>> 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? >> that is an excellent question. miss morgan is the driving force in this process. she has not involved in any case

like this before. she is not familiar with this and she contacted the planning department many times before eventually filing a formal complaint. >> thank you. >> with your expertise in land use law, the property owner starts work without a permit and then seeks a permit. is that property owner forever precluded from seeking a permit? >> know. i don't think -- what the property owner could do is to try to correct any defect that had happened provided everything else was above board.

>> what am struggling with is let's assume that all of this is true and the property owner here and the permit holder have started the work and now seeks a permanent while there might be signs and penalties. the property owner is not precluded from seeking a permit, right? i don't see how that is an invalid or fraudulent permit. that is where i have had trouble with this case. >> this is a very good question. why couldn't they just proceed accordingly? that could be something they could do even if the permit was revoked. i think it should be revoked and

two basis. one, they obtained a permit in bad faith on lawfully because they have already completed a lot of the construction and demolition. the second basis is the tax code section 26 which authorizes you to use your discretion our power to revoke the permit. on the one hand, they could presumably if you revoke the permit, go ahead and try to obtain a permit again and pay any outstanding fines if penalties that could be assessed, i was still request that the permit not be granted based on the overall negative impact it would have on the community. >> think you. -- thank you. >> i am troubled by the suggestion been that the

statements are impeachable because the permit holder contributed money to her campaign=!fqz"t>> i am simply pt as a relevant fact. i think it is relevant when someone has received a financial benefit and then they submitted declaration. , you can do with that what you will, tried to ruin credibility. this is not as if someone from the community who is not received a financial contribution. >> do you think that affected the board of the tenderloin community benefit corporation? >> i am not arguing necessarily that it affected the decision one way or the other, i am

disappointed in doubt because i think it is relevant in as much as just as they drug has suggested or tried to impeach the credibility of scott robinson. he does not live in the tenderloin, he is a for-profit business. in as much as that is relevant, i think that the financial association -- is relevant. >> did you look if mr. robinson had donated to anyone's campaign? >> who is scott robinson? >> he owns housing court inc.. >> i don't know why you brought bay drugs into it.

what was this bay and drug thing? >> there is the reason for you to investigate his financial connections because that would be the interest of bay drugs. >> if you are making a suggestion that someone else's testimony is tainted, you would make sure that your client, even though there once removed, did not also contribute. -- even though they are once removed, did not contribute. >> i'm understand that and that is an excellent point, commissioners. i would point out that i have never actually met mr. robinson. i have dealt entirely with ms.

morgan. i have no financial interest in this case. i'm doing this case simply because i believe in the strength of my client's position and have a lot of sympathy for that community. i used to live in the tenderloin. my mind and heart is with that community and that is why i am representing the appellants. >> to contribute to a campaign is someone's first amendment right. to decide that someone has done that, they are not credible. i have a problem with that. >> i don't have a problem with it. i understand the relevance. i also understand that you would not as an advocate try to inform the board about someone else's

political affiliations or financial connections. with due respect, vice president garcia, i think that that is relevant. >> with -- what would it be for the entire community benefit corporation? >> can we go through the rest of our presentations? corks are there any more questions? -- >> are there any other

questions? >> the appellate stated a lot of things that i did not address in the brief. i will focus on the impact of illegitimate pharmacy in the tenderloin. at prior hearings in this case, i have discussed the procedural mistakes this board has made as well as the due process issues. i believe the record is adequate to show the superior court that the board violated its own rules. i will not belabor the point tonight. i hope that will not be necessary at the end of this hearing because i will focus on presenting evidence that bay drugs will have a positive impact. the north of market benefit corporation is a neighborhood organization that has been active in making the tenderloin safe and clean for the past six years. in my brief, there was a 2010

board meeting of the community benefit corporation. the appellate here was the one who asked for this meeting to oppose bay drugs. they asked for the meeting. there was 40-50 people at this meeting as well as my clients. we are where the problems in the tenderloin. the board declined the request to deny bay drugs. the board consists of members of the tenderloin and businesses of the tenderloin. this is even a wide organization. this also is part of representation of larger groups

in the tenderloin such as the tenderloin housing clinic, the tenderloin neighborhood development corp., the ymca, the hastings college of law, and the san francisco city impact. these other members who are on the board of directors. what is the san francisco city impact? here is what they say on their website. "our mission is to build healthy lives through service, relationships, education, and in power >> -- and empowerment." they voted to support bay drugs. the tenderloin housing clinic says "founded in 1980, the tenderloin housing clinic is an all volunteer operation in a

one-room office building. today, the tenderloin housing clinic operates the largest permanent housing program for a single homeless adults and is a leading provider of legal services to low income tenants. they voted to support bay drugs. next is the tenderloin development corporation. here is what they say "since 1981, tenderloin development neighborhood corporation has been committed to making the tenderloin and surrounding neighborhoods a better place to live. we provide safe affordable housing and support services and order to lay the foundation for a better quality of life for low income people in san francisco." they voted to support bay