making use of use i think where we can clarify it on c's we ask for when we're doing occasion of pdr space or if you're going to displace it for inventory of similar uses i wanted to see a clarification of similar uses of tenant or something like that you know, i won't want to say if you have inventory similar people say 20 years ago a automobile repair shop now we need an inventory of how many repair shops are there right now but keep to the current tenants a b and d are the current use for additional information how you, your raping that the relocation that works those are

the changes i would recommend in terms of length i'm definitely not 18 months sounds like the conversation is not in this direction i support the 18 months because i come from the school we see the 2020 the information in march another six to eight weeks we have other legislation that has been coming to us in and we'll have the opportunity a upgrade the sgrmdz 18 months is enough time and to know whether or not we're moving forward on other pieces of legislation and policy you know, i think extend it beyond that gives us a construction to say well, we, take longer than because of grrmdz it is something that is unfair to franklin to the neighborhood and to the city so finally

protecting not going to let this drop i think it is one as commissioner richards said people we're on tv people like coming here yeah you know we have to continue to look at other things as well 0 outlet types of evictions move in those are the things are has nothing to do with with the things we're talking about the community is part of conversation otherwise they're not talking about how to protect those people outside now and even when they do the new development is not the problem but how to displace people are there thanks and the changes will - >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you. >> first, i echo some of the sentiments commissioner johnson talked about and i appreciate our comments it is a complicated

issue we too often get down to where a project is approve or disapprove so i'm glad we're meaningful to talk about others percentages i think we should been talking about 18 months ago instead of moratoriums but trying to increase increase the production of affordable housing through bonds or leveraging commercial development and things like small site acquisition and how rent-controlled stocking can go along the same lines we're getting somewhat away from the discussions over the past year and moving on to a more productive avenue to increase the affordable housing or the percent i'm supportive supportive of the interim

controls i like the changes generously i don't view them a tool to stop unless displacement of actually pdr things we can make projects better like increasing the percentage, i.e., mean increasing the affordable housing in replace lost uses some specific questions on let's see the specifics the timing that was braibt brought up i agree 9 months is too short 12 to 15 months a while before not only the mission plan is approved by legislation that will be evolved from if plan when it comes to fruition can i get a sense from staff whether

it is adopted or legislation that enacts the plan. >> you'll see when we have a plan the measures of the programs and tools it will take this time some were actively rolling out but others we need to endear up legislation it is going to be this is at plan and this is what we're doing. >> i know there is a bit of a disagreement but not 9 by 15 is reasonable i on that ground with sxoks strike that with the disapproval of housing we'll come up with whatever findings so i'll strike it section from it in the studies again

commissioner johnson taunted i agree with her on the large projects from the developer is doing the study their not going to tell us their project is causing displacement so i on the studies have useless so i don't know if frs there is a way i'm sure their spend 5 or $10,000 to underwrite the studies we're doing on rent control again we've been in the debate whether or not now housing causes displacement i see the studies being done like rent control in better avenues to produce more affordable housing those are more productive studies so you know, i think i can go either way but get rid of of the studies but find something to replace them that are objective

studies who people are going the inclusive like choosing between fox news or nbc do you want to comment. >> sure i can comment emry rogers we anticipate first and foremost not a need for the developers to do an economic need or hire the consultants the controller's office report we've had a series report by the uc berkley and as well as the mission specific that the department did can he used a basis we'll be pulling out references and making them as applicable to the project for the most part. >> so the specific information about the project is useful but

the broader studies people can key off who is the existing studies. >> and on the land dedication option can we priek that lane dedication option or at least because again, i think you want to encourage i'm with others to encourage the land dedication but it results in 33 percent explores so by definition does that. >> the amount of area under the option various in the mission by zoning district we're going to exempt the interim controls any conflict that provides anything loneliness 33 percent affordable we've heard the 32 percent is an affordability level that is so you get by prop k that was in your responsibility to do do

landlord use controls you need to meet the minimum codes so there is agree minimum 35 percent you'll need to do do higher needs to it if you choose that. >> we add it to that dedication of land beyond the that that results in 33 percent affordable housing. >> yeah. >> could we audio that. >> i'm going to look at the city attorney we were suggesting to be more simpler that any project that is needing a 33 percent affordability amount of the hours actually any of the options afford through section 214 under planning control. >> i wouldn't mind calling out land dedication we want to encourage the developers to do

can we add providing that land dedication with the dedication of 33 percent. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles yeah. i think you should be specific that is only found in section 419.5 and 6 so it is not specifically included in the general provisions that the inclusionary housing and if you want to have the threshold of 33 percent i don't have that table in front of me but the land use is 33 percent. >> the code flo i don't have it in front of me but the detailed chart. >> the amount avenue land that can accommodate 33 percent whatever the percentage of the

principle project as affordable. >> what's the percentage and. >> what you're suggesting it provides 33 percent of the units. >> correct yeah. yeah. >> so that's not the law. >> i mean, if land dedication is you need to provide x percent of the landmass. >> no, i don't have the code in front of me we talked that at the da it is it results in a percentage of - it says they needed - there is a certain size and tier to this different tiers quality to thirty percent units if their smaller are 35 or 40 so it traffic signals them into units that's generally - >> not the land based on the

unit. >> correct. >> so are you recommend we say instead of thirty, 33 percent. >> so the one option is not an option. >> correct. >> okay and then the issue about pdr like medium sized project and their displacing it came up a couple of times the pdr use is it defined where it is active or has been active. >> it is not defined but you can define did in one of the sections we have sorry i'm trying to look at look for that if it is a principally permitted use we typically do have those

definitions. >> if it has not been active even though in a pdr building and i mean there are other rules we're trying to preserve pdr for displacement of existing pdr so can you help us would it be appropriate it's been telegraph hill used in the last two years we can't make the time two short. >> you can use the threshold conditional use as a threshold something has been vacant for 3 years but if so a threshold of a 3 unit threshold you could use that. >> okay. >> i'll try to craft a motion to see if we can get an early start i move to approve the adopt the interim controls with

the modifications of the additional moichgsz that we increase the time there are in effect 15 months and again, we, talk about that. >> we include a existence for pdr an actual use within the last two years i don't want to put in or this in the resolution but encourage the staff to be here in meetings for leaguer projects and given staff comments i won't move to eliminate the - those kind of broad studies. >> second. >> we have - >> so under the land dedication option that results in 33 percent of units being

affordable and strike that entire photograph no. of. >> city attorney. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland-knowles again on the land dedication only one type of project that has a thirty percent requirement and all the rest are 35 percent or more up to 40 percent we want to say 33 percent or weather you know anytime of 33 percent or whatever is currently required i don't think the the president to reduce the requirement. >> correct. >> i guess we're allowing thirty percent up to 33 percent and the other ones stay at 35. >> i defer to the decoration we'll exempt them in the interim controls if they're doing the city's goal of 35 percent. >> the project results in a

minimum of 33 percent in a number of affordable units and and then from the requirement was 35 or 40 percent. >> the landlord dedication option we'll encourage. >> commission more clarification on - you can turn your mike on. >> i want to ask commissioner hillis if we were advised for pdr and how it is i don't know if this is what she said. >> item i think again, we're trying to avoid displacement and you know the timeline for a project to be approved and were you might displace it to me 3 years sounded long that's why i put in two years. >> second. >> i'm sorry commissioners that was one other item the

staff wanted clarifications two alternative your case report requires the developer to submit the information we've been discussing and on the overhead was a the alternative we could get the overhead on sfgov staff looks at the materials i'll talking about the second bullet point and add language under the staff review the planning department staff will review and get the information and provide an analysis on that information to you so we can accept it as submitted or also looking at it with our assessment we'd like some direction. >> did you say you want to include in our motion. >> yeah. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. it is understood in the same sense we would allow the project sponsor to utilize

existing studies to answer those questions maybe coming before them as far as housing production production of affordable housing they don't have to do their own easement this comes up and as far as displacement pressures again that is pretty conceptually or conjectural i don't know why they'll have to have a story their displacing people the study by the ted egan kind of talks about that all right. that's understood in the motion they'll not have to produce those things and let's see i think everything else was fine can i ask mr. - sir answer me from there 15 months is that going to work

for you guys? >> i'll borrow from someone else's statements you don't i can't remember but the short time but we don't have it, too short 12 or 15 i think it could create a process. >> i'll tend to be supportive of 15 presumably that is mission 2020 in place by the time and give them more time i think i'm in support the only thing i'll ask has nothing to do with with that particular thing although a basis for the affordable production i'd like to see a copy of the kristen mary's den

study from 2007 and see the connection between units being generated and the need for housing units i see the jobs being agenda it is a local or regional demand where it the connection and wouldn't inherit if we have someone commissions to do one that is more current this is almost 10 years old. >> the controversial study is the required nexus study we have to do to support the housing program programming that was done in 2007 we're not complete yet we just want is to we're in the process that was why may i have a motion commissioner richards mentioned it in the actual language i'll not recommended recommend we're trying to nail it and not putting a number would be a

useful part of exercise and if members of the public could refrain from secondary conversations we'll appreciate that thank you. >> so, anyway this is important i'd like to see that revision and hopefully it will answer a lot of the questions i've raised how regional how close that housing is to be not part of this approval today. >> may i have a motion on the timing it very well be that permanent legislation will come forward from the 2020 and from the commissions purview to rescind a portion of those from the permanent controls were to address the issue so that is certainly those are totally under your control. >> commissioner richards. >> i have a couple of friendly amendments one that we take the 3 years pdr from the date of the

hearing back instead of two years. >> a clarification when you measured the 3 years is it from our approval dates or when the application was submit? >> i think what claudia was talking about what we consider the building vacant and the last non-conforming that is a band of use but not the right used to be abandoned the last legally permitted use unless you define it. >> the one we had last week, a shop that applies we have some on the projects we know that were pdr they left a year ago preponderance of the evidence the approval from the dates date

of the approval 3 years back. >> on the approval date. >> right that gives us the up to three years ago. >> is that okay. and and the second amendment to add the two bits of information on mary's den with the request through the displacement rates within a quarterly quarter of a mile gives us a complete picture on the pressure pressure. >> commission repeat provide the displacement rates in a quarter of a mile radius in section four 2 c that's it. >> can i ask on displacement are reasking the developers to provide that information. >> should be included in the report. >> from the department.

>> yeah. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay thank you just a couple of quick questions sxhifgdz commissioner hillis in our motion what did you say not make changes or make changes. >> i think staff said that my concern they can use the existing reports whether the controllers report but asking folks go out and make up new reports it is fine with the reports. >> cool thank you. the second question on the going back on the pdr the current motion i think that is two years did you mean 3. >> 3 from entitlement date and i know but he's not accepted the changes. >> i was talking about 2 proclamations back i think that from approval back is fine. >> okay. >> sure okay

that's totally fine and then we are including staffs refuse striking item 67 and then the displacements rate i'm okay with the radius it is clear from the department and woj one more time we get it but continued to get better information we'll not have a levied. >> the quarter mail for both projects or the larger projects. >> both. >> very good. >> the other mention i have just a reference to the housing balance rotator report from the district the report it is very easy to get. >> is that okay. >> yes. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm in support of moving

this forward the only thing i'll ask it requires more scrutiny from obvious this will have additional things to consider prosecute to the full extent of the law i'll ask that staff add did boundary map any other data it is substantive moving forward to any staff report as it come forward that is stwrag work but it is only forwarding again for us to have to figure out each time we begin at the allegation edge of somewhere it will make it easier on us that's not part of the motion on a reminder. >> commissioner antonini with a 3 year pdr use from the day of approval that will not be a factor but made aware of non-pdr

non-come forward use pdr spaces have been something else for many years the way this is written that will come into play that's not - it is good to know what is operated on site whether or not it is a permitted use. >> commissioner richards. >> question for staff so the intent of the history of the pdr use give you a little bit of background i'll weighing 3 years from the hearing date from the entitlement of the approval and the original notation what is more effective to achieve the goal you've set ousted or out to achieve. >> i think if you don't two years from. >> the application. >> it could ended up being the same because it might take a year for the project to come to you it is knowing two or three

years assisted a good threshold is the property bought or turned over it is probable better to capture. >> the goal so catch instances where the developers are anticipating the action and informally so the idea to go back to catch the 3 years it is said it is essentially roughly the same the smaller projects it will be longer than they don't take as along to get in front of you. >> thank you. >> 3 years from entitlement i'll jooerp use the word entitlements. >> make sense. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there is a a motion to adopt the interim controls as amended to last

duration of 15 months to include within the pdr section the definition it includes actually uses within a 3 year time period to encourage the staff to be present at large projects preapplication their land dedication provisions result in a minimum of 33 percent or a minimum whatever of affordable housing to delete section 6, to include a study on ellis and o m i displacement within a quarter of a mile to be included in the medium and large projects within the report of district and finally including the staff amendment regarding staff submitted information did i capture everything there.

>> if it is understood the use of existing studies to answer the questions are applicable. >> that was not prohibited in the controls >> it is included in the draft language and the existing studies we can use. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner richards commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 7 to zero. >> show a we more often commissioners that places us on item 10 the downtown area plan map related to the transbay plan one that is a general plan amendment only the ethics commission. >> kim with the planning department staff the the item

before you today is to initiate the general plan amendments of the map 5 of the downtown plan the map in the map 5 of the downtown plan that are 6 lots in the transbay development area zone one out of sync with the current height limit that are in the zoning map and the did you notice area is the only area in the city that has a health map in the downtown in the general plan and in addition to the zone height map we have for the entire city in 2006 when the city amended the redevelopment plan for the transbay development area there were amendments associated with that

redevelopment of the general planning plan that map was all the time to be reflect the changes in 2006, however, 6 of the lots in that zone one the transbay development plan were left out of not notation that happened in the map and we're here to initiate to rezone the 6 lots to sync with the existing height limit basically 6 lots that existing zoning height limit is three hundred feet this map shows 200 and then the the general plan the department is asking for another plan for block one and in viewing of that staff not the plan is out of

sync so this week we initiate those amendments and these amendments are dependent from our review the block one height change i'll come to you in a month or so february 25th so the maps are where you approve the general plan for the block one. >> and basically 5 of these lots out of civil grand jury are in block one and the other 6 lot is block two. >> so the motion to initiate the block plan up to sync with the current fixing height limit and the city zoning code thank

you. i'm here for any questions. >> opening it up for public comment. (calling names) >> my name is jerry datson i live in the neighborhood and i release their not taking final action today on this mattered but it is paving the way for 4 hundred and 26 foot tower to go only that site on fulsome the neighborhood is concerned and we think that we would like to express our concern what is happening in this area in 2005 the agency adapted the transbay plan they raised the height in 2 to three hundred

needed for the arbitrary but it was for this is the height limit and it has specific plots for specific height this downtown plan the transit calls for the buildings to blend in with the existing height and character of the neighborhood at 4 and 6, feet the proposal will not meet any of these things definitely out of character and high and then so most of areas building in the area are much lower one exception the gap building is 200 and 14 at the highest point and 221 mean and 3 4g they are different i brought a just a brief map to show you what it will look like that comes if as you can see the tower the strange tower being

proposed it will be really out of - right here just would be out of character with the neighborhood at three hundred feet to not as bad as the 4 hundred feet it also it is still at all and sits up there but at least not as much as an eye soar other 200 and 36 feet it is important to take into consideration i hope that is not paving the way also this will definitely shade the park it is were on city land it is illegal because of sunshine ordinance it has a loophole through the developer is striking trying to sneak

throb we're opposed to that. >> i think that it is important to keep the waterfront area friendly to families and friendly to park this project i think will have a negative effect on the neighborhood so we ask you to keep this in mind this is not a good addition to san francisco thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm steve a resident of san francisco relatively recent an thirty plus years no los angeles i hope you don't hold that against me, i'm here to talk about the one 60 fulsome building and spot zone the city planning as said spot zone a bad idea the guidelines

of 2005 with the transbay state that quote variations from the plan with the development hurt controls shall only be granted because the unique constraint restraints and other treerld circumstances applicable to the property granting the vacation must be in harmony and the design of the development and the development guidelines shall not be material and detrimental to the public welfare and injures to the vicinity no variations shall be given for the height and bulk regulations or the parking allowances unquote so limiting the proposal didn't meet the well, through thought through spot zoning therefore we ask you no to approve that and limit the height to three hundred feet the

proposed building is out of character with the neighborhood isn't that true san francisco has an important waffling it is important to keep it this would be an attack on the city i think spot zone is a downward spiral a race to the bottom we have to be careful i'll ask you all to consider this factor thank you for your time. >> any other speakers on this item? >> and, yes good afternoon. i'm alicia i'm a resident at rincon hill i'm here to also raise the concerns for the developer at one 60 fulsome to increase from three hundred to 4 hundred and 25 feet i'm here to talk about the shadows on rincon hill there are other parks in the neighborhood as you may know

the sunshine ordinance present e prevents from shading the park rincon park the proposed building would be illegal unfortunately rincon park is on portland not covered by the ordinance we consider the loophole the developer is a trying to sneak through i have here a shadow study that shows you there will be constitutional shades an rincon park as you can see here in red is the shade shadow of three hundred foot elevation on the park here on rincon park as you can see here on the left side this shadow will increase substantially on the park and extended all the way to sorry

will extend to the waterfront we have talked about this that with the staff at occ agrees about the shadow i'm concerned about the shading designed combined with other plans and projects in the area that will substantially increase the shading an rincon park prevision did a shadow study they determined there are 5 open space that will receive no shading from the one 60 fulsome project those areas at rincon park outside plaza on howard and fillmore street and howard and beal street and on the main

street between howard and fulsome the latter is the treasurer transit center and rincon park when it is ready while shades faxing effect this is quite significant for the overall effect to the quality of life for families and elderly and anyone that wants respite from urban life in the park asking the shadows a undoubtedlyly less favorable we ask you in the no approve the 4 hundred and 26 feet project that will madam chair the quality of life for elderly and families and children thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners donald and i'm also a member of sf behalf we support the

increased height for this particular this on one 60 fulsome not block the lines to the bay the rincon park is more shaded in the summer for the people that needs the shade when is it 80 degrees outside as well the building the developers is offering i think the last time thirty percent new affordable units within the building and not be any corridors the same liquor lobby and the shadow effect will be minimal caring the summertime temperatures and we do support the height increase that in complaining for the affordable units in the neighborhood thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners and members of the public i'm star child the party for san francisco and like donald i'm supportive of the federation and i'm i don't live in the neighborhood but a long term residents in san francisco 20 years a bay area native i support the limits we have a severe housing crisis and concerned about the casting of a shadow in the park the only connection an occasional visit to the park i don't mind extra shadows i'd like to see people live here none likes now knows but unfortunately, the dynamics is that it encourages not in my backyard and people come out and

find a rationalism to see what sticks the result the housing crisis we have today this is a serious ongoing problem in the bay area and beyond this project is closed to the transbay terminal you know in the heart of downtown and all kinds of transit and may not new want sunshine walk a couple of blocks on the waterfront there is no reason not to approve and an increased height limit and allow for units to be built i strongly urge to build thank you. >> sue hester

basic information is hiring missing you're not ready to go through invitation where is the map it is not identified and secondly, i spent the past two averages going through the redevelopment files with regards to this generic area and this review files on the building of gap building in this discussion that there was extensive xhchgs on what the redevelopment agency was doing with regards to the park and the building in the park and the sunshine on the park and the site to be protected planning commission didn't have any jurisdiction 0 on the waterfront it was a redevelopment agency and there was enormous concern

about a fight iconicly the planning department plan that he dug into the general plan policy at the redevelopment agency especially the staff in the hearings they having had multiple hearings how you will protect sunlight on the park that will be created a condition of the gap presentation the gap building not only had to step down to the waterfront in the ceda but they were very concerned about the money that was going to be paid to the port to build the park when you see the redevelopment plan for rincon park the largest parcel is the park they were extremely concerned about the park and this you have a short circuit

that is not supportive you're doing an intion or asked to do this is not ready to be passed today i'll ask you at the minimum have a map of what this law is do you have a different map than i do. >> no. >> i printed it out i went online this is what you get online i tried various ways the basic things our changing policy without it bog disclosed to the public i everywhere else adopted the plan the transbay plan i wasn't here to do that but this is a huge step and not the way you're planning and doing it

in three weeks thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a number of questions and one is respent a significant amount of time blocking street by street thank you. i'll repeat when we reviewed the transbay plan a significant amount of detailed tension attention to fall into every aspect the plan and that has been projects being forward and the issued surrounded the plan were exempt my question is why is there a 10 year gap between recognizing that map 57 of the general plan was not

amended to reflect over-the-counter height that were discussed the second point is it is correct that there is indeed missing information about what constitute blocks versus lots this information is not given and no were in the maps that we have in our packet the first map is the general map about height clarification and outlines the zones in which it occurred it shows that is shown in the next map where those are relative to the larger map that is hard to find a way the map is small that aside between these two documents no reference about the specific lots in which did

height reclassification will be changed that's correct the third point i'd like to make is as this is quite critical in terms of how we're moving forward i will see a gap between the detailed and good work the department has done in explaining the surrounding plans specific plan informs adjoining neighborhoods are in fact, effected by the heights of the lots the plan is a very, very detailed and thoughtful plan, which specifically speaks about issues like power spacing be tower separation and shadow a collective composition of buildings created an indeed

desirable extension i've not seen anything particular in the absence of their telling him e telling me what how the parcel was 200 foot buildings would compliment contradict the issues of a good composition of it all building i'm not saying that is it is a good idea to selectively add other buildings, however, i think under those more accountability necessary and i think there is a better kind of planning effort necessary in order to just jump in and initiate the height amendment on those lots with we don't know where they are this is today is not a discussion approval or disapproval about the one 60 rincon hill project that was partially tied up into our discussion are things i think that would need to be discussed

in the larger understanding what exactly those two hundred foot height of the amendments occur the last thing i'd like to say is i think that through any circumstances the reexplanation of shadows will apply to any of the projects i'm particularly concerned over ideas of complete neighborhoods of moving through the south is clearly addressed when we are looking at adding height on fulsome. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm a little bit confused i've read the summary is about sound like there is zone one and two the zone was

was both intended to have the three hundred foot limits and apparently it says inadvertently zone one which includes the areas on the map was not included in zone two when the zone was done in that area actually, i'm reading we're correcting an offer sixth amendment sight apparently legislation was passed the vote was taken to make that 200 or rather three hundred it was inadvertently parts were ada some part are not 200 it seems to me that is a really simple thing has nothing to do with with the height of 160 fulsome that's not before us the

sulfatide was pleaded at fulsome and fremont is probable 3 willed or 4 hundred feet i don't know the exact height maybe i know one of the blocks that is in question if i'm reading the map right maybe you can answer what is happening. >> the lots that are changing in the first paragraph the block 37, 29, 31 and 32 they collectively are block one and one lot 37, 39, block 4 a portion of block 2 so if you look at the numbers are not there but - >> they're all in one and 2

southern california but for purposes of public decision at all believes that were built in redevelopment that is one of them it is not - >> i agree we should have identified the individual lots the block designation was always there designation for all the particular blocks in place since the redevelopment plan was adopted when. >> 2006. >> and when we did the transit plan it was different it over laptops some of the area didn't change any of the height in the redevelopment area we left them most of the projects were well underway so really did practical effect of the changes to change the designation for the block one the other it is clean power a map for the projects that are

already improved frankly an oversight the general plan didn't get fixed increased to be fair a practical effect of changing the height in the general plan for block one three to four hundred feet that's the actual effect and the block is a function of how they identified those particular plots of land we don't have that's united states way they do it so we don't have any control over and over that. >> okay. thank you i think that answers my question and it seems route routine this is not an approval of any project it is only rising the height limits to conform. >> i'm sorry just to be clear the redevelopment plan had block one to raise it to 4 hundred feet the annihilatiinitiation.

>> sir leave the doors alone. >> raise the height from three hundred to 4 hundred your initiating the action you'll see f it in two weeks to consider actual raises the heights. >> just to clarify ethics commission - initiation it didn't address it, it is just amend. >> i apologize. >> we're merging two maps the transbay map and making it one. >> okay. maybe okay. so

clarify this i apologize it is confusing to me. >> the existing we are simply clarifying the making the zoning map and the general map the same. >> the same yes. >> so the and i ethics commission didn't effect the block on a lo >> the ocii increased the general feet. >> we included that that is the reason we fought it basically says this is the

reason we found out the map shows three hundred but change if to three hundred 10 years ago. >> we have that that is what the missing here. >> sorry i'm interrupting we'll go on. >> we know your familiar commissioner richards so the map is different by a hundred feet 200 to three hundred your skewing u asking us to raise it. >> we're preparing and changing the first notion in that 5 and so we're including the blocks and saying those blocks the height of those blokes are controlled by the transbay development controls. >> the march is hear here and

the block two. >> right go to the projector i just made them red. >> great. >> so the o the block entirety of block one and smaller portion of block two. >> all that; right? - >> right. >> (inaudible). >> right here. >> okay. >> director rahaim do you have more. >> sorry. >> commissioner hillis. >> sorry just some clarifying questions so if i understand i mean what we're asking to do we're saying we're asking you're asking us to fix what was a clerical arrow

the redevelopment plan controls and the redevelopment agency the ocii controls the shaded areas and the redevelopment plan had all those lots in blocks at three hundred feet or at least block one the intent to rezone block one and portion of block two to three hundred feet it would be helpful to show us the the intent of the redevelopment plan and those lots would be increased to three hundred feet and a clerical error but they're under development oversee blocks are underdevelopment we didn't change the part of zoning so three hundred feet. >> no, i apologize if it was

marked i understand i think that wasn't so, yes 10 years ago we made an amendment to this zone one of the shaded area on the black map and made the general amendments navigates the first notation in a block 1 is the first notation that left out the blocks we're expanding the first notation to the next block. >> that would be helpful we're initiating so i think that would be helpful to show to the public and commission that was the intention this was referencing the block three hundred feet and is the redevelopment agency we shouldn't call it the redevelopment agency the intention of eject to come back

and request an increased height for the redevelopment site. >> i have the files a general plan to change of the heights on block one from three to four hundred they'll go to the ocii commission for the decision before the ocii commission to you approve that and that will come back on february 25th before you for the general plan referral. >> and ultimate we'll have to approve the height increase from three to four. >> the ocii commission has to approve that this commission is only has to look at the general plan referral. >> under the i thought redevelopment what make changes to the redevelopment but we didn't initially approve those changes in the redevelopment plan they can't unilaterally

increase those. >> try not to confuse i apologize when you take an action on the redevelopment you're changing the action whether it is xhfbltd with the general plan. >> that's our approval action to increase the height one hundred feet we'll have the discretion not unilaterally. >> commissioner antonini. >> this sounds like clean up i think that is an initiation there is more to come i'll move to anita that and have plenty of time to mull over the action when it comes back to us. >> second and commissioner johnson. >> thanks there is so many cliefrgsz i guess i'll thank the staff this is not unclear because it is the successor agencies planned areas and maps

but basically what we're doing is the blocks that are here those are successor agencies for block but the lots that are included are noted only one lot we're moving to the transbay center redevelopment plan map that is not in block one that is so - >> yes. >> so 4, 5 in block one in block one the map we have and one that is not adjacent to block two and all we're doing is saying the height and bulk requirement in transbay redevelopment area map applies to those monopolies before that was a downtown plan that makes it easier to make sure that everything is in alignment ocii initiated it asking for a health limit increase on block one so i don't know i mean, i guess

sometimes, it is coming back to us i'm not unclear. >> correct. >> and i think that the maps conform if you want to create a map that shows the list of blocks that would be helpful but they can be confusing to look at i don't know personally in my opinion it is okay to name the block so you know which block they're in. >> commissioner wu. >> i'll ask for that map there is only 5 lots if you could blow up the areas the two blocks; right? to label them when it comes back to the commission i want to ask purely in ocii is having their hearing that is not before us today, if the commission disprobable cause what will happen to their

action. >> if not approved. >> they'll approve it it will have so still come back to you. >> we're scheduled to take an action. >> what did you you say. >> on january 19th. >> they go through the legislative process. >> thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> sorry commissioner moore. >> i appreciate commissioner johnson explanation which was clear and concise bans their experience that leaves me to see what was given to me no attack on you including the directors confusion i believe any decision i make here whether is it larger or small based on the accurate information i can't support is it i'll consider it when i have

the information but at this moment i can't. >> commissioner hillis. >> it is confusing i'll ask that i ask because of our explanations can you come back with better sites to the redevelopment plan or more you know whatever we're relying on it was the intent to increase the heights to three hundred feet we understand it is coming back to the request i guess i'm just backing up why are we waiting to see whether we approve it and if we don't approve the three hundred feet why are we taking the interim steps we can resolve this at the time with the talking up the general plan. >> the plan will come to you on february 25th so the general plan amendment we need the

initiation so on the differences 3 week basically - at least three weeks for the initiation approval looking at the calendar and scheduling we came up with the initiation for the amendments those are in block one, if in block one didn't get approved the height change at least the map will be corrected. >> okay. >> sorry did i miss a motion. >> it was a motion. >> to initiate. >> i second it. >> sorry. >> shall i call that question and sorry commissioner richards. >> the motion was to make a motion to come back with is making map and different verbiage. >> my motion was to initiate a

request i'm supportive to come back with a map for purposes 6 better definition. >> commissioner richards. >> why not wait another weeks ago to get teed up so it is corrected. >> commission that will not, a week but two or three. >> okay. >> we can get you the corrected parcel information ahead of the next meeting clearly identifying the intent of that. >> okay. >> commissioners there's a motion to initiate the general plan commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards excuse me. commissioner wu no

excuse me. >> and commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes that passed 5 to two with commissioner moore and commissioner wu voting against. >> commissioners that places us on item 11 on third street this is a larger project authorization. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners the item before you is request for a large project authorization alters 2137, third street the demolition of two lots and a 7 story mixed use residential building totally one and 82 plus thousand square feet with 1 hundred and 9 residential

unit with 3200 plus ground floor space and two level garage being automobile parking spaces and one hundred plus bike spaces assessed off of 19th street it includes accident mixed use of 65 one bedroom and 44 two bedroom and common, usable open space at a courtyard in addition to a 25 hundred square feet deck at the roof of the smaller tower units will be located on site and remaining market rate housing will be available under the provisions for a large project authorization a modification of the planning code for the required rear yard exposure and horizon map reduction for official official design is it so complimentary to

the sub front of the eastern neighborhoods plan the project is located east of the dog patch neighborhood with the unsaturated block a wide range of heights and uses in the urban mixed use district district including the commercial and mixed use residential and industrial use the wide third street medians contains the area for illinois street foshtd shipyard for 19th street and illinois sgrshth typography is sloping downward towards the san francisco bay area the adjacent property to the north an 2121, third street is one hundred and 6 residential unit approved in 2010 and completed in 2011

did other adjacent property to the east on 19th street is an unimproved parcel used a parking lot and finally, the property to the south cross 19th street is a that building compleblgs occupied with industrial use to date the department has two letters in support one was received on the report and provided to the commission after analyzing all alters aspects of the project the staff said this is the consistent with the planning department and the central waterfront plan the department wanted to clarify incidence e since it was published staff works with the project sponsor to bring the off-street parking into compliance and the design modification was made that incorporates the mechanic for the 34 residential space with a 4 to 5 rash per dwelling units

as in the planning code section the department also finds it is compatible with the neighborhood character and the neighborhood is a proper massing and scale and has an exceptional architectural design the precise location will effect the waterfront neighborhood the project is appropriate in fill that adds one hundred and 9 dwelling units to the housing stock and ground floor retail formula in the zoning district where the ground floor uses are permit it includes residential units opponent like landscaping and outside seating and pub assessable open space along third street and bulb out at the intersection 19th street

and finally, the project will utilize the eastern neighborhoods area plan controls and contribute over one $.18 million for the public benefit fund based on those f that will confirm the codes off-street requirements the staff recommends approval with conditions the project sponsor is here and has a presentation that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you project sponsor please. >> commission gary architecture the architecture design team of gary architects here's the history to enlightenment the staff presentation this project. >>was filed on june 21st you

2013 since that time we've been working with the staff a had four meeting with the dog patch association those mergers are constructive we respond to many of the concerns was about the pedestrian experience along 19th street and third street that involved colors area materials and how the experience on the corner commercial space we'll show you how it embraces the corner as noted of a steadfast of the traditionally 25 percent rear yard and 75 percent lot coverage in the front we have a courtyard system the result the lots coverage on the pronounce is 70 percent and thirty percent the area of the podium open to the sky that is greater than 5 percent as required

other than the we note after working with the staff and the revisions on the parking we increased the electrical charging station wagons from 2 to 3 and increased car share under the code to have one car share we increased it to two we have so many amenity we worked with the staff to comply with the staff we'll hear here to answer any questions >> thank you, commissioners john with the architect walk through the design presentation we'll start with site contacts the site is located at the corner of 19th street and third street it is currently a light

industrial use concrete mason were built in the 1980s by the project sponsor it is important to understand this is an l-shaped noting lot not a 3 lot this was a reference in the planning text we have an ill i will exposure we do not a 37 wide parcel in the back of the parcel and unfortunately, the size will slides will make it difficult to see we can or want to talk about the streetscape we're kind of at a transition in terms of how the basic make up 9 north are two recently residential kind of in a residential vocabulary that is common to that edge of third

street as we move to the south this is martin building project the launch where they've maintained two of the mason building at mason vocabulary height of the building and a more contemporary in the back it jumps up to the height similar to what we're proposing next further did you observe the block is the american cam this a classic industrial building with for ways that are very much in this building type of and part of what we pulled out in terms of incorporating the project so what we did here the intent to basically take a modern vocabulary so some of the historic elements in the building in terms of the promotions and breakdown and the

materials but also give it residential character with the addition of projected bays and balconies to add to the modulation of the because of building this is the view of the building looking to the northeast under 19th street and third street the building our client a long time residents in the area and business owner this is a project he came to us to have a building of high quality a of quality materials we've taken the material appellant a little bit unusual for buildings of this particular scale we've gone in the upper portion the this that sets above a base this is broken we'll show you how that hemispheres the exterior wall is a aluminum it is in color high quality we have special

things made for this this which will give it additional relief and also serves in the balconies we're taking an aluminum played to put the building form and add to a kind of new pattern of the facade also a view from looking to the northwest at the rear the site again those are the property line conditions we're trying to incorporate materials to the property line conditions that are complimentary to the building and a panel system that has relief and as you can see it actually is - if you look at the building directly along illinois the narrow basis for the residential is quite thin that open courtyard or court been

open and as well looking at the slot of metal next. >> so this is an image of the primary this entrance i'm going to transition being so kind of the evolution the design in the discussions we working closely with the dog patch association on this project we went to the them awe initially and so much the dialogue really began to get more that accident about the ground condition and that the street how the street worked a series of meetings it was consistent between narrow objectives and ours there's or here's the streets a bit for comfortable third street is narrow 10 feet so some relief

and some scraping and some articulate the way we set this out a series of boxes we pulled the column back so we are able to look at the because of building to the property it give us an opportunity to modulate the front of the building so go to the next one. >> so in the discussions we end up working closely with the landscaping architect but there is a consistent 2 foot margin along third, that as what planting and we do periodically add additional depth incorporates seating and other elements that make the, more coursed and the entire plan is active along third street as you can see you start to see kind of how the street edge works with the planters along the edge a

large push out in the - these sgridz potrero is not bad but most of the distresses are on the street and seeing here and we'll transition into the decision of the courtyard what happens as well we've got this courtyard that is subdivided keep going bryan this give us an beyond a reasonable doubt of elevation what the street looks like at the corner of the 19th street we have the large mobile wall system the commercial use at the corner that will be you know something akin to a coffee shop are some kind of outlet of transparency and access to the sidewalk and increased the better streets program we increased and maximum missed the

landscaping along the edges there are long strips replaced with trees and want cars between the access to the sidewalk we're trying to get to many building what is allotted in the green space again main entry next one bryan. >> a view you'll see there are no from the entry to the courtyard in essence a view into the courtyards and at the top again, we have this talked about having a public space that is adjacent to the areas on the eastern portion of the building so that we have plans we can go into more detail or anything specifically you'd like to speak being just trying to give you an overall character of the building. >> the commissioners may have

questions your time is up. >> opening it up for public comment. >> not seeing any, public comment is closed. all commissioner moore. >> sorry. >> was there a public comment. >> yes. >> okay. >> good afternoon. this is stair child the director of the elizabeth telethon party and of the federation once again this is a housing project we need more housing i urge you to approve it that's pretty much was it boils down to and you know it is easy important people to pop up with rationals but this means for homeless and more suburban sprawl and lots of open space and environmental gwen's consequences and more traffic and in fill development in the

city is threatening to be responsible and to make living in san francisco affordable again, thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> on this item? okay public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm interested to see a large project coming down and in an area where there is plenty of room for invasion i'll add commencements comments on the end but in general the scale of the large project in the way it is reasonable as a residential project in an area that is in transition it is active court use where on these types of buildings we're putting larger residential buildings on which we've spent a lot of time and thought around the building inspections that of that building is is now complete that

building will greatly benefit from the park across the street so sorry for struggling with that word which neighborhoods housing & healthy communities committee is a large addition of a major citywide open space on the jurisdiction the design was the large historic preservation commission will be an interesting juxtaposition and enlightenment to the building at hand but also help the height of the building as proposed will be natural lands we're in the step fashion down to the waterfront was for the park sitting lower you'll see this whole thing as a way how to treat the hill i actually enjoy the question i'll caution i like the addition of landscape the the devil is in the details is the maintenance of landscaping

private landscaping which creates a public edge we have many presentation with many projects and tried to do it well, it takes a phenomenal amount of money and attendance how a micro climate makes the scomplaip to tooed exceed the memorandum on intensive scomplaip can be verified this building is large i'm looking to the architect here since this building is large the scomplaip e shaping is an integral part of building the building was detailed that. >> way it read a residential building bulb the scomplaip a

critical ingredient at the larger building eat corner the units the separation between building is reilly on a courtyard i mentioned the kind of things that protect the privacy from front to back generally speaking i think this is a project which i would strongly support and make the motion to approve the conditions. >> second. >> commissioner antonini autopsy i'm also supportive i think that is a very good project for all the reasons as mention 7 thousand open square feet of open space affordable housing and over one million dollars in fees and i know ownership which i like to see we've had so few projects that have ownership in a city that has you know only 1/3rd owners

sterilization i think step in the right direction it will address the needs of people trying to buy they're first units it would be a very good option and i agree with commissioner moore i think that is important since you have a board front whatever landscaping is good and crafts with everything else it is the treatment isblas day their isn't anything green it is important it be done the right way. >> commissioners a motion seconded to approve commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner richards commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to

zero. >> commissioners that place us on items 12 case castro street a conditional use authorization. >> glj commissioner president fong and fellow commissioners planning department staff the item before you is a conditional use authorization for a change of use to a formula retail pharmacy on castro street this is located within the castro hill it is related to the pharmacy the project was overflow room approved in an over-the-counter building permit for 10 improvements for medical office and pharmacy in january of 2014

the formula retail component was not vetted and the planning has a suspension of such permit the project sponsor appealed the suspension so the board of appeals the permit was run stated for the property with the pharmacy portion suspended until further review the project is before the commission for the decision on the formula retail pharmacy currently 37 pharmacy locations worldwide and the use is considered formula retail the project so to relocation at 4071, 8th district to the project sites an castro street

to provide central located services for its clinic tell between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. open saturday the company mr. fulfill prescriptions for the clients the project includes interior improvements the project sponsor conducted a formula retail survey in late 2013 and there are currently 7 formula retail businesses are 16 percent of storefront one of the 0 existing formula retail uses is the aids height pharmacies on yifthd that is no net gain of formula retail uses in the general vicinity

the department has received four communications in support of project and 4 communications in opposition in those communications received avenue after our packets were received regarding comments no oppositions most of concerns related to the project sponsor as american people's operator concerns there are other pharmacies in the area, and concerns regarding creating a new vacant in the castro street mohcd the letter submitted was not in coordination with the department of public health and was retracted because it didn't

represent the position the department recommends approve with conditions and building this is necessary and desirable for the following reasons the project promotes the continuing operation of an established business and troubled the viability felt overall castro street mcd the project will not displace any existing rail tenants providing goods and services to the neighborhood and not result in a net increase of the number of pharmacies in the area the project will result in no net changes in the vicinity, the project will provide centrally located services for the patrons and meets occupy all the applicable conditions for the planning code that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions but first i want to hand it off to the project sponsor team with a more

detailed presentation and hold off i want to make sure i flew disclosure is a private citizen as the president the successor i have an appellant for the ada foundation when they tried to go with in the pharmacy with the name of castro pharmacy i can, objective and not asking to be recused thank you. >> on that one issue. >> good afternoon. my name is a tom meyers the general council of chief public affairs they have a have a permit for a nonprofit hiv aids pharmacy for the street to vacate space on castro street a distance of less

than three hundred feet and the hsa can co-locate with the hiv clinic a one time package of care a model that is universally recognized as the best practice of coming to better health is a nonprofit it provides hiv aids and medical clinics to over 5 thousand plus people in san francisco it is has provided services for over 12 years around phil 13 hundred people put their trust in the pharmacy approximately 10 percent of san franciscans with hiv and aids taking medication people are hiv aids not only are healthy their village not infectious this is the private

height of the patient and protects the larger public health the pharmacy will help to eliminate the barriers and the h f provides financial and others support to other hiv organizations in san francisco including the agency with the targeting at risk youth apparently in summary we propose we are consistent with the policies and goals with that application all the h f c to have the existing pharmacies in vacated space as a result of that move there is will no change in formula retail a number of concentration no net change in stlakts a move to a vacate business on castro not a

change in tenant innovate a change national number of parliament in the area, not changes in the storefront or buildings not a need for additional parking and no new supply for the neighborhood character the only thing that changes h f s will offer a higher quality and consistent with the conditional use of the available services h f respect requests this application be granted thank you very much. >> opening it up for public comment commissioners, i have a number of speaker cards. >> thank you. >> (calling names). >> good afternoon,

commissioners and in review of the eir report and also the lack of super report i feel personally this is been not filled out properly and looking at the application they didn't send out a letter to the 45 three hundred radius of businesses and it is required quite truthfully a it is required in my opinion also in the conditional use authorization application they list here cms that is the headquarters of h f s and also most importantly if you look at the zoning map here one mile radius we have may i have

the overhead please. in the one mile radius of the newly property site we have 11 pharmacies at the present site this is a disruptions of signage on the front with the larger sign with the compared to the neighbors on the bottom is in front of the muni stop zone area and want you to take note in the photo here from above we have the motor home of a f s hiv testing a vehicle parked in front of this site it will be blocking the muni assess and also parking this increases also a congestion of foot traffic as well vehicle traffic in the castro neighborhood i'm concern

the eir didn't call this out as properly reviewed also, they seem to be gaming the formula retail if so a worldwide organization with other firearms around the world also this organization is they have $400 million of money in their war chest that is politically active in proposing a ballot measure of bankruptcy i thought for opposing the affordable housing we don't want them to spread up here. >> therefore in my opinion the eir report is inaccurate and instuff sufficient and we need to take more time as well as the petition was brought out for the folks in support of this new

sign and it is very unclear it is pharmacy or just a general pharmacy. >> thank you (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm a 25 year residents of san francisco inch lived in castro neighborhood in the past i have a negative opinion of h f s and building they're not beneficial to to and 0 the san francisco's goal of reducing hiv infection to zero i realize this i'm sorry this is - excuse me. i realize this is not about

allowing the pharmacy into the castro but allowing to move and relocation i also realize that there will be an no inclusionary formula retail from the request is granted my problem with this it two-fold one i believe that allowing them tool move will hurt the castro i think we need morality on the street this is a major block of the castro i think something of this nature will hurt pedestrian traffic i think another retail store will bring in more foot traffic i think that will recruit the pedestrians as well street traffic secondly, it is important to

note that the castro upper market community beneficial district the castro working group is a significant amounts of gay communities are opposed to this going forward please remember how often do you find local businesses and merchant opposed to relocation of an existing store in the neighborhood i then tells a lot thank you. >> thank you (calling names). >> thank you, commissioners i'm a 20-year residents of san francisco i've lived in the castro for the last 8 years and basically as everything else has said had supposed to be about whether or not in the desirable

and necessary for the community the castro no is it not by their own description they operate 43, 47 pharmacies in the united states and castro will bring them to a total of more and they operate 36 countries they're a chain as to ah s being necessary we have 11 pharmacies within the neighborhood we don't need another 3 walgreens and cvs and a safeway we don't need it is not necessarily and the billboards are observable thank you. >> commissioners thank you for the opportunity to come i'm ray

a writer and community organizer i've worked on various hiv programs since the 1980s i come to request you not allow the aids health care to relocation on the castro street it is not appropriate for the neighborhood i want to point to many instances of counterproductive and business practices let me be clear my opposition to the presents on castro street they're not a good fit for the values of the castro neighborhood picture while practitioners have done great work they is a history find anti approaches circuitry to the values of the preservation embed in the castro their effort are in opposition

to people that want to prevent and treat hiv on a personal level i'm highly connected to the - who supports ah f currently their efforts is counter of the overwhelming contentious of the ream they're trying to gain the system that is here today and no doubt their sgho formula retail may or may not what measures we have plenty of pharmacies in the castro not another national change and they're not appropriate for the castro and not necessary not great for san francisco i urge you to please consider the health and well-being the san franciscans in the castro neighborhood and not allow them to open the pharmacy the results

of someone i happen to grab someone's note from the church i'm reading his notes any- this undermines the work to promote healthy and open testing of treatment the people don't boopg belong in the castro thank you for your time and consideration i appreciate it. >> hello name a pacific heights an internal physician working in san francisco but i'm a gay man living in the castro i'm here to bafrnl or comment on the policies i'm here to say their neither necessary for the castro more desirable a chain operating in the union street and in the castro there are

already many locates for residents to seek care for magnet and private practices and the castro health center part of the department of public health there are many, many pharmacies in the castro ah f is not desirable for this community there as in at castro we hear the words do you trust them send the message to gay then men? the wrong message to the community especially those are not new and many have commented about the inappropriateness how these adds can be i urge you not to relocation on castro street thank you. >> thank you.

>> (calling names). >> no particular order ma'am. >> good evening not to exceed a significantly in a the executive director of welcome organized to respond to life-threatening diseases and we're we're this is a unique orientation that provided educational services and social services and recognizes on behalf of the woman vulnerable to hiv there is not many institutions like this in the nation we're very excited to be able to call that area our home we're located in oakland we are serving communities across northern california world has a speciality we find people who find women

specifically that have fallen out of care and we bring them back, however, we need to do it you hear about the services we've come a long way the facts tells you the most important thing to get people on their medication as much as possible there is not anyone here that disputes that so having a clinic and a pharmacy co-located is very, very for the people that we work are the marginalized they're dealing with trauma and impoverished and have multiple health issued and saying to them you should go down the street to another pharmacy well it is hpc

we know many integrated care works it works where take our privileged and a model in northern california called kaiser permanente that set that standard for the nation why is that not good enough for the people that are marginalized we have worked a ah f for many years providing services we wouldn't be able to provide it difficult time to be an organization if you're a small and community-based in 2014 we affiliated with them and we believe that having integrated serves is so important we're moving across the street from ah f we we find woman fallen out of the care we can walk across the

street and get mile-an-hour medications and get them started to a safe their lives i have deep respect for the gravity of responsibilities in a politicalized community. but i besearch you ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you. >> your time is up. >> ma'am, your time is up. >> ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you. >> (clapping) (calling names). >> good evening my name is stephanie home sharers the retention manager of the ah f and i help with the intervention

services in charge. for hiv people getting them into care we have the timeframe and work with the patient that have pickup truck problems we understand the systemically barriers that keep people identity care that reduces the barriers to have one location hope people stay in care thank you for your time >> thank you. >> next speaker >> hey good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to comment i'm stephen the doctor for the hastings law ileum and add i'm a resident of the tenderloin for the past 10 years hiv i've used the health

services and getting to zero hiv infections and watching ah f activities across the country and they run completely in opposition to the services san francisco leader we adopt new strategies and w with work the community ah f is a danger in the hiv community not desired in the castro several pharmacies exist within the block please protect the community by voting against this pharmacy. >> i'll call more names (calling names). >> go ahead and good afternoon, commissioners i'm damn a resident of district 8 i expect

you've heard i don't want to rehereby but pointed out that as far as i know the entire use of conditional use we're requesting whether or not a project is necessary and desirable for a district and you know as someone that lived in the district with this where this project will be nothing ah f can build is necessary and desirable in my book so, please i want to urge you to deny this project. >> thank you good afternoon, commissioners i'm honored to be before you i'm jessie brooks i am e i want to be transparent i've worked with ah f as a contrac