say the permit history is not entirely clear i agree with the appellant to that extent but i don't have any evidence that there was a legal office use. i know that's something the appellant has argued and i can see those material ins their brief. >> so you say it was an art gallery for over ten years. >> from using google street view, it had been there last year and it was going back to 2004 or so, going back quite some time to the earliest 2008

or 2004, whatever the earliest google street images were and perhaps some of the local merchants can speak to that, three years is required as an abandonment of use. thank you. >> other questions? >> i think that argument similar to the one that you made related to market street where the understood lying use was undisputed as commercial in that case and even though it had exceeded the three year threshold, how is this different then? >> in this case, what they are arguing is the understood lying use which they just said office, not exactly what kind of office, but presume mri either medical office or business and professional service, business and professional service is a

conditional use which is abandoned after three years and a medical office use is a nonconforming use which is abandoned after three years n the case of the market street, the underlying use was office, general office, it's a completely different zoning district and the underlying use is principally permitted. >> okay but in this instance then, i would like to see what the permit history was. >> okay. alright. >> mr. sanchez, my recollection having had my hair cut there at the salon which was in place for many years is that -- and that was -- i won't say the word blighted but it was abandoned space and not used for anything at all whatsoever except an unused basement until the art gallery went in there,

it was nothing, so you may find that in fact, and i agree with commissioner fung, that we should get a little history on this, but it may have been absolutely nothing except for an unused basement in that building. >> that may be the case, i reviewed the history [inaudible] and it was a mix of use it looks like there was a boutique there for some point for a brief period of time in the 90's, there were individual names that appeared to maybe have been residential at some point there was a permit that received a completion in the early 90's, that's a retail, it was a sprinkler permit, so i think the permit history is a bit all over the place but -- >> it's the northeast corner at walnut and sacramento? >> yes. thank you. >> that's funny i got -- >> is there public comment on

this item? those who would like to speak can line up on that far wall there that would be great wo*fr wants to start please step forward. would you like to start? someone needs to step forward and start. >> step forward and speak. >> wo*fr wishes to go first. >> my name is [inaudible] and i'm a real estate broker with an owner of [inaudible] real estate. when my compliant dr. -- >> i'm sorry you are the paid agent of the -- >> dr. kalika. >> you can speak during his rebuttal time, not public testimony. >> good evening, my name is

kathrin, you'll see my f in the briefs my name was mentioned in some of these e-mails and i want today provide a little background. this case is not about personalities at all for us, it's about the facts and neighborhood character and preserve hating and the seoulbacker zoning controls in place. when i first heard about this, it was brought to my attention in late 2013, early 2014 when i received a call from paul noter he was worried the billing was going to be purchased and he was going to be kicked out at the art gallery space he was told that our legislation that mr. sanchez just described was going to allow that to happen. i panicked slightly because we went through a pain staking process with the neighborhood group fan, [inaudible] and the merchant group to make sure the change we were making to the neighborhood nerbacker commercial controls did not

affect retail space or -- did not allow for something like this to happen for a retail use to be kicked out like this. after that, i made contact with ann marie rodgers at the planning department, they assured us our legislation would not allow this to happen, so basically what happened next was -- do you want me to explain it more? okay, i also called the real estate agent at that time, i think he name was mr. cauchi, explained to him our legislation in place would not allow this to happen, after confirm hating with the planning department, so it was our understanding they knew going in that that wasn't a use that was going to be permitted based on my follow-up with the planning department and two years of trying to get a simple piece of legislation passed at the planning commission to allow for a slight change to the zoning control, that's the

history i vaoem available for questions, this is not ability personalities, iet's about to preserve neighborhood character and the zoning that are in place thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is charlie ferguson i'm on the board of direct toser i've lived there for 35 years i live two blocks away from the budget property and i estimate that in my 25 years of living there i passed that property about 10 thousand times either by car or on foot. i can straighten out a few facts there was a gallery there it was there for somewhere between 7 and 10 years i don't know exactly, it was a real gallery, you could go in and buy things there and before that, the space was either occupied leased or not

occupied at all by those that really were not in a commercial retail business. my purpose in coming here today is simply to say that i worked on this amendment with the supervisor and it is very important that people not do what has been done here. we have enough doctors and dentists in the neighborhood right now, some of them are grandfather in that's why you have people on the second floors and even on the first floors on the neighborhood commercial buildings, they're grandfather in, for somebody to come in and declare he has a fantasy office for one or two days and then file as permit to open up a dental office in the same space is a trick that we don't want to tolerate. we want retail in that space period, end of story and that's what the neighborhood commercial district is all about. thank you.

>> next speaker, please. >> bill [inaudible] president of presidio association of neighbors, i'll echo what charlie said, we're committed to make sure this is a healthy retail district and there was a retail location there whether permitted or not, i couldn't say, i'm not an expert at that, as charlie indicated, there was an active retail location there that got sur planted by mr. kalika, and it should be retail, that's why we are opposing the permit. >> thank you, next speaker, please. .sing good evening, my name is tries -- tracy i am a resident and business owner about a half block away from dr. kalika's new site, so i also have been president of the merchant association over the past two and a half years trying to pull

together all our merchant and is services and trying to improve our business district as we've gone through some tough time ins the past few lazarus

and the board of appeal, my

name is evan gar n*et, i'm an orthodontist at laurel street on the first floor my wife and i are concerned about the written appeals documentation and broadcasts to damage might have wife's professional reputation without [inaudible] to defend herself, she submitted to the board in an e-mail this morning and i would like to publicly read this letter for the record, dear board of appeals, i would like to clear the record that dr. kalika has written about ne e me he's singled him out to accuse me of trickery recklessness, lobbying the city and having the permit revoked, this is untrue and i would like to clarify these allegations i looked at 378 sacramento street, the listing said it was not zoned for medical.

my friend who owns several properties said i should contact the supervisor office and see if it could be zoned for medical use, i naunl and also e-mailed her again when the merchant's association informed me that a permit had been issued. at this point i merely questioned how this permit could have been issued since i had been told repeatedly that the space could not be used for medical purposes i never contacted city hall to lobby against mr. kalika, the merchants don't want more retail space taken away from retail use, [inaudible] updating us on the neighborhood and street events, in addition in his documentation for appeal, dr. kaliaka also accuses me having an illegal dental office, i appreciate you taking the time to review my

e-mail and respective on this situation, dr. [inaudible] garn n*et, i would like to thank the board of appeal and is the commissioners to give me the opportunity to speak in this forum. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is kale la, i'm a second year dental student at the university of california of san francisco, i had the pleasure of working and meeting dr. kalika where we co-founded [inaudible] free orthodontic treatment, i know that a lot of people here today argue that it would not be beneficial to the sacramento neighborhood to have this medical service, i urge you guys and challenge you guys to look at it in a different way. there's no other dentist in the bay area that offers free orthodontic treatment to youth

from starting in 2012, that's thousands of dollars that have been donated televising's youth here that had to leave because of the time, there are countless youth who have had their lives completely changed because of the efk to have orthodontic treatment with regards to many aspects of their life. i had multiple articles that were written in the work that he has done with the work sxh the impact he has made in their lives. he's the only orthodontist that takes free of charge children who have oral facial abnormalities with cleft palates free of charge, he provides something that is very different and i think you would be neglecting and providing a disservice to the many youth that have told me personally that the sacramento office

would be great because it's accessible via bart and all the training. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, my name is dr. stanley [inaudible] iem a dentist on union street, much of what was said i already have in my documents here, the fact that dr. kalika relied on this permit and incurred considerable expense on the street that is zoned commercial for offices, i still with all the testimony tonight, i still can't understand why the permit was revoked. i just believe that his permit should be reinstated immediately and allow limb to practice dentistry in the same manner i have for the last 40 years i think the city has interfered with his contractual agreements and engineered kind of a great injustice of dr. kalika,. thank you very much, thanks for staying so late also, of course you had to be here.

>> next speaker, please. >> good evening, my name is edward romonof, i'm a real estate broker since 1985 and i opened my own office in 1989 and part of the business i'm doing in san francisco in the laurel village area, specifically i manage a medical building at sacramento and laurel and i would like to say that i've been in the area as a manager, property manager, as a sales agent listing agent i know the market is very, very hard in the area and in the same time, i'm noticing that in that particular area, specifically on sacramento street, there are some properties, commercial spaces are vacant and in my opinion,

professional real estate opinion, it's due to a slow foot traffic and i think that my request actually is to reinstate the existing building permit for dr. kalika's office and i would say that that would increase the foot traffic and would attract the business owners, would make them more confident so the foot traffic as i'm saying is slow even in this market this market which is extremely, extremely hot. thank you very much. >> next speaker. i thought we already discussed that you would need to speak under the time for the permit holder. >> pardon me? >> i thought we already discussed if you were to speak it would be part of the rebuttal from the appellant because you're the act --

>> yes, for dr. kalika. you would need to weight and if mr. fallay wants to share his rebuttal time for you, but as a paid agent -- yes, next speaker, please. >> good evening, my name is robert, i'm the owner of business design services. i've worked with dr. kalika for nearly 12 years i was the designer for his first office and i've done five, four other offices for the doctor. >> if you're being paid by dr. kalika, you're not allowed to speak during this time, you also have to speak during the rebuttal period. >> is there any other public comment who's not a paid representative of the appellant? okay. it doesn't look like there is, so we will take our rebuttal f, mr. fallay, you have three minutes, if you want to share

them or not, that is up to you. >> [inaudible] as the person who owned the gallery, however this lease we're going the present to you, you'll find that carl's mother is [inaudible] to have his office in this building so i'm not sure what we're talking about here. that's all. >> good evening, my name is steven goldstein, i'm a lawyer in san francisco, i do not represent dr. kalika in any capacity, i'm a friend and i'm a long time resident in that property my family hones property there since i lived in 1940, that is a hell of a corner, nobody can survive in that corner there the art

gallery there couldn't survive and many of the those businesses turn over rapidly because it's a tough business to make business on. there's foot traffic from mothers to have their kids have orthodontics done and it will bring more business to the neighborhood. apart from that, dr. kalika has given up his lease on gary boulevard, he has a thousand patient would come tr the richmond and laurel area, those thousand of patients will have nowhere to go if that property that he now occupies on gary street is taken away from him, he does not have a lease there anymore, he has relied on what the planning department told him he can do he spent 60 thousand dollars to demolish the place for architecture, for equipment. he has got a new office -- sorry an administrative office

he's had to pay for, what is he supposed to do sf he's done everything the right way and if anybody's at fault here, i hate to say it's the planning department, they told him he was fine, he could build there. where will he go now and where will his patients go now if the permit is not allowed and i think dr. kalika himself wants to make a statement or two. >> i have 45 seconds, i wanted to say that i definitely did my research my dream was towas heavily involved with j cc and i wasn't part of the committees, i was organizing the first gala, i was on the [inaudible] committee and it would be great for me to be next j cc and be involved again. i've looked for this space for the last 12 years they opened up the two por loersinger, it's not conducive to do the business and i can show you

here the last use of the space was an office, it was the art gallery was there legal they never changed the use. when i was buying the place, i got an e-mail from both real estate agents and i have in the rebuttal the space was advertised as medical, you know, [inaudible] my agent confirmed it was medical. the office was -- the use of the space said office on all of the last three uses permits so this is one -- >> sorry but your time is up. >> i have a question for you. >> yes? >> what about -- commented that the application for the permit, you weren't really forthcoming with respect to what you put down. >> this was a very unfortunate comment because when art gallery moved out, they sent me an e-mail in november that they can no longer afford the rent the december rent, they have

not paid, they opened up another space on hills budgerigar, i said you can stay month to month i want to be a good landlord, as soon as they moved out, they moved out way before 31st of december like the neighbor said, i moved in my office and did the billing and collections and within -- to apply for dental office, so since then, i signed another lease so my administrative office -- >>backer >> i'm talking about the document >> in december when the gallery told me they were going to move out, i opened a corporation the billing and collections and all the dental management tha's the use that i applied for a permit. >> the office that's on the permit? >> yes, the office that's on the permit, the office that i do billing and collections and things from my orthodontic offices so my space on gary is a thousand square feet there's no administrative things, from

that office, i applied to medical office. >> thank you. >> okay. >> mr. sanchez, you have rebuttal time. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. so again i think as ms. stephanie said, we have an issue here, it's not about personalities or about the good work that the doctor does i don't think that's in question they have multiple offices where they can continue to do that work from and in terms of what the department said, the department said that under the planning code and it was pretty clear in the code a legal business and professional service use may convert to a medical office use, in this case, there's no evidence that this is really a business and professional service use. the applicant has stated

they've created an office here to manage their other offices which in and of itself may not meet the definition of business professional service which generally serves the public at large but if that use, business and professional service use requires a conditional use authorization, so there's no way they can legally put that on there as the existing use without having a conditional use authorization which they do not have. there's no permit that they have that shows that a business and professional service use exists legally at this location and as i stated before, even if a business and professional service or some type of office use existed legally at this -- in the past, sorry n the 90's tha the fact it was convert today a retail use abandoned that nonconforming use or permitted conditional use, and so what we're left with is they can have a use that meets the planning code requirements. they can seek to have a business and professional use at this location but they will

need to first attain a conditional use authorization from the planning commission. that would be the path forward, so i think we were very clear in what the requirements were and we're detrimental reliance that is only if the permit was validly issued and i think we've established the facts that the permit was not validly issued, the existing legal use was not this health care management office which popped up in the last couple of months. there is no permit or authorization to do that, so with that, and we would much prefer this to be resolved prior to the permit being issued, prior to any work being done. i think we were clear in providing the code provisions to the permit holder before they even bought this unit, this is a commercial condominium they purchased. i think we were clear on what the legal requirements were, they went this eyes open and that's the result. i'm available for any questions.

>> what more might have happened at the counter i guess when this permit was approved though? >> had there been a discussion about the existing use being an art gallery, or that is -- this has only been a business and professional service use, i use that term loosely, that's only been that use for a couple of month i think that would have caused for questions from staff about what this application is and how this is approved? >> does staff not have something at the counter that they can look at the history on the site? >> the permit history i think for this property could be somewhat confusing. i think that is clear but i think the issue is that staff relied on -- if there was any detrimental reliance staff was relying on the fftion that was in the permit holders permit, this is a legal document that is signed and they are

certifying that this is a legal use, that's what we relied on, yes, i wish staff had dug a little deep and her asked more questions, the fact is we relied on what information we were given by the permit holder. >> and did you say there were inquiries before that when they were purchasing the building? did i misunderstand you? >> yes, so before dr. kalika bought this unit, before it was purchased, that's when mr. lindsay would's one of our senior planners for the northwest team he sent them that information from to the real estate agent say hating's what the requirement is at that time, that art gallery was operating. i think they would have known the existing use was not a business and professional service, it was an art gallery. >> thank you.