toward implementing the plant and the proposed capital for those project areas. as far as the annual the ultimate impact feed report and deactivated -- updated development impact fees for this year, a member of the public stated that the impact fees cover only 30% of the projected impact. therefore, he urged this board and commission to continue searching for funding for the infrastructure. the other item is what you have talked about a little bit. it is the ordinance that will extend the neighborhoods legitimization deadline. it was introduced by commissioner cohen and would extend time for those who are

operating without proper permits to submit to this condition. he requested that they extend the deadline to six months -- you requested that they extend the deadline to six months rather than the 90 days proposed originally. second, you requested that they established a timeline by which the process should diligently pursue completion and come to resolution. in response to the supervisors' request, supervisor cohen did modify the deadline. she extended to november, 2012. there was some comment in the public hearing about development impact fees. about two-thirds of the current applications we have under the current program would only be paying about $2 per square foot. those are pretty low development impact fees. the larger savings are even more sycophant.

-- more significant. about half of the fees they would have paid prior to the adoption of the eastern neighborhoods -- prior to the adoption of these neighborhoods, it would have been about $20 per square foot. at the full board, the ordinance for car sale or rental sponsored by supervisor elsbernd passed its final reading. you approve it without modification. this week a mother was one introduction of wanted to share with you. supervisor carmen chu introduced a planning code to name new neighborhood commercial districts in the outer it sunset district area. they would -- it would create clusters on linear streets that

are currently zoned both nc- 1 and nc- 2 and would allow for adoption of trade uses for the performance adoption area, and also allow them to be used for up to two-thirds of the growth area. lastly, certain non active use is on their streets. we always bring this before you with a full analysis in the next three months. that concludes my report. i also heard from the zoning administration that there were no additional items at the board of appeals this week. >> thank you. and just for the record, but historic preservation commission did not meet this week. president fong: thank you. any public comment or comment on the commissioners part?

next item, please. >> at this time, members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public, with the exception of agenda items. those can only be addressed at the time they are arranged on calendar. with respect to this category, each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes. i have one speaker cards. president fong: thank you. linda chutman. >> linda chutman from nob hill. i assume that most of you saw the cover article from -- about the polk street changes in the examiner this week. also, there was a channel 2 news segment about it. i got a lot of phone calls about it. i did not see it, but it prominently featured my name,

posted by one of the bar owners who was trying to find one of the more subtle ways to intimidate people to treat people who heard about this call me and said -- to intimidate people. people who are about this called me and said i need to talk to the chief about this. he has found more subtle ways, i guess. i received this, which is a matter of concern to me, from somebody you would know. he said, would you and i have been doing has not translated into any relief for tenants. he is talking about since august. rather, he said, the situation has escalated. in addition, the building owner would be coming under -- would be coming under increasing threat of reprisal. this was to explain to me why nothing more can be done. i want to say to you that in

spite of the fact that some people came down for the 1423. hearing -- 1423 poultry during, they thought -- 1423polk street hearing they thought they were hearing from you. you do not know what you're doing when you think you are hearing from bar owners or customers or leaders of some groups who intimidate residents or do not even allow the residents to join. by chance, i discovered something. i was looking for something at the board of supervisors, and what do i come on? i come along heights street. i think, how could they be coming to put a bar along there? i discovered, by god, it is no longer a residential business. -- building.

changing a residential -- a residential hotel to a commercial hotel, i thought he was talking about a hotel where my friend states when she comes to visit. this is actually residential territory. even though it may be zoned for commercial, it will come before you for use. sometimes you think you're doing the right thing. we had a huge campaign years ago on nob hill when we were organized to stop the conversions, to stop from driving residents off. sue hester said, the tenants do not belong in the gulf. [bell] president fong: thank you.

any other public comment? >> my name is catherine hill and i have something to share about the issue that is going on at the gold dust cloud. it is called "47 years." ♪ ♪ not just a bar ♪ closing down ♪ this kind of thing has been happening all over town ♪ ♪ a family business is closing its doors ♪ ♪ so our landlord can make a bit more ♪ ♪ making this neighborhood all look the same ♪ ♪ shirley, i'm going to put up a

fight ♪ ♪ so i can at least say i tried ♪ ♪ to hold on to what is mine ♪ 47 years, i've been working here. -- i've been working here ♪ ♪ saving my pennies, earning my dollars ♪ ♪ now i'm supposed to pick up and go without any say ♪ ♪ without any soul ♪ these 47 years ♪ when i was a boy ♪ ♪ i came to this land ♪ i worked very hard ♪ steel mills ♪ picking fruit ♪ i did what i had to do ♪ raising my children ♪ loving my

♪ i came -- loving my wife' ♪ ♪ i came for the dream ♪ before that spirit broke ♪ 47 years ♪ i've been working here ♪ ♪ saving my pennies, counting my dollars ♪ ♪ earning the blue on my collar ♪ ♪ and now i'm supposed to pick up and go ♪ ♪ without any say ♪ ♪ without any soul ♪ these 47 years ♪ sitting here in this bar tonight ♪ ♪ looking at the crystal the ♪ i think of how i built this place ♪ ♪ and all the time and love it takes ♪ [bell] ♪

47 years ♪ i've been working here ♪ ♪ saving my pennies ♪ county my dollars ♪ are in the blue and blue ♪ -- earning the blue on white collar ♪ i know my time is up. [applause] >> good afternoon, commissioners. that was a tough act to follow. as i was strolling up polk street today, i spent a lot of -- i spent some time talking to a guy who's spent a lot of time in the gold dust. i said, how are things going? he said, people are asking if i'm going to be open wednesday, thursday. i said, nobody really knows what is quite to happen there. but we do know one thing, that special, extended the byrum has caused a lot of awareness in the city, and has caused us to think

about what is important to us as citizens and tourists, especially places that are dear to our heart that have been in san francisco and served san francisco well. in terms of the resolution on tuesday at the board of supervisors, i think she brought to light a little more awareness of what is going on down there. possibly, a study survey, possibly some controls. what is happening is that it is beginning to look like a strip mall. we have allowed people to just come in, you know, with no controls, highest bidder. at some point in time, the character changes down there. and the culture changes down there. this is a city that depends on the tourism and the people who live here. the tourism, if you just cannot think of staying in a hotel, because that is there -- you

cannot just think of them staying in a hotel, because that is their home when they are here. they go to places like fisherman's wharf, gold dust lounge, and when they go back to wherever they came from, they had a san francisco experience. this is really important. this item goes before historic preservation. i think it will probably across your desk at some point. i want you to think about what is really culturally significant and what matters to the city. what is desirable? what is necessary? what is compatible down there? we need to have more citizens way and -- weigh i n verses been told that it is going in because it is permissive the permitted to do so. i want to thank you all for listening and i will see you in

the near future. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gordon marr. i wanted to speak about the need for the commission and the planning department to update its criteria and guidelines and how you are looking at formula retail businesses they're having a growing presence here in the city, and in looking at the impact of these businesses. we do have existing formula retail policy ordnances in place -- ordinandce in place for the discretionary view guidelines, but i think those guidelines need to be looked at and updated to in regards to the trends that we are seeing with chain stores increasing their presence in san francisco. particularly in the three

sector. we are seeing national, or even global chains starting to expand their presence in san francisco. these chains, based on the current definition of formula retail are considered the same as safeway or leckies. there qualitatively different, these new types of corporate formula retail growth chains. additionally, the way the guidelines are written, they're just looking at the impact on the immediate neighborhood or district that the business is being opened in. for many of the new kind of formula of retail businesses moving into the city, their impact is far beyond that immediate district. for example, target come up which you are where is opening two stores within the city. the impact that target has on small businesses and labor

standards, the character in san francisco -- that goes far beyond the immediate districts they will be opening up in. there's a strong need for the commission and the department to update its criteria on formula of retail, in light of the presence of very large and national and even global corporate chain expanding into san francisco. thank you. president fong: is there any additional public comment? the next item, please. commissioners, we can start your regular calendar now with item #9. 2,011.0802c about 1100 divisadero street. >> the item is for a conditional use authorization to install 12 panel antennas in the church steeple, which will be

approximately 10 ft. in height and an overall height of approximately 40 ft. from great. the mechanical equipment would be located at flesch against the church is wall and be located 15 ft. from the sidewalk along turk street. it has received one letter in support and two letters against the project. president fong: is there public comment on this item? oh, project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i and the internal affairs representative for at&t in san francisco. i'm here today with those who conducted the radiofrequency test and analysis that are in your packet.

i am the project manager of this site. at&t is seeking your approval on it -- for a conditional use permit on 1100 divisadero street. it would be increased by hike approximately 10 ft.. the mechanical cabinets would be located in a great along the east property line approximately 15 ft. from the turks street party line. it is a preferred location it publicly used structure under the city's wireless telecommunications guidelines. this side cannot located approximately three blocks south of gary streets and well served motorists and residents in small-scale commercial districts. as outlined in the application, at&t conducted an alternative analysis on four sites in the surrounding area even though it

was not required. this site is necessary to close a significant coverage service gap in our wireless network, as explained in your packet. i want to thank the commission and planning development staff for their hard work in this them -- the design and making sure it is compatible with the neighborhood. we ask for your support as we work to meet the telecommunications demands in the city of san francisco. we're happy to answer any questions you may have. president fong: is there any public comment? >> i have how many minutes? president fong: 3. >> thank you. i live at 1120 broderick. it is a two-flatbread built --

building. -- is a two-flat building. prior to this notice, there was an attempt to put an tonight -- and 10 on on the church -- an antenna on the church about state justice. i like to know how this differs from the prior attempt, which went off the calendar because of protests. i happen to have acute hearing, and i have had problems sometimes with television frequencies. i am really curious and i tend to feel rather negative about this particular operation. i am sure if this corporate -- were postponed, then they would go to the buddhist church to try

to get some arrangements there. but i am really curious how this differs from an earlier attempt with the serbian church on turks street. president fong: any additional public comment? commissioner moore. ykykissioner moore. would like to ask mr. lindsey of the physical height it of the tower by 10 ft.. our own jurisdiction about these antennas is limited by federally established criteria, however in this particular case, there's a physical alteration of the church tower. how does that affect zoning and architecture, etc? because 10 ft. is not just extra housing.

it is a full story of modifications to a building that will be required. could you explain that process? >> let me find the photos. teddy might have them faster than i can get them. it is a 65 ft. height district. the project is in the height district. and the photos here, here is what the site looks like now traveling west on turk street. here is what it could look like after the installation. generally, it is within the height limit. it is not a very bulky element

of the property. it is certainly -- it conceals the antenna in a manner that would be supported at a staff level. let me know if that answers your question. commissioner moore: it does and it doesn't. church steeples are an architectural element, which in its own right are in proportion to the building it serves. let's take famous cathedrals and do we now add an additional 10 ft. to them in order to cut -- to accommodate at&t panels. there's architecture that is not being considered by adding to the structure as a whole. if it would just be the way we normally do antennas, which are appendices hidden behind gables

and doors, that is one thing. but by extending the entire tower, i would like to look at that a bit differently and i expect that would be a different kind of review. >> if you're concerned about the overall height of it, and maybe teddy can give some input on this -- the top of the antennas reach about 42 ft.. and the top of the structure is about 46 ft.. there is a few feet -- perhaps. teddy would need to give her input on this. perhaps a bit of will or room would help to address your concern -- a bit -- wiggle room would help to address your concerns. >> -- commissioner moore: i am looking for comments by other commissioners. when it starts to affect buildings in a physical way where it modifies an

architecture, a respective two the fact that i like the building -- regardless of whether i like the building or not. that is all i'm saying. commissioner antonini: i have some questions on the same subject. it would seem as though the addition of the additional height, 10 ft. approximately, keeps it within any zoning problems and is still compliant. is that correct? >> yes. commissioner antonini: and i also would assume that the church, which is the owner of the real-estate, accepts the addition. >> they gave their authorization. commissioner antonini: those are the two issues i see. if the church is in favor of this, and i do not see any reason why we would oppose it. and actually, the higher tower is more pleasing esthetically.

>> it gives more prominence. commissioner antonini: yes, it does not give the appearance of a tower before. it is just the height of the building. >> i understand at the staff level trying to prevent a lot of rooftop projections. we work very hard to try to prevent that. in this particular instance, i would almost say -- this was not a hard project to give a thumbs up on the design perspective. you do not see any rooftop projections. we're not deciding them on how many canisters there are going to have. on how many penthouses are trying to be added. while i understanding your concerns, and we do look very stringently at a staff level on

design, this is something that on a staff level is very appropriate. commissioner miguel: remember a short time backe we had antennas at a service station on 19th avenue and we had eight our projection that was a bit of a stump. they were increasing it to accommodate. when i go out to take a look at it, it was my personal viewpoint that it actually created the better piece of architecture. because of that, i drove by and looked at this building. truthfully, i think as a tower on a church with a cross on top, this could take the other 10 ft. and at least in my aesthetic estimation, it would be an improvement.

but i think the consideration of fact -- of the department did not state. although, we understand that they take a look at it, it was not stated in the material we received. that is compatible with the building itself. we did not really get that viewpoint. there could be as a 10-foot extension on the other towers on other churches that they're building that would look totally wrong. in these two instances, it was my aesthetic thought that they work. however, if the material comes to us in that manner, we would not have these questions, and we would know beforehand that the department is looking at that aspect. commissioner borden: i think it would be useful to know what other places on this property

that you looked. bobby's the, it is a bit more challenging for put it in yet on the roof -- obviously, it is a bit more challenging for putting it on the roof. what other parts were concealed? >> if you were to put it in the roof, the provider would not get the height they need in order to get the coverage that they are seeking. there is not a lot of structure on it. there is a parking lot. you do not want to put a new, full structure in the parking lot. i think this really was the most appropriate place for them aesthetically. >> -- commissioner sugaya: i would like to echo what commissioner miguel said. and as an interpretation of what commissioner