of all the places in san francisco to try to put in a new pharmacy, wide this neighborhood? if there is any neighborhood that is not needed pharmacy, this is that neighborhood. they would sell over $10 million worth of drugs in their first year and net over $476,000 in profit. this is certainly not the way to go about that. this boards has the authority under the law to revoke the permit because bay drugs

proceeded in bad faith. this pharmacy will impact of the neighborhood. we're not talking about the marina. i have presented evidence to demonstrate that. i have presented law-enforcement evidence that connects prescription drug trafficking with increased crime. thank you for your patience, thank you for hearing the case. >> in the brief, they talk about mom's pharmacy and they would expand and that would mean that they are going to increase their sale of drugs.

it has been suggested that the neighborhood is not going to appeal that permit. is that accurate? >> actually, i also read that and i read at the exhibit. i believe what they want to do is expand the partnership with tenderloin health. what the permit is for is to remodel. as i understand it, they are not petitioning to expand their existing plan or serve more people, simply to remodel their offices and expand their partnership. >> thank you. >> you and others have referenced prior hearings. this is a rehearing. do you intend to incorporate by reference prior hearing transcripts, etc.? i don't know if that is

permissible for but i wanted to make sure that that is what you wanted to do. >> thank you. i would certainly ask that the board incorporate all the transcripts and documents submitted in prior hearings. >> and live testimony? >> yes. >> thank you. course i will address vice- president garcia's last comment. -- >> i will address vice president garcia's last problem. let's assume that housing court

did not know about mom's pharmacy. they selectively opposed bay drugs. there was some question or whether or not just because to get a building permit as the brief, this says that an extensive remodel, they will expand upon their already successful partnership to bring additional health and well-being services to the underserved and one of the neediest neighborhoods. that means that they feel that they need to dispense more drugs. let's assume the palin did not know about mom's pharmacy. what you are doing here is an the judicatory party. you can only act upon appeal.

they did not know, they had some other interests. i don't know what the underlying current this. it is unfair to deny them a permit and to let moms pharmacy have a business for permits which are over $200,000. that is the problem with this board of appeal acting as a legislative planning sort of thing. >> i bring that to your attention. the other thing is that the appellate said that ms. morgan did call them on may 24th and asked about a permit. she was told that there was no permit. she asked for the wrong address. that is why she was not given the right information. she was not being misled. that is all i have. >> when the captain was up here, i asked him.

i am not presuming that your clients permit was upheld. if it was upheld, as some earlier iteration of this same case, some brief contains some recommendations that had been made by the police department having to do with security issues. are you aware of that. >> i am aware of that having existed. i think that they were planning to adhere to the suggestions by the police officers. then, i would have to give a call to my client.

i don't see that as a problem. they were going to do it anyway. >> thank you. >> is there any additional comment? commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> this case needs to be

resolved. i don't think that we have been doing our jobs by letting it linder and proceed through so many different types of hearings. at the same time, i don't think that we should let it proceed on the basis of all of the technical and legal arguments that have been made by both sides. it comes to a point where some of us, it is no longer a purely technical or legal question. we accept the potential problems that might occur here or might not occur here. the potential benefits that may or may not occur here. i'm of the opinion that this particular body has a significant amount of history, a lot of legal challenges that

have applied to the decision making by this body. i think in most instances, this is based upon a fairly broad discretion that can be applied to our decision making. on that basis, i am prepared to look at what i think our community standards, community needs, and therefore i will vote to revoke the permit. >> i agree with the commissioner that we do have broad powers. we are meant to look at what is in the best interest of the community. we heard in this hearing from neighbors, from elderly people. we heard about the effect of children and service providers about drug sales on pill hill

and traffic and loitering. we also heard about police staffing challenges in the city generally, which we all now. and come the pharmacy is expected to make $10 million in sales in its first year. additionally, the appellant was misinformed when she called asking after the permit and was told that this was the other permit. the time line is questionable. for that reason and the other reasons stated here tonight and in the other hearings that they did act in bad faith.

this needed to done before the plumbing was done. all of the electric work listed here was done in a day. this doesn't sound credible to me. first the time line issues, the intentional undervaluing, and the other things that were mentioned here today make me conclude that the applicant act in bad faith. i would vote and overturned. >> i am simoleon inclined and we wanted to see that there is legal representation that would make a difference.

there is time that the work is being done. the amount estimated and the start up a summary of 100,000 which is very close to what the amounts that were spent but also very very different from the amount reflected in the permit application. my focus is on those particular facts. >> i agree that it gets down to certainly for the two of us who are not attorney's, to have to decide rather than based upon some fine legal point. you hate to say i'm going to decide what is best for a community. that is what we are being forced

to do. i go the other way. i use the same premise. i feel that this is not bad for the community. the drugs can be bought there from other places to be sold. other places in that same community sells drugs. i cannot buy into the fact that another operation selling drugs is going to necessarily results in gain the multiplication or some greater amount of drugs being sold. maybe i'm totally wrong on that. i was very taken with two things and a killer. -- in particular. one, was the land law. mr. robinson.

he thoroughly vetted this tenant. maybe he is having us believe that he did this. he comes off to me as a very sincere individual, concerned about the neighborhood. he is a fourth generation san franciscan. he has owned this pediculicide 40 generations. he has another tenant in the same area. he must be concerned about them. i think as bad as perhaps the drugs are, i think it has been clearly stated and i have read that that is a nexus for crime and it does create a problem. the other thing that impressed me was that it had to do with the people who showed up. maybe they are acting beyond their purview. maybe the strict reading this not allow them to have done what they did.

maybe it does. that is not something that is before us. i think undeniably, these are people who are concerned about the tenderloin. they have a demonstrated record of doing positive things in that area. legitimate businesses move into the area would be positive. this comes as a great disappointment to those people who have been here many many times over this. i cannot support of their appeal. you might have the fourth vote anyway and you might not need mine but i wish you the best of luck. i am troubled by the misting $66,000.

-- by the missing $66,000. this is a legitimate thing to have been brought up. it seems like it would have been a legitimate thing for them to have addressed, to label the suspicions of this body. they have under exaggerated that. there are remedies for that. i don't think that this rises to level of that we should deny a permit. >> i would disagree with the commissioner. i think the process is important. we had robust arguments as well as pushing the facts. both sides are trying their best

for the community. i also struggle with some of the legal arguments. that would result in monetary sanctions. the legal cases show for that to be found, the permit holder would have had to misrepresent the use of the property and permit. that was in bad faith. i think that there is opportunity for monetary sanctions.

we must implement the recommendations with the police force with respect to on site cameras. this does better represent the community. i don't see that these special restrictions will be a material detriment to the permit holder. with that, i would uphold the permit. >> can i make a motion with any special restrictions? >> that would require four votes and it would be putting conditions on the permit.

>> if she makes a motion, she needs one other vote. >> if she makes a motion and it on the goners two votes, currently they cannot take any action and therefore the underlying department all action as that held as a permit of law. to affirm, you would need three votes. >> process is a good thing. i would move to uphold the permit but with the special restrictions. those are the recommendations made by the police force that are in the papers of the permit holder. >> you would need to be more specific.

>> let me make the general vote. i make a motion to uphold a permit. >> that motion would be to deny the appeal and a pulled a permit. on that motion, -- >> no, >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> the motion fails. >> the permit is upheld by application of law unless there is a subsequent motion. >> i would like to make a subsequent motion. dihaving read what the

recommendations were earlier, this was contained in briefs that we received that we incorporate those recommendations by the police department has a notice of special restriction. >> i am inclined to support conditions but i am having trouble remembering >> i can tell you what it had to do with. it had to do with preventing people from congregate in front. i think it had to do with security personnel. i think it went beyond that. in no way where i represent to you that these were not all things that represent the neighborhood in every way. to place those restrictions is

to benefit to them, having not benefited them, they think on this vote. >> i might be able to sign the document in the file but i don't know if anyone has a way of narrowing it down to where it might be. >> can we do this pending findings? >> i don't know if you are inclined to do this. you can do this to adopt written findings that staff could prepare and the new rating is. >> it is possible that mr. sanchez -- >> i believe there are conditions in the appeal brief that was received on september 23rd, 2010, they are from the permit holder, they are not on the tenderloin police station letterhead.

>> this is a protected and monitored security system. keeping it streets trimmed to maintain visibility. this is fully provided by a contract security firm. maintaining control cash on site. the secured for all substances on site. no loitering. the mta has r timed and metered parking space in front of the primacy. -- in front of the pharmacy. >> what the new meters would do

would not be affected by that? >> those are the ones that i would choose to have incorporated. >> do you have those? >> i am not enough. that gives us only three votes. we should probably hear from the commissioners. >> i will accept the conditions. >> do you want all conditions including the parking? >> i would. if this is feasible.

if it does not take away a parking place the. >> i'm not concerned about the parking. why not just ask the captain to provide you with a lift -- a list. for >> in which case, i would vote on it. >> there are things that are not there in that brief. that would require that we have another hearing and we allow public testimony. >> if this is to adopt findings, then yes.

sh>> you have the list before y. >> we recommend this to the owner and the owner. the green zone is a drop off. >> we do know how to write that

up? >> that would be in mta issue. another issue would be the yellowstone. how they would make deliveries. >> we are trying to suggest security issues. >> how does the green zone and improved security in that area? >> the mta must put that in there. >> we have recommended these to the owner. that is what i addressed to the complaint. >> you have the yellowstone, how they will do deliveries.

this is a two-lane street. >> i guess we will have to ask the planning why that was not in the original permit and i am not sure how we would deal with it. >> we can just wipe it out. >> thank you. >> there is no requirement of the planning code for a large and so on. if the board would like to adopt some finding, that would be that they seek that sense this is a separate permit process and they're not able to obtain that. they would be in violation of condition of approval. they would try to see can justify this. i don't know if it is feasible. any discrepancy and difference in the permit fees is based upon the review which would be $2,000. if that can be addressed and a

special permit issued to the board's decision which would also address the conditions the board would adopt. we don't know if that would be a difference in the cost valuation. if not, they would need to file a separate evaluation. >> would that have to do with the reconciliation of what appears to be an incorrect figure with the original figure? to estimate or to present planning with an actual cost for so as to correct any discrepancy that may exist between what was put on the permit and what actually happened. as to your recommendation with parking, would you think it would be reasonable to simply states that rather