this, and most recently, you heard the second. these ordnances actually represent the first third, which you recommended for approval on march 1st. since you heard them, he did further divide. of the first third of that ordinance, it has now been divided up into four ordnances, one tackle and bicycle parking requirements and exempting them from ncr, one exempting them from modifications and making other technical modifications. and another dealing with residential districts as well as fine controls. and the last ordinands he introduced this week would allow the transfer of the rights to any eligible building in the downtown c3 district.

since you already heard these items, they will likely be considered by the land use committee after the 30 day expiration without another hearing, unless you ask otherwise. that concludes my board report. unless there are any questions. commissioner antonini: thank you, ms. rogers. a great report, as always. some questions on articles 10 and 11. as i recall, a situation where allowances are going to be made on the restoration of standards for hardship situations. as i recall, it was more the situation for the owners of the property, whether they could afford to do this more so than the status of the income levels of the renters or owners within. i think this amendment speaks to

that. am i correct about that, that it has changed? rex i think the director would like to respond. >> i think it is both. the amendments that the supervisors put forward were specifically for the affordable housing projects, the multi units projects and the income level of the residence at those projects. but there was a sample -- separate question about homeowners below certain income levels. brecht's perhaps owners of multi-use buildings -- >> perhaps owners of multi-use buildings where renters would have difficulty with income. but i think it was more homeowners in the residences. -- >> i think it was more homeowners in the residences. gregg's ok. president fong: any further questions? >> the historic preservation commission did not meet this week, so there is no report. with that, commissioners, we can move on to your general public

comment category with a 15- minute time limit. at this time, the members of the public me address you that fall -- on subjects that fall within his jurisdiction. agenda items may not be addressed in this category, but only at which time they reach our calendar. however, each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes each, keeping in mind that the category had a 15- minute time limit. i have one speaker cards. president fong: for speaker, patricia blake. >> i am here to talk about affordable housing and retaining affordable housing. there is a trend that is beginning to happen, starting three or four years ago in lower pacific heights, of buying two and six-unit buildings, turning them into the icy's or single-

family dwellings and mergers. it is becoming epidemic. in the cal area and the lower heights area, i just counted 14 of these two and four-unit buildings being purchased. the existing tenants having been there 20 to 40 years are being evicted, pushed out, threatened, bought out. and representations to the planning department of the existing #r reports have been misleading -- the existing3r reports are misleading. but one of the things i found yesterday is that the september 2010 mergers codes, which are very hard to find on the computer, by the way.

you can find eight and nine, but not 10. they say that if you have been merging units, you have to have the same count. but it says something very particular, within the existing floor plan. no expansions to get that extra square footage to be able to make it. and i'm not sure if the department is noticing this, because it is really hard for me to find its code. member to is the method in which -- number two is the method in which these tenants are being kicked out. it is behind -- beyond my comprehension. knocking on doors, a particularly at 3:00 a.m. with the senior citizens, saying to sign a piece of paper. threatening young families. we will keep harassing you and keep you in the courts until you move out. so let us buy you out. the 3r reports i will address in

separate meetings. one building on lower pacific heights, every single tenant was kicked out. they were paying affordable rent and they sold the units at $1 million apiece. it and they bought the billion -- bought the building for one sixth. thank you. >> linda chapman. brecht's linda chapman. -- >> linda chapman. i came to continue the colloquy about polk street, i guess. the chief wrote to me a few months ago to say there is always hope. and i am sending my chief of operations, or something like that, to no. station to try to work out a plan to get polk street under control. and i do now see outside the very bars along the restaurants acting as nightclubs, three or

four security people each with their t-shirts on. that is a step in the right direction. but it is still a very disorderly area. even that, it is not the kind of thing that would encourage people to come for regular restaurants or shopping, etc. yesterday, i called one of the residents on polk street, not to ask him to come here, but about something else. but he immediately said and i cannot go testify. because of the intimidation, because of the threats. two of the tenants and landlords on polk street from the bars and from their customers. some of them have actually been very overt, whether to me or in meetings or to the property owner and the resident manager. in this case, it is a tenant who just does not know. you know, i think i am right,

but their customers think they are right. and i've had my car stolen and all these other things are happening, so i dare not speak out at all. this is one of the things happening on polk street. why is it? it is because we have this huge concentration that should not be there in the first place. the abc liaison from s.s.p. to add a meeting with community members said, why do they approve the conditional uses? he was sort of perplexed. he said, if they do not approve it, it is over. but once they approve it, they must understand it is almost automatically going to be approved. no matter the in-the impact on residents or writretail or the restaurants. abc does not turn down things

usually, assuming it is not criminal. if it has been approved by the city, they accept what the city said. the committee and the board of supervisors in their office says, we have no grounds to turn it down. if it was recommended by the police, it was recommended by the planning commission. it will just automatically happen. no matter what the residents may do -- in one case coming up we had 60 protesters. essentially, they are going to go by the wayside. i will come back and talk with you about this more again. president fong: is there additional general public comment? >> my name is robert garcia, president of "save our streets, tenants and merchants association. and what linda chapman was telling you is correct. polk street has become a dumping

ground. it is bad enough they have problems with so many bars that have sprung up in the last few years, but they are bossing them in now from a lot -- around the bay area. bringing them in and dropping them off on the other side of union square. they walk right across from the lower nob hill, the most densely populated area west of new york. they come in groups of sometimes 75 or 100 and are heading for polk street. poultry was our shopping area. it was really a great street. i go all the way back to the 1950's on polk street. and my grandparents lived here. and now, it is just unbearable. it is unbearable what is happening there. the clubs are attracting just a very, very negative element.

the calls for service on the corner of sutter and pulp -- sutter and polk street, the last time i got calls for service, if you get 125 calls for service in one year to a police reporting plot, which is a roughly one block area, those are grounds for losing your liquor license. the last stat i got on that corner for that senses track were 5550. that is off the chart and it is unacceptable. and it has only gotten worse. and now with the new bars being approved for it, it is only making it worse. even when we go from the lower nob hill area over 2 van ness avenue, we have to cross through this area.

it is bad. it just should not be happening. we need to clean it out. we need to look at what is happening there. and reverse this trend. it has got to be reversed. thank you. president fong: additional public comment? whoever is ready. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is adam. i am a resident at 709 geary st.. president fong: is this related to an item we are going to hear in a little bit? >> it is related to item two >> we have not called that item. president fong: we will give you an opportunity. >> ok, thank you. >> my name is ron case. i am the current chairman of lower pulp neighbors. -- lower polk street neighbors. and i have listened to this i

don't know how many times from robert chap -- linda chapman and robert garcia. neither of them live on polk street. yes, we have some problems, but listen to the truth and do not just agree with everything they say. they seem to have stretched the truth quite a bit. we got static when we planted trees along polk street, that we're ruining the neighborhood. they will never talk about anything nice. it is always in-comment. we have yet to have either one of them volunteered to do anything for polk street. that is my comment. president fong: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i represent a small business holding company. i would like to touch on what commissioner moore was talking about earlier, that is, walgreen's. 68 walgreen's in the city is too many -- i will not say it is too

many, but i think it in half. we spent two hours talking about a local business, a copy shop, a really nice coffee shop that is totally different in every store. they have good character, nights staff. obverses a pharmaceutical company. and national -- reverses a pharmaceutical company, a national chain that spans across the u.s.. it does not seem to reflect the city to me. i would like to thank you for your work on slowing down the growth of these chains, and i hope that we continue to slow them down in the future. president fong: any additional public comment? >> ok, thank you. commissioners, can we go back to the items that were pulled off

consent? item two would be the first item. it is for 709 geary st.. >> good afternoon. this case is a request for a conditional use authorization to remove two existing antennas and to install of 27 roof-mounted antenna as an equipment to be located -- up to seven roof- mounted antenna at -- and equipment to be located within the nrc for district. -- with in the rc 4 district. the subject building is considered a historic resourced.

the tops of the antenna will be approximately 66 ft. above grade. the site is a location preference 5, according to the site guidelines and the sponsor has investigated nine alternative sites within the vicinity and none of them at the network objectives. the project is consistent with the sighting guidelines. the antenna will be minimally visible and will not affect the architecture or integrity of the building. it's consistent with the general policies of the plan. i am available for any questions. president fong: project sponsor? >> good afternoon.

i am the external affairs representative for at&t california. i am here today with gane eriksson, the consulting engineers. i'm also here with eric lands from the consulting firm. the approval of the cep will permit at&t to remove the two existing antennas on the building and replace them with seven panel antennas. the necessary equipment will be located on the ground floor any breezeway to the south of the property. the site is a mixed use building. as outlined in the material, at&t conducted an alternative site analysis. nine sites were chosen and evaluated in the surrounding area by our radiofrequency

engineers. the site is necessary for at&t to close a coverage gap in its wireless network, as explained in detail in your packets. i will thank rick crawford and the planning staff for helping us to direct and design this location. we ask for your support as we continue to diligently upgrade our network here in san francisco to meet the needs of the wireless telecommunication needs. we're happy to answer any questions you might have. president fong: thank you. public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 709 years street, where at&t plans to put the antennas. from what i've discovered, the research on what the radiation from the antennas would be is very unclear, to the point that we are deadbeats.

there does going to put the antenna's there. -- we are guinea pigs. they are just going to put the antenna's there. there will be there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they're just hoping nothing will happen to us. i do not think that is appropriate. we ought to know what is going to happen for the residents there, the long-term health effects from radiation. we should not have to bear the burden of providing this service for the entire city. thank you very much. president fong: any additional public comment? commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i just want to speak to the member of the public. the health department issues a permit looking at the radio frequency levels. and in our report it says that the radiofrequency is about two 0.4% of the public exposure limit. it you can ask at&t to come to a reading -- to do a reading in

your unit if you're concerned. there are a lot of things that produce those radio waves. we do not determine other than nine years. al department determines the health exposure and has said that is fine. our jurisdiction is the land use, whether or not the antennas are properly sited, how they look, and whether or not their screens. the health issue is concerning for a lot of people. and at the end of the day, we do not know what we do not know. but given what our jurisdiction is and what we have to look at, we do not have grounds for not approving its antenna. i will move to approve with conditions. >> second. commissioner antonini: in

keeping with the discussion, after the signing of the antennas, at&t can be asked to come out and verify that the missions are keeping in what was presented as -- that the missions are keeping within what was presented as there before being placed there. that is part of the discussion >> on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president fong: aye. it passes unanimously. item number four, fouror 198,

145 -- a 1436 poulter street as well as 1567 california state street. >> and use green wall is being installed. according to the department citing ninth guidelines it is in a preferable location. the wireless guidelines state that the preference location may be approved by the condition if a higher price for its side is not available. in this instance, at&t submitted an alternative analysis about the efforts that at&t made in terms of finding a more

preferable area. no other site located within its service area. none of these sites would be as desirable, partly due to incompatible site design and site operation issues. department staff has reviewed the site analysis and concurred that the project is the most viable site and recommends that the king did -- the commission does the same. to this point, the department has received a letter in opposition from a nearby residential neighbor. this neighbors' concerns revolve around radiofrequency exposure and private views. as you are aware, the public health has found the site is in conformance with the ftc and radiofrequency exposure. private views are not protected by the code. the staff recommends approval for the following reasons. the wireless facility would

allow at&t to expand our wireless network in the project area. the project is consistent with the sighting guidelines and it will be screened from public view. that includes the staff presentation. i'm available for questions. president fong: public comment? i'm sorry, project sponsor. >> good afternoon, again. i am with at&t california. i'm still here with the same representatives. we are seeking a conditional use permit for 1498, 1436 polk street as well as 1456 california st.. we are seeking to install nine roof-mounted panel antennas.

the necessary equipment will be located at the rear of the service parking lot at 1567 california st.. there will be screened. this is the preferable location and we did conduct alternative site analysis on 15 sites in that area. all 15 were preference six locations. the site is also necessary for us to close and address significant coverage gaps that we are experiencing within the city of san francisco. and i want to thank aaron holster for his hard work in helping us to design this site and helping us with issues surrounding its design. we ask for your support on this application president fong: -- on this application. president fong: public comment? i have one speaker cards, linda chapman. rex i have two concerns. the last time -- >> i have two

concerns. the last time we spoke about this time what you know, there were several of these in the nob hill area. they really needed to be did -- to be consolidated into one things that people could object or not. i appreciate you giving with the mission subject. i am concerned about appearances. on nob hill, you very little open space, if any, as you look down from your flat roofs over your view. maybe it does not matter as much in this area. but the main concern is the park next door. it sounds like it is a rather large thing. will it impede the park that i hope to see their someday? nob hill neighbors when we active had a park planned in the city and the developer and owner took them to court and it turned out he got his appraisal raised

and the city could not buy it. we lost the one on top of the hill. then andy butler, who was our landscape architect worked on it. at that time, this little side with a bank parking lot. it could not have been used and we would not have considered it. next to this was another lot, which was essentially abandoned. the two of them together are the last side i can think of on nob hill that could ever be open space. can i make this happen? no, and i have taken is to many neighbors. but as you have heard, i have no concern about cold street. and obviously, they're not concerned about it at present. maybe someday they will be and maybe someday, we can make this happen. these two spots are underutilized and together next to the cable line are perfect. we have no open space on nob

hill to accept for one pathway on top of the hill. in all of the other neighborhoods that i go to, even golden gate park, they have these pocket parks and things of that sort. we did have one success on nob hill years ago. the cdc originated on nob hill. but it is not green. this is something that we really need. and i would like to make sure that if you are passing this, there will be the ability later to get rid of this construction that will be put on their if, in fact, someone might be lower pulp neighbors decides they might be interested in promoting open space as opposed to promoting bars. and if the city can find money to do this, as they once did for us up on top of nob hill. that is my chief concern for this location. president fong: any additional public comment?

the public hearing portion is closed. commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: move to approve. >> commissioners, there is a motion on the floor for approval commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. you are now on item 541145 polk st., also known as well hundred 1 sutter street. -- 1201 sutter street. >> before you is an authorization request that a walkable facility requiring additional use authorization.