or more so the service mark and the signage additional i referenced at the previous hearing it's possible the maintenance and stock and trade my trigger it but we didn't go further but my understanding they do get they might have different labels on the medicines but again, we didn't get p to that level. >> mr. sanchez i'm curious about the following. in terms of you're thinking when you made the determination that the name change made it non-formula retail and therefore you realized the permit because when you brought up the paper which was an announcement type of thing one would expect even though there's a name change the

checking account is the same and corporation is the same those things would have stayed the same regardless of the name change that is at the physical facility >> they represented they'll operate as the castro pharmacy. >> not separate this is. >> yes castro pharmacy we didn't see castro represented by the h s fireman or pharmacy they were going to operate under the castro pharmacy no representation made they'd operate under an umbrella or h f and identify with them and in the previous hearing there was concerns it's born out through the process if we go out and find they're having the color schemes we'll find those things

down the road but they submitted an affidavit they'll operated at castro pharmacy that's the basis for my decision. >> okay emergency room think about that. >> thank you. >> okay. so we can take public comment can i see a show of hands how many people want to speak open this item? okay step forward i public comments are never allowed to close when people like you come up >> thank you for your consideration i represent san francisco aids foundation the cities largest provider of hiv services this year we'll deliver for hiv tests than any other

nonprofit in the city. we have one hundred percent of our services are free we're from the process of moving 3 of our programs from castro into one and despite the level of support we seek a discretionary use authorization not because it was required but the right thing to do and in our case we have no pharmacy and no other project has been attempted and we have learned by watching the h f we could have sliced and decided our project and get for things around the intents of the organization we serving the public and yes, sir. it took longer and costs more but in the end the feedback we've received

resulted in a project that is more desirable to the neighborhood. as part of the formula retail the commission will listen to the public and decide whether the aids health care foundation is a necessary or desirable project for the castro despite renaming the castro the aids organization is a function s that had several millions in revenue. should it be allowed to expand? castro that's a question that the people that live in the neighborhood should have a say i urge you to let the neighborhood to weigh in on this thank you very much for your consideration >> do you state your name for the record. >> james land use car. >> thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm aaron baldwin i'm coming here on behalf of the positive hiv community. that was noted beforehand the organization is not here is a formula retail it buys it's drugs in my places. i have a press release from the aids health care pharmacies in conjunction with our madam clerk stated the nation's health care pharmacy purposing channel organization was pleased to announce, you know, their coordination together and they would be their primary purchasing power when i look at formula retail it is not the look and feel of the formula retail foundation it's the purchasing power at the

beginning of this month they've opened their 35th clinic i in cleveland they've become a sponsor of cleveland pride and of the gay games an international event that happens in the situations like the olympics. this is not what you expect from 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