ancommissioner antonini: thank you for your report as always. i think i have asked before about it this has any president in any jurisdictions that you are aware of throughout the state. >> it is a pretty specific condition that was added, so i have not heard of anything similar to that. i will review the information that commissioner more provided us and applicathe director is working closely with us and other departments in analyzing the process. and commissioner antonini: secondly, this seems a little hard, you mentioned is the of

the evaluation by the outside experts had agreed with that particular provider that there would be automatic approval. i would think there are other things we look at other than just the coverage maps being accurate or not. >> the board approved the cu as approved by this commission. all of the conditions that were inherent in your approval would be inherent. the only added the one new condition. commissioner antonini: that would be the only thing that would possibly change our decision. my final question is, coverage and capacity -- how are they going to a evaluate for future demand? you can look at something as a static, in time for now, but we know demand is changing quickly, so are we going to evaluate future projections in these

evaluations or just look at capacity coverage situation at this time? >> perhaps it would be good to share a clip of the actual language of the board. we will provide this for the administrator. this will confirm the information submitted by the applicant -- i lost my place reading this. in support of their see you is accurate. -- cu is accurate. the independent evaluation will be kept confidential. we know that. that is the language. >> it sounds like more of an accuracy, what is being presented as reflecting conditions that exist at the present time. >> yes, this is the accuracy of the data. thank you. >> and the board of appeals did meet last night.

when i jurisdiction request. -- one item of interest was a jurisdiction request. the commission heard this in 2010. the building permit was issued in 2011. construction work commenced after that. an adjacent neighbor filed the jurisdiction request in december, because they had concerns about the scope of the work being concerned. it is our understanding that the work being performed is per plan, as was in the plans. also, the request for had filed a letter of support when the item was before you. it seems that as the project was being constructed it was not as they had visualized from seeing the plan. they had concerns and wanted the scope of the project reduced. that shows the importance of explaining clearly what the scope of the project is. not everyone can understand the plans. other items related to the board of appeals -- there will be some

changes in the composition of the board in december. former president tanya peterson resigned. she is the executive director of the san francisco zoo. she has been doing an excellent job there and will be focusing full time on that position, an important position. last night, current president goh resigned from the board of appeals. she will be sitting for next week's hearing, but has announced she is moving to beijing to take a new position which sounds exciting. we wish her the best, as well as commissioner peterson. during the years i have been observed -- observing them on the board, i am impressed by their integrity and attention to detail. i wish them both the best in their endeavors. in terms of replacement commissioners, ms. peterson was appointed by the mayor, who has

nominated rich hillis from the office of work force development. he left that office last year and is now the executive director of mason center. he has been nominated and will be undergoing a review and approval process for that. president goh was a board appointee and we have no word of a replacement for her. i wanted to update you on the changes. >> the historic preservation commission did not meet this week. if there are no further comments on the director's report item, we can move on to public comment. at this time, members of the public might address the commission on items of interest within the jurisdiction of the planning commission, with the exception of agenda items. agenda items may not be addressed in this category.

with respect to this category, each member of the public might address the commission for up to 3 minutes, skimming in mind the entire category has a 15 minute time limit. i do have speaker cards. >> i am to him. -- tim. good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the housing action coalition, speaking about the washington project which is going to be before you soon enough. we have supported it for years and believe it brings enormous benefits to the entire city. but i wanted to point out that in spite of the rhetoric and controversy, what is being discussed is a simple land use question period should see wall lot 351 main a surface parking lot or not? if not, what should it become? the opposition comes from good people.

as even they might concede, they are upper-middle-class and live in one of the most pleasant neighborhoods of san francisco. these poor souls are aggrieved and oppressed because new housing is being proposed for their neighborhood. the housing they are living in displaced an earlier generation of businesses and residents. it was not bad news when it was redeveloped. many of the folks opposing this project have lived there for years and decades in rent- control housing. that is a curious platform from which to oppose new housing. by contrast, the washington project, this place is no one unless you count tennis courts at a private club. the accusation against this project is that it will become high and housing, something we freely concede. after all this is some of the most valuable land in northern california.

for decades, through citywide planning decisions and policies, the city of san francisco has said if land is developed for housing, it must pay for a basket of civic goodies. among other things, this includes enormous payments to the city -- $10 million for affordable housing. onetime payments to report. these are city figures. the new public open space and playground -- new, walkway access to the water park, and on and on. we would ask you -- as this parking lot that exists now -- would it take a comparable rate of return to san francisco? we have never yet heard an argument how the city itself, the people of san francisco, would benefit from turning down the washington project.

will it turn it down in order to develop a surface parking lot because local communities will not accept any change to a private swimming and tennis court? thank you. >> paul enserman? i will keep calling. brad paul? >> mr. chairman -- i have not said that in a while. i wanted to give you some new information about washington. it comes from the land use committee the other day. that is about the other partner in the deal, which we rarely hear about. there are four reasons why they are a partner. the first reason is that they own 80% of the land that will become washington. i will put this on the screen. the also have the only land

being up sold. they are the only land being up-zoned. and they have a condominium interest. thanks to that, we now see who owns what when they are done. what is in point is what the golden gate wickets to retain in the final project, a significant part of this. what is this important? the last speaker talked about these 29 units of affordable housing. that is to make up for the effect of the other 45 would not meet real housing needs in san francisco. but those 29 units have to be put in the context of the conversion of hundreds of rent- control units to short-term vacation rental. this is continuing. you will probably lose more than 29 in the first year of construction if this project was

built. the other issue is the tax loophole to avoid its fair share of taxes. there is a loophole in prop. 13, when they bought the building. they bought a percentage of the holding company. no sale ever recorded. no sale, no reassessment. they are paying property taxes based on a pre-prop 13 assessment. i want to give you a copy. this was a cover story in last week's arrest of weekly. the title is "the war -- the loopholes corporations use to avoid taxes. the talks about a market for the city fought and got back $23 million on golden gate way. this is not illegal. let us be clear about this. it is unethical. it is wrong. but it is not illegal. the first hike increase, declined on the waterfront in almost 50 years. to summarize, we will build a

higher than the embarcadero. we will block the use we got back by -- the views we got back by building the freeways so we can build pieta tears -- so we can build pied-a-tiers for millionaires. how does this meet the test of desirable? it baffles me. the alternative has been in the and plan all along, and calls for an exciting new bike transit center downtown that will bring lots of people there and serve all sentences since on the parking lot. >> paul warmer? >> good afternoon. surprisingly enough, this is the third of the comments on a eight washington. i am always impressed by project

sponsors being in focus on finding things a certain way. when i last spoke on eight washington, they had their green roof expert testifying about the immense amount of co2 the project would remove from the air, which frankly does not stand up for you do the collations. we have frequently heard how it is a small group who live in the neighborhood who do not want to lose a parking lot. i would like to submit for the record the minutes from may of 2010, and the resolution with csfn opposed 8 washington. and the 48 member organizations that certainly cannot all be neighbors of the site. i know the neighborhood organization i belong to,

pacific heights residents' association, has serious concerns about this project, not specifically focused on the project as it is proposed itself, but rather the whole issue of policies and procedures of approving large projects with significant changes in zoning in an area where there is an area plan that has not been revised, where there are at least two competing visions, one coming out of a neighborhood group. that in particular would be completely initiated by approving this project in and of itself as a single activity. it does not look at the broader integrated impact of the land use decisions in this area. i think that is a real weakness. and i really believe this is something that does need to get more thought, not just for eight washington, but for many of these projects.

thank you. >> arthur chang. >> good afternoon. i live in the area, about a block and a half from the embarcadero boulevard. i am a member of the northeast citizens advisory group. i have been on this committee for the last two years. i am also here to talk about eight washington street. contrary to the earlier gentleman, i have no vested interest in an apartment that faces the swimming pool or tennis court. i am here to ask you to question the authenticity of this development, a term applied by the well-known sociologist

and city planner sharon zugin in her book published last year on the question of authenticity. this concept raises the issue of the tennessee of city actions as to who benefits from city actions and land development, against the right of sections of people that are displaced. this is the most flagrant example rich enclave, a vertical dated community for the 1% of the 1% of the wealthiest in this country at a time when recession has created 8.5% unemployment, and homes by the millions are lost to foreclosure. in the city, with 30% public housing, and families on the streets, 30% of the homeless are

families. of course, the majority of that 30% are children. the city has failed miserably by general tandards of public housing. 2/3 of the housing was a market rate, and less than 20% for affordable housing. yet two major departments of the city, the court and the planning department, have worked feverishly to accommodate this development, and even read the selection of the developer -- rigged the selection of the developer. nobody talks about keeping the parking lot. we are talking about the use of this land. the possible use. this house and is protected by a public trust doctrine. the city must make concessions

and exemptions on nine basic requirements of the planning code, and create a special use district for the project without any benefit return to the city for the extraordinary concessions. we have as a society returned to the ethics and values of the days of the robber barons, and our heroes are gordon gekko and donald trump. as a steward of city development, vote against this effort, or at least limit their request. >> next speaker, jackie bryson. next speaker, mark bruno. >> thank you. my name is mark bruno. i am a member of the swimming club at 8 washington for the last three years. i have lived in north beach for 25 years.

i worked at the st. peter and paul church and throughout the city, specifically helping homeless families find places to find food and shelter. i came here to speak specifically about notice, because the city has failed, in my opinion, the members of the swimming club and the tennis club, telling them about what is going on. i want to correct one thing that was stated by the first speaker in public comment, which is that we are all very wealthy people who belonged to the swimming club. i am not wealthy. i work for st. vincent. that is my job. the pay is almost nothing. the reason i can afford to go to this club is because for my health i like to swim. you do not have to belong to the tennis part. i do not, because it is expensive. i belong to the swimming part. this contradicts with the idea

that it is a bunch of wealthy people. i do not belong to any of these groups, telegraph hill or anything. but if you were to go to the pool every day -- i swim every day -- it would cost more to go to the pool in north beach and golden gateway. if you add what i pay per month, i am allowed to go swimming from 6:00 a.m. in the morning until 10:00 p.m. at night every day of the week with the exception of saturday and sunday, $145. those days, the close 8:00 or 9:00. because of my hours at work, i cannot go to north beach pool, but it would cost me more. it would cost me more to go to the public pool then at the golden gate way. many families use it. i know them. these families have kids. look at this chart. i only have a minute left, but i want to show this chart. i apologize. a supervisor is borrowing my

pen. 30 people just came to a meeting at the golden gateway. on another meeting just this week, another group i went to -- 50 people came. you add up all those people and it is less than 7% of the total number of people who belong to the club. what does that tell you about notice? those families who were going had these big notices. i took this down today. it is from june of last year. i know the city cannot do all of this by themselves, because it is time consuming to notify all the members of the club and take down notices that are now almost six months old. it is confusing. but all i am suggesting to the city is you go to the owners of the club and you send them a suggestion. i talked this morning to a person in the marketing department. send them your note this is and say, "could you include this with your next snail mail to club members?"

>> the 15 minute time limit for this category is up. there is one last speaker card. would you allow one more speaker? ok. linda chapman, please. >> thank you so much. i am here about cal. please return it back to staff and ask him to provide you with an amended conditional use so you can vote it again. you got misinformed not just by public people, but by the legal opinions that you got, which prevented you from doing something that you wanted to do. i heard very serious deliberations at that hearing, but you don't, you were misinformed by the city attorney initially, telling you you did not have the authority to turn down conditional use on a liquor license, because that is abc per view.

that was corrected only partly. staff also misinformed about your ability to act. the skin before you on conditional use, and you know the criteria better than i. is the particular use at the particular site going to be necessary or beneficial for the neighborhood or wider community, and will it cause any harm to the immediate neighborhood? the burden is on the sponsor. that includes things like how late it is going to be open at night. is there a liquor license? and this came before you as a conditioner use -- conditional use. i want to mention that abc defers to you for this. they expect you to make these decisions. if you allow it, they will automatically allow it, unless they look at things and see there is something wrong with the applicant. he has a criminal record or license violations in the past, or something like that. i realize you do not research

the abc and all of that stuff. that is why i am bringing this to your attention. your staff also told you you were precluding deciding on a liquor license, whether there should be one at that site. that is what abc is looking to you for. indeed n -- in the ncd, this is in a conditional use, unless you have already authorized conditional use the previous three years. then, you might be precluded. but i do not see any reason that would be. you were told it would be great public benefit because they will buy a liquor license. there is no other way to get a liquor license in san francisco. abc does not issue more liquor licenses. there are too many. they have to buy one somewhere else. commissioner antonini correctly stated you needed to pay attention to other signatures. i am presenting you with a copy

of what they sent out. they did not do public outreach they said. none of them came to lower poke neighbors, where they said they got approval. the did put a round in the neighborhood something that said nothing about liquor licenses or noise, but said you need to get this restrooms so we can have a grocery store. commissioner moore: may i make a suggestion? i find public comment extremely valuable. i would like to ask everybody to listen to her when she steps up, and in addition to her name, reference the projection is talking about. we spend so much time on different things that if you describe something, it takes me five minutes before i know what you are describing. the public, particularly those who participate and watched on television, would have an even harder time.

i would appreciate it next time you would mention the project. thank you. commissioner sugaya: i was confused also. i think there was an explanation about why in certain cases we do approve liquor licenses. in other cases, which apparently do not have the jurisdiction. could we get a memo back on this specific thing? because i think it was explained that in this particular case we did not have jurisdiction to limit it, but in other cases, we do. so if there is a distinction in the code, i would appreciate it. >> next item, please. >> if we could go back to the items on consent. item five is case no.

2,011.773c on ocean avenue. we have staff. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. before you is a request for authorization to establish a verizon wireless facility at 1344 ocean avenue. it is within the ocean avenue neighborhood commercial transit district. it is a three story residential building that contains nine dwelling units and is operated by at&t. it consists of panel antennas that are screened out behind a transparent purpose. the proposed facility consists of six panel antennas that will

also be roof mounted and screamed at behind the existing power put -- para putt. -- parepet. additional pieces would be located within the building. this is considered a co-location site. the department has reviewed the r f report and determine if it complies with current ftc guidelines. the department recommends with conditions for the following reasons. it complies with the planning code and general plan policies. the project will be compatible with the neighborhood, because the proposed facility is roof- mounted and would be completely screened from view at the pedestrian level. the project is desirable as it would improve wireless telephone network coverage and signal strength in the immediate area.

this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. >> i have one speaker card. i'm sorry. project sponsor. >> project sponsor should go first. one second. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with complete wireless consulting come here on behalf of the rise and wireless. -- verizon wireless. this project has been thoroughly reviewed by staff. it is fully compliant with all the wireless guidelines. it is ranked no. 2 on the preference, co-location on an existing roof top. the antennas are