say. i understand. we have had such a good relationship, i allow you out of your lease. that space and stayed vacant for about a year. i am very aware of the amount of drug-trafficking that takes place, because i also have a hardware store on the corner. the family that has run that business for about 20 years has approached with the problems they have had with having their children be able to leave the premises without having to deal with the drug traffic on the street. i have personally sat down with the tenderloin police department to discuss how we change it, and unfortunately no answers came about. when i was presented with the option of a drugs, i had the same concerns. i do not wish to put a tenant in my building that is going to add to the problems of the street. i personally called the seattle police department. i spoke with the narcotics unit

and asked them -- tell me about them. are they responsible? do they add to the problems of low-income areas in seattle? they assured me they were exemplary. i then went to the website and contacted each of the organization's they support. the only one i could not get a hold of is the lesbian-gay alliance. i spoke to everyone of those organizations. everyone said it was exemplary. i then sat with captain verity -- garrity and the owner and went through this with my own lawyer. i said i do not want to hear if you are going to add to the drugs problem. -- i do not want you here if

you are going to add to the drugs problem. i have a history of responsibility in this building. if i found out this tenant was drug trafficking, i would cancel the lease, and i have the authority to do that. i think you for your time. >> is there any other public comment? >> good evening, commissioners. >> i served as a district manager to the cbd for its first five years. i am well aware of the challenges of doing business in our neighborhood. of was a founder of the north

the market community benefits corporation. we have brought many neighborhood improvements to the tenderloin, including the narrow reference earlier this evening, while engaging property and business owners as well as residents. i attended the board meeting where the owner of bay drug met with the community. i voted for them to come to our neighborhood. this was after a long discussion about the kind of products that would be selling. unfortunately, some people have promise he is negative in and of itself. much of this is a reaction to the many challenges that drug abuse present to the tenderloin. however, well-run pharmacies do not dispense drugs illegally or irresponsibly. the pharmacy is an important and to commit contribution of the small business to the tenderloin. mr. ortega is a responsible

business person who will be a valuable additional asset to the neighborhood. many things will revitalize the tenderloin. neighborhood small businesses are part of that process. we thank you for that consideration. >> other public comment? we will move into rebuttal. president goh: is that captain garrity? did you come for this case? just to listen for it? you did not come to speak? i am curious to hear what you have to say. someone called your name and mentioned you were here.

do you have a position about a new pharmacy being on pill hill? >> in the police department, we do not work on the building permit issue. we do not deal with variances and other things with the building of the property. i have met with both sides over security concerns and public safety concerns. i voiced my opinion to both sides. that is we have to be fair and balanced on this matter. we encourage small business and are concerned with public safety. a large corporation has a pharmacy downtown and want to expand. i talked to them about retail theft. this is a permit issue. it is up to you to decide. we have concerns in that area

like other areas. any kind of business that comes in that is going to affect our deployment or our staffing, which was 91 officers july 1 last year and is down to 70, does have a bearing on us. i want to be informed of what is going on in the neighborhood. they are very gracious people, the business owner and the people from the neighborhood. i understand their concerns on both sides. we cannot take a stand on a building permit issue. that is not what we do. i think i learned a lot today about the law and the constitution. [laughter] i heard a discussion of philosophy and st. thomas aquinas.

herb king said the tenderloin is full of saints and full of sinners. there are a lot of good people in that area who need services, whatever they may be. but this is a building permit issue. we have concerns on both sides. we have to be fair. i spoke to the people who want the facility and the people who do not want the facility. it is up to you to use common sense for any kind of permit that comes before you, by the rules of law that govern your commission. president goh: you mentioned safety and deployment of officers. would a facility like this increase the need for deployment in the area? >> i do not know. the facility is not built. vice president garcia: not to jump ahead, but it seems to me

that i remember the first time that this case came before us that you or someone in the police department had recommended certain measures be taken to ensure security and safety and those types of things, having to do with cameras on the front keeping people away from immediately in front of the pharmacy, those types of things. we still have the right to place a notice of special restriction. we could incorporate the measures you recommended. >> our permit officer was here before that. i recommended to both sides -- we have concerns about the security issues. security is not cheap. it is up to you if you decide to put extra restrictions on that.

i gave you the list of what we are concerned about with extra security and cameras. that is not up to me to decide. it is up to the building code. vice president garcia: we no longer have that in front of us. if this were to be approved this evening, i would want to try to get the other commissioners to agree to special combat -- to special restrictions in order for this permit to go forward. >> i think the pharmacy people already have that. vice president garcia: they have a list? >> you can add that if it is up to you. whatever commissioners decide, the police department will abide by it. but it is up to you people to make the decision. vice president garcia: it is. commissioner hwang: along the lines of president goh's

question on staffing, is one of the reasons you are here out of concern that you're diminishing staff would have to -- your diminishing staff would have to be more watchful in monitoring what is going on,? should be a pill be denied,-- the appeal be denied, would you monitor closely? >> we monitor all new businesses that opened. we do not want any blight. it does not matter if it is a barbecue. the same thing. we monitor all businesses. small business, we want to thrive in that area. commissioner hwang: do you have to conserves in this area? -- different concerns in this

area? >> it does not matter if it is a liquor store or a day care. there are a lot of service providers on that block. there are the people in the self-help center. commissioner hwang: i think you. -- thank you. >> thank you. >> you can start your rebuttal now, mr. waggoner. you have three minutes. >> just a few points. one is earlier some of the commissioners touched on the discrepancy i raised in my brief tonight, between $40,000, 103 puzzlers. -- $103,000. mr. forte drafted a business plan. he estimated construction costs of $100,000.

exhibit 16 in the april 16 contract, costs were estimated at $103,000. i would respectfully suggest to you that was definitely not undervaluing. the have a very specific idea and were only off by a few thousand dollars. i do not how you undervalue from 40 to 106. vice-president garcia asked me earlier -- if ms. morgan had complained prior to may 24 -- the answer to that, i can be more specific. she did in fact call dbi prior to may 24, and was told that the permit was already in existence at that time. but that permit was for the laundry. so she got that information. she was told she must be mistaken because there was already a permit. the third

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.