a look and feel it's not just the clinic it's the purchasing power and it's the look and feel. the commissioner asked at the lend of the last meeting you made a comment you said if you're an organizations that intends to serve the public what's the aversion to speaking with the public. since that time that's fallen only deaf areas that's advise being given in multiple times and locations we're the members of the clinic the issues of aids and hiv is important thirty to this neighborhood than other location in the united states we're asking to have a say in whose going coming into the neighborhood to provide those services. nobody is saying you can't come

in you're a formula retail location there are rules around that those rules were put in place to protect the citizens. >> thank you any public comment on that item? seeing none, then we will take rebuttal starting with the permit holders. >> thank you. ryan patterson for the permit holder. i first want to clarify the question before the board is whether the zoning administrator erred or it's not whether the permit was issued in error or the rules be changed. it's a clear question. if the zoning administrator would like to state that he orientated a decision made a duration of formula retail it didn't exist that's why it is not produced not in the minutes

or boards auctioning actions it doesn't exist. the burden should be clarified the burden of proof is on the appellant. to overturn the zoning administrators release decision not it on the permit holder. these statements about what's on the website of or the press released those do speak to how the pharmacy and clinic will be operated. the company burglary do what it does on its website not related to the pharmacy and clinic it's different the look and feel and the elements of formula retail are clearly laid out and it's not formula retail. none of that is going to be h f. the policy rationale behind this

listened behind the formula retail of not having a rows and a mcdonald in the castro maybe well served by changing the projects that people thought might look like formula retail the zoning of formula retail were removed fits it's no mcdonald or mixed pharmacies or whatever the h f competitors are afraid of seeing. the public has been well served assuming the permit is finally issued. the district attorney's suggestion there was a desertion is false. there's no decision that quo would be appealed and without a determination that can be appealed the current holders are deprived of the process. if this determination was made

you'd see a different appellant standing here g but again, it simply didn't pivot. i want to ask the gentleman to state under oath whether this project on april 8th qualified as formula retail and whether this year's an intention to operate it as formula retail >> no, it's not going to be acting like formula retail. >> okay. we can hear from the appellants. (calling names) and one of the appellants and first of all, i want to thank this board for your thoughtful deliberation this is different than the stuff that comes before you we're asking for common sense and thinking about what formula retail is and what it means. you asked the aids health care foundation to come back to you

at this hearing and prove they're not formula retail and i look forward to hearing our thoughts on this but i didn't hear them prove they're not formula retail in this. it is clearly in the health care foundation pharmacy that's going to be attached to the health care foundation clinic that's going to be operating in this building so calling it a different name as andrea said last time mcdonald's coming and saying their castro hamburger is not going to change the fact they're the kind of retail we know that mcdonald's can be we care about the castro community and what it looks like and you know the spirit of formula retail i think is this falls under that even if the name is changed and that's all that was

changed. so i - we say ask and what we're looking for is to go through the conditional use process to give the community and those of us who spend time in the castro so have say in this we're not trying to stop this but have this go through the conditional use process will good evening this should have gone through initially thank you, very much. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning staff i want to reiterate it's clear in the records supports this at the time the permit was issued in error that h f pharmacy what was going to be the tenant of that property was and still is a formula retail use. at the hearing that we had on

the first suspension request it was part and parcel of the appellants argument they were not formula retail and they prepared incidents he e evidence >> why do we continue this. >> this was the board acted this was the first appeal of the suspension request and the board took action and overturned the va but upheld in regards to formula retail use what was in the decision. >> why did we continue to today. >> that's a different appeal. >> i'm talking about this one today. >> this one the board continued it to today to allow time for the permit holder to provide more information whether or not this was a formula retail use and i think placing the burden on them to demonstrate this is not a formula retail.

>> so we didn't have a final determination. >> on castro pharmacy. >> right. >> but in terms of h s pharmacy that was the first appeal i believe the board in hearing the argument i've put forward there are sufficient grounds to consider hearsay a formula retail use had this not been a formula retail the board would have overturned the hearing request there was a hearing request for the first decision the h f pharmacy choose to change the operation of the pharmacy from ah f pharmacy to castro pharmacy not guilty a formula retail so we released the suspension that's on appeal today, the record is clear we've made a definition that h f is a

formula retail and castro pharmacy i reviewed the matter and said that was no formula retail but h f yes formula retail. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> actually, i think what occurred? first hearing probably as very little bearing on the tonight other than the fact there's two parts as was the first time and it's interesting that the legislation needs to be crafted for this particular case. i would have thought given the large number of cases and discussions that occurred with the legislations sponsor that

there would be been other things in the interim controls, however, the question the reason why i did not support addressing this issue whether moved because of the nature of the interim controls and how the legal opinions are dealing with that because i still think there's two parts because the suspension applies to also the medical service portion of it. and i support the release of that. and he probably will support the city attorney in this instance on the question of whether or not an interim control apply at the time of your decision and but i would then if you follow

that through logically i would be in essence overturning the v action on a portion of it. >> yeah, i'm trying to make logic out of it and the jake spade situation as well. where it came out differently i'm very uncomfortable with changing the name of an operation you may have been following the law but the law has changed. so i'm willing to listen to the notation of the shoreline man position if we can do it but i don't believe that the issue of

the pharmacy is, in fact, been before us anymore >> okay in essence i say the same thing and yeah. >> if we're in agreement i'll craft the following motion. >> i'm going to - i probably need to grant the appeal to condition. >> right that's right. >> you need to have it in the unanimous to have it to - >> my motion would be to grant the appeal with the following condition that the suspension release applied only to the medical services component and that the interim controls apply

to the formula retail portion of the suspension therefore it is not part of our decision. asia city attorney can correct me if i am wrong but i believe the way the controls are written it applies to the permit and the permit is for all of that work >> that's your opinion this is. >> no, that's my read of it we can see if the zoning administrator but i think it applies to the whole permit. >> mr. sanchez. >> one question are through two or one permit we split that up in march. >> there's one that proposes a pharmacy at the front and a medical at the rear and the board want the suspension were to remain from effect for the pharmacy but would be released

for the rear for the medical service because it didn't exceed 2 thousand square feet so i get the sense that the board is trying to do again kind of release the suspension with with regards to the medical part but not the pharmacy because of the conditional use is needed. >> actually mr. sanchez your statements earlier were that that decision was final. >> that decision was final but as part of the decision it directed the zoning administrator to issue another letter real estate the suspension which is itself appealable so this was part of the boards written decision on that matter and - and they were not allowed to pursue a permit

for doing work for the medical services portion. >> correct because once i released the suspension it was appealed again. >> right. >> if it's not final if it's subject to the interim controls mr. bryant. >> the entire permitted is subject to the interim controls. >> i suggest we precede that way. >> you agree with that legal opinion i i do. >> scott sanchez if i may suggest they could seek another permit solely for the medical service use which is appealable back to the board but something that is not claerl needing a kwufkts that could move separately and the entire permit

could remain an suspension. >> that's an action totally different from tonight. >> i believe we have to discuss with the city attorney's office but usually if you serve version permits on something that's suspended the board acknowledged it will not preclude them so i leave it to the city attorney and the director to craft that. >> i think you say the only thing we can do mravnz mr. sanchez is over rule you within the time limit if it is the same permit scope of work on - and not the denial of the permit has a one year bar. >> correct. >> isn't that a permit before

you but a zoning decision. >> okay. so commissioners you could overrule the zoning administrator or look at the issue that was raised initially as moved. >> i will be inclined to dismiss it as moved. >> i believe i'll accept another motion mine didn't sound right. >> you withdraw. >> i withdraw. >> yes. i'll move to dismiss in appeal as moved and we need to make finding. >> based on the mraushlt of the zoning controls. >> yes. >> mr. pacheco.

>> do you wish to include a refund of fee to the appellant. >> has anyone thought about that. >> we shouldn't have heard f it, yes. >> you're not making a decision on the merits if you're smig the appeal. >> but mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning staff that will be released we believe that the interim controls are applicable and it would be best for the suspension to remain in effect. >> actually, it's we need to over rule. >> the zoning administrator go ahead. >> the matter going back to the planning department and the dbi if you think you could resuspend

it again or whatever. >> it's no longer in your territory. >> so if i would continue to dismiss the appeal based on the interim controls. and in regard to your question we should keep the fees because at the time it was a valid appeal >> the motion then? vice president to dismiss the appeal is moved because the mraushlt of zoning controls. on that motion to dismiss. commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. sfold is absent the vote is 3 to zero the appeal isbreak.

>> welcome back to the system of the san francisco board of appeals we're calling item 8. angus vs. the zoning administrator at 36 street for the granting to 36, llc of a surveillance to construct additions to a single-family dwelling and this is on for the hearing today, we'll start with the appellant please go ahead >> simon's is sue hester i'm the tor for the appellant the people have lived in the house for the parts 60 years a 3 generation family.

and their ironically city employees it's hard to remind the day's they used to be city employees that lived in nice houses in nice neighborhoods this which is this the site a steep. and a any of you who have children might bang the christmas tree house it's downhill on 21st street it is also the sightline for what you see if you go to delores park and look up from delores park to the southwest it's the feeling deploring heights is one the steep it neighborhoods in the city that's why i attached the slope map in my brief ambassador what we have is a surveillance it was issued at the conclusion

at the end of the hamburger by the planning commission. the variance plans changed. what we had when we were at the planning commission we had a set of plans for the discretionary review hearing payroll? process of developing the surveillance decision there was private e-mails back and forth and private submissions back and forth between the developers and the architect and attorney. and the developer is named christopher cox mr. cox or so attorneys submitted the version to explain what we wanted what we wanted? variance was an amended to the plans that was

the subject of the hearing. they amended a roof-deck on the top of the mid building, they amended a roof-deck open the lower building to the north. they also talked about installing solar panels and switching the roofs to green roofs. as a result of what they did they issued a variance decision. and we talked about in our belief that there were changes in the revision four that had not been discussed by anybody we raised those concerns in our belief. way have from mr. coxs attorney an statement we can't bring up this we have to appeal the permit issuance i bring up the

issuance my clients position is let's get it over with right now. let us resolve had this around the variance we can't resolve it tonight what was asked for by the planning department and not done by mr. coxs people is they suggested they present the changes to the paris. and they didn't. they show because those plans are in and out now the plans on file. those plans for this building revision 4 is submitted? planning department and everybody who reads in the planning department's or reads the plans knows what they're proposing. those are the following problems they what this is there's an elevation and this is the paris

house this is the old house from that exists right now for 3660 the christmas tree thousand house you see the tower right here. the whole development is given when you live there 60 years you get certain things the tower is way out here and the height basically steps down the next page show what was before the planning commission and the variance what was before the planning commission was height out here or with a master bedroom and stepped up to the plate down here and there's a deck here and a roof-deck and an open space right here. what happened between revision two and 3 the entire house this is the place where the turn over

say was kept at that height and extended to the paris lot line there's open space behind here and above here. all of that was removed. there is not necessarily objections to the revisions if we know what they are because they've added a lot of other stuff. they've added solar panels that are not in the plans and the solar panels have so thickness and elevation their rattler or relevant because looking at out the window they'll be extremely visible. the paris has a view out their kitchen room and dining room window and those are right in front of that extension.

the paris house was developed? mid of the lot. this project has development in the rear because they have a majestic view let's resolve how the deck is a seated the garden deck there's a lot of winds up there from any expense in living in this neighborhood for 20 years. the mr. sanchez and extension of the deck and how this comes to their house and the extension of this house to here. or i didn't has raised issues regarding the utilities stack and he'll talk about them okay? yeah. would you like this the

clock is running >> they have a identical set of exhibits. >> same as what we have. >> is it the same. >> no, i'm arne on architect i was retained to look over the plans and see if there were issues in the plans that weren't being fully exposed that will effect their quality of life and understand what the architecture plans were were one issue it isn't on the plan you can see in the plan of they're first floor a large mechanic chase that somehow miysteries low

disappeared where does that again, a 5 or 10 foot master eliminate right next week to the paris that should be on the plans if we're going to try to understand what they are building and what's the impact we've asked about it with no response and solar panels they're showing in their drawing a roof whereas the solar panels can addressing add 23 to 4 feet of elevation they should be honestly honest about warehouse building. >> we're asking to resolve it on the variance it will get resolved if you instruct the

architects and people to get together that everything might effect the height minimum request thank you. >> we can hear from the agent holders representative now ms. barkley. >> members of the commission first of all, i need to apologize. that in my brief to you exhibit c actually was incorrect set of plans i attached the plans that was before the planning commission was, in fact, exhibit 7 that was in mr. hester's b