>> any other questions for us? thank you, commissioners. >> close the hearing? that's it? >> commissioners, by closing the hearing, you accept the institutional master plan. it doesn't have to be unanimous. by closing the hearing, the

institutional master plan has been accepted. thank you, commissioners. we are now had general public comment. the public may dress you with issues related to the public. >> we will reduce this to two minutes so more people can speak. >> we will limit the time to address them to 2 minutes, but items on the calendar cannot be addressed during this category. the total amount of time with a category is 15 minutes and there is another public comment category at the end of the calendar. does not able to speak at this time can stay to the end of the

calendar. i have given the president the speaker cards given to me. >> thank you so much. >> thank you very much. the reason that i am addressing you during public comment is because the item that i would be speaking on later has been bundled, and taken off of the consent calendar. >> this will be heard during the regular calendar and this is not what i am talking about now. this has to do with a procedural matter. i am confused and and not the only one. this is the third time that something has been brought before the planning commission

concerning the use of that property. i would like to see a clarification, a procedural protocol by the planning commission so that there is a grand plan, not an eyedropper approach to how a particular building or property is to be used, especially since the notification process as such that the permit application comes before the planning commission that the individual notification does not take place. with ninth street, there was of variants that was granted because there is not a backyard for that property. and i knew nothing about this matter, coming before the planning commission and i was not able to address this.

i was going to protest the original and i could not because i was not given reasonable accommodation. >> good afternoon. i am presenting, steve from the open space committee for san francisco neighborhoods on the revised open space elements. we ask you to approve a 90-day continuance beyond the date set for adoption of this element. we believe that there are fundamental flaws so this does not comply with the california government code, citing the preservation of open space land. this draft document allows areas

to be built upon an exchange for the developers to provide a rooftop garden. this is the concept of no net loss for open space. we find that the draft is not consistent with the environmental protection element, and also, they have not addressed the impact of the new housing element, with the preservation of pile -- private open spaces. there is a reverse range of those who wish to speak on this topic. the final version permits controversial comments that only now are able to be reviewed. there is no legal deadline to approve this so there is time to get this right.

and us -- the one of the decisive factors in molding have the city will look for years to come. we recall -- we request a continuance of 90 days to allow for a broader spectrum of the public on this policy document. here is the letter. >> we have a copy, also. >> thank you very much. keep coming up. carl wilson was next. lorri lindsay. >> thank you for making time to hear my case today and that of my neighbor. i am carl wilson. to tell you what i'll be

speaking about, this is the permit holder, appeal no. 11. this report -- this is regarding property 1731. before i go into my thoughts on this -- 20 years of nonprofit work, i worked in the state of texas jail system -- and i have an understanding of people coming out of prison, and some of their needs. i walked in the door to the 13th street project. after i filed my appeal, it was not until last night at 10:30 that i got this response. i have not had a chance to look at it in the depth and would like to. but i would like to speak to the

fact that this facility has been deemed as housing. we know there has been a lot of discussion about that. but the issue is that i live next door. where i want to speak to the situation is that by moving this into group housing, and creating housing for 57 individuals coming out of prison, i am very concerned about the safety of our community, and having worked in alternative incarceration and transitional programs for both men and women re-entering the community, i do not see this as for housing. i do not see people able to successfully transition back in this community. this part of the mission has worked darn hard to clean up the drugs, and we wish to beat -- president olague: i am sorry. we are trying to limit everybody

to 2 minutes. >> we will have more conversation on this issue. president olague: i look forward to it. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mr. more. i live in the mission. i am here to talk to you about the building permit that has been issued for 1731 15th street. we are requesting the permit be rescinded, because proper notification procedures were not followed. i would like to review three things in relation to this property. the first is an excerpt from sponsors' application for a building permit. it reads about seismic -- says there will be seismic protections, a new roof terrace , and new stairwells.

the second, an official interpretation in the city planning code, as reprinted in the zone in ministers billington -- the zoning administrators bulletin -- when there is an increase to units in a district without changes to the building envelope, the building will be subject to the notification process. finally, i would like to read the project sponsor's request for a letter of determination. would my proposed uses trigger a 311 notification requirement? the purchase of this building would be extremely expensive. it would be especially difficult to absorb carrying costs during a drawn-out planning process including public opposition. i do not know how this made it to the planning department. the project sponsor explicitly

noted he wanted to avoid contact in the public. this should be a red flag. we want to know how it got through the permitting process. we request you rescind the permit. thank you. >> and joe donohue. -- i'm joe donahue. transparency was eradicated. i have never seen since 1965, when i first appeared before commissions, such an egregious case that smells. it is absolutely shocking. we are not asking the zoning administrator cancel the density aspects. the board of appeals would not have jurisdiction to take an issue such as density and rule on that. it is the function of this commission, not the jurisdiction

of the zoning director. the zoning director -- neither does he have the right to rule on whether or not there is a change in the windows, which there is because it is a historic district -- he does not have a right to rule on the fact that they are putting a deck on the roof. he does not have a right to rule on intrusions' to open space. this is the jurisdiction of this commission. i, in the early 90's, put a valid amendment that stopped an amendment to the water project. i tried to change the building commission. i also did a valid commission for kaiser hospital. i will offer $25,000 to start the ballot initiative to deal with this warehousing. it is good to impact the quality of life of every single neighborhood in this city.

i am putting $25,000 up to date to start the initiative process. the system has broken down. this is an abuse of the process of neighbors' rights. there is no communication with them. they have to go to the expense of going before the board of appeals. there is not time in the world to go through that. >> -- president olague: are there more speaker cards? we have a few more. can i call a couple more people up? don brown, danya desling, paul hastings. >> i am the president of the resident council.

i am in regard to the property on 15th street. we are a housing project directly across from the building in question. this is a layout -- president olague: it is upside down. >> this is a layout of our property. which encompass a little over 5 acres. within that, there are a little over to under 60 units. it probably includes the same people this project is intended to serve. we understand the need for a project similar to this. our air rage -- our outrage is that nobody in the neighborhood was notified of the plans that were coming to this. to get to where we are today took nearly a decade of

paperwork and shuffling through all of the boards and requirements of the city. one person can take one building and slide it through within a year and start remodeling, doubling the occupancy? it is offensive for myself and the 750 residents i represent. i am on the resident council. i am just emotional. we would not be able to stay where we are today. we have worked five years to maintain our security of our property. we are proud of what we have done. the opportunity to be taken away --

president olague: thank you. >> we would prefer to rescind this permit. president olague: that is fine. everybody gets two minutes. there are three minutes left. you can take the last. >> my name is dayna desmond. i am requesting this permit be immediately rescinded. this project sponsor, in his letter of determination, stated specifically that information that is not true, the previous association that context of the building -- he indicated they evaded -- they vacated in 2008. in fact, they vacated in 1998. this simply is not true. i do not understand why there was no public notification for planning code section 312.

the sponsor intends to at least double and possibly quadruple the density from its previous 27 rooms to 52 rooms, allowing two occupants per room. that increases it to 154 people living in this space. the previous purpose was to house of monks. that is different from parolee's transferring back into society -- for -- this is different from parolees transferring back into society. i do not understand when a review was done prior to issuing the building permit. this is a potential historic resources in the intermission north historic survey. -- historic resources in the intermission -- historic resources in the inner mission

in north historic survey. the planning department helped to expedite the permit by giving it an environmental quality act exemption. this should not be subject to a ceqa exemption. this permit needs to be rescinded. president olague: thank you. i think at some point we should have been meeting with the neighbors to talk more in depth, and eventually i think this is something that has been brought to my attention in other instances it recently -- instances recently, because of the use of programmatic uses for these kinds of buildings. scott sanchez: the permit is appealed to the board of appeals and will be heard next week. even if the project was not code

compliant, we could not rescind the permit at this date because it is under the jurisdiction of the board of appeals. we do believe the project is code complying. section 312 does not require neighborhood noticed for group housing. there is an interpretation that applies to dwelling units, not housing units. these are distinct categories. this is in the valencia, part of eastern neighborhoods. it does not have density limitations on group housing. it is principally permited on all levels. we believe the project is complying. that is not to say there are not code issues -- there are not planning issues here. they could be looked at by this commission. president olague: even the density limitations might be something we would consider looking at. scott sanchez: it could be a conditional use, are

principally permited, or staff the are -- dr -- there are various ways you could look at it. commissioner antonini: information i would like to have at the very least -- a hearing to discuss not just this project, but the overall concept regarding notification, density, and change of type of use for the inhabitants in the future. president olague: we can definitely invite project sponsors, people who run these types of homes, to give us an insight into how these programs are set up and that sort of thing. commissioner sugaya: if we are going to embark on a broader discussion, i would like to have some information on the number of group housing units in the city, where they are located, and for what kind of purposes.

i do not know the right term. halfway houses or places people go, versus youth group homes or other things. president olague: sometimes, it is such a complicated issue. when it comes to women who are in domestic violence situations, there are issues around confidentiality. it is a very complicated thing. we should definitely have a hearing, probably sooner than later. commissioner sugaya: i was particularly interested in location, because i suspect they're all in my neighborhood. [laughter] president olague: the transitional use housing was something that was a huge issue recently. commissioner sugaya: i am not speaking of that as a negative. president olague: that is right. it can work, and has been known

to be compatible with those areas. but it is a huge issue that we have to get ahead of a little bit. we will have to discuss it here. and i have worked with ms. wilson for years. i know she is not a stereotype of a "not in my backyard" sort of person. this is an issue we have to talk about in a humane way, instead of a judgmental, pejorative way. >> commissioners, we now go to your regular calendar. i am sure that will take into account your desire to schedule a hearing on the broader subject in the future. president olague: we will have to. >> from your consent calendar, you have two items that relate

to wireless facilities. president olague: we are going to hear the non-wireless first, and then we will group all the wireless together. >> we are going back to item four, a and b, 4527-529 stephenson st. -- for 527-529 stevenson street. >> this is a request to convert a four story industrial building to mixed use, with 67 residential units, eight off- street parking spaces, and a small ground floor commercial space. the project needs an exception for a rear yard, and a variance

for dwelling unit exposure. the project provides new housing in a mid-market area, and provides an alternative to residential hotels. the small commercial unit could sell -- could provide services to residents of the project, and business opportunities for local entrepreneurs and area residents. the project will provide 10 at new affordable dwelling units on site. the department has not received any, from the public regarding the site. we request approval. the project provides 67 new dwelling units, including 10 affordable units, a new commercial space, meets all requirements of the planning code except the dwelling unit exposure requirement for which the variance is requested, and advances the policies of the general plan. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you. president olague: thank you.

project sponsor. >> thank you, commissioners. we think this project would be a valuable -- >> do you want to state your name for the record? >> david silberman, on behalf of the sponsor. we think this will be a valuable addition to the mid market area, which has been a subject of intense focus for the last 10 years or so. it has gone through many iterations of plans for redevelopment, and so forth. with the recent announcement of the twitter headquarters being relocated theire, and the tax abatement district, there has been renewed interest in this area. all of this activity is within just a couple of blocks of the project site.

this is a through lot. it goes through to jesse street. it is about a block away from me -- from the soma grand. it is on an alleyway. this would be an ideal location for workforce housing. it is in walking and biking distance to both the civic center and the financial district, the main employment centers in the city. people living in this building will not contribute to any car traffic. they're going to be able to walk, bike, or take public transit. they are a block away from bart and all the new alliance-- the muni lines. there has been no opposition at all, which is always a good thing. we are glad the neighbors are

happy with it. finally, i have made a lot of trips to the project site since we filed the application. that was almost a year ago. every time i have been there, the total area has been deserted, except for homeless people, and drug people. it is not a good area right now. but it is on the verge of a renaissance. we need more projects like this. my clients, mr. wong, is a pioneer. we hope there will be many more products to follow, so we can

revitalize mid-market. this is now one of the main areas of the city that needs to be upgraded and developed and revitalized. we hope you will approve this project. we think it will be a great addition to improve neighborhood safety by bringing people to the area. it will reduce crime and contribute to the revitalization of the mid-market area. thank you. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: i ask for this project, for the following reasons. i believe this project tries to abuse the goodwill of this commission. it is a good opportunity, but it fails to address a number of issues. adaptive