because the task force came up with these findings, and then we want to look at what are the next that or not or how is the city being accountable to the findings of that report? and what additional information needs to be gathered that maybe we should advocate for that year did definitelaar but we would de a report on that. >> think you. -- thank you. >> thank you, linda. i hope everyone had a long, restful break, august recess. i know it was something that several of us needed. i hope you are ready for a very busy fall, because the calendars are very busy for the next few weeks.

regarding the hunters point project, i think it is a good suggestion that we pull together information. i think there was a support of a substantial cut greet that was it granted -- hud grant that was granted that will allow the project to go forward, but we will certainly give you more updated information on that, certainly with respect to the cleanup and the status of the redevelopment agency. the only other thing i wanted to mention was that yesterday there was a press conference at the transbay terminal site. it was to celebrate the completion of demolition of the old transbay terminal, the start of construction of the new transit center district. ia heads up that at the end of this month we will release the draft for the transit center

district plan, which a long time coming. we have been working on this plan for the past couple of years, and we are scheduling a couple of more informational hearings before the end of the year as this process moves forward. currently we're looking at an early november date for hearing at the commission for the hearing. with that, that is it for me, unless there are any questions. >> [inaudible] report on the activities of the board of supervisors that pertain to planning and land use. this was the first week the board was back in session since august. the land use committee was cancelled on monday due to the holiday, but there were a couple of items at the tuesday board hearing. the first was an ordinance you heard before, the limited live ordnance. we consider this on july 7.

it would create a new definition for indoor facilities whose primary function is not live performance but allow them to have a subordinate use. at that time that you heard it, you recommended a couple of modifications. you requested the ordinance be amended to extend opportunity to selma and west avenue districts. they incorporated all of your recommendations, except for one. on the request of supervisor kim, he has requested that they allow it except for western selma. at the first full board hearing c, chpresident chu and ferrell commented on their districts. supervisor farrell added a

provision where parties could opt in and request noticed about these permits in the future. with these amendments the full board pass the amendment on fourth reading last week. we also had an appeal before the board for 64 street of a wireless determination of a wireless internet at 664 street. on july 7 you heard a conditional use for the project. it is interesting to note there were no speakers and you're hearing, and you only received two letters in opposition. the appellate argues the department did not consider potential health and tax in the review of insulation. under the purview, when exports and help in tax-cut the question is does the proposal comply with the sec guidelines? -- when exploring health

aspects, the question is does the proposal comply with the fcc guidelines? after a short presentation from the project, the board of held it 11-0/ . there were a couple of questions that were out of the purview that i wanted to share with you. supervisor kim would like to have a copy of the department of public health report for this site so she can see what the actual radio frequency levels are after the installation. this is normally done, but not normally provided to the supervisor. the projected levels are conservative, and the actual levels will likely be lower than what was projected. we further explained that the city through the department of public health has the order to comply immediately.

second, supervisor campos has specific questions about how the rooftop workers would be informed so they could take the proper steps to ensure they could to work safely in the area. planning staff committed to getting back to both supervisors on these non-see what questqua . that concludes my report, unless your questions. >> commissioner moore. commissioner moore: thank you. i think i missed in what context this applies. >> the ordinance as you heard it was limiting all of the performance conditionally to 10:00 p.m. nation -- city-wide. that is just for the first year.

it the business has been operating with the limits of live performance permit for one year, the director of entertainment can choose to extend hours beyond 10:00 p.m. i might not have said the work performance. commissioner moore: who would be enforcing it? what kind of penalties? >> they could not extend the hours beyond 10:00 in the district that i mentioned. thank you. >> the board of appeals has been on a long recess, much as the commission has. they will be meeting again next week. the last hearing was on august 17. two items of interest that the hearing. the first was 1633, a permit to reinstalled general appetizing sign of the location -- general

advertising sign at a location. it ultimately led to the removal of the sign. this permits sought to restore that. the department denied that, and a property owner of feel it. the board of appeals did uphold the department's decision to deny that replacement. item was is that discretionary view that the department had brought for the commission. the project sought to add a third floor to a single-family dwellings, and the department recommended a 15-front predict four-front rear setback. -- four-foot rear setback. the board of appeals did unanimously overturned the commission's decision to allow the project to move forward as they originally proposed. there was actually no neighborhood opposition on that

project. there was significant public support for their project. that is all. >> commissioners, the historic preservation commission met yesterday. they did not take a summer recess, but there were only two items on calendar that might be of interest to you. one was 1460 montgomery street, request for certificate of appropriateness. they have met before and always concerned about the design and how they were impacting the open space. the commission actually felt the open space would be impacted, and they were not inclined to grant the should ticket of appropriateness. they did allow, and actually there was a motion on the floor to disapprove it, but they gave them an option to go back and redesign it to try to mitigate

the invasion into the open space area, so they continued to date to be determined so the project will be before the architectural review committee for the commission. the last item was article 10 and 11 that was on the calendar again before them. i will note that supervisor reamer said his proposal for a revision to article 10 and 11, the commission stated they have not had an opportunity to review his proposals, so we're not considering them. they did however pass a motion of intent to make changes to article 10. they will bring that back at their next hearing when they consider article 11. that is my report.

commissioner sir guguya: what ws the address? >> 14 street. i will note the commissioners belts their decision, especially to granting the ca was going to the site to see it. it proved very helpful for them. with that, commissioners, we can move on on your calendar. to general public comment. time members of the public may address you that fall within the jurisdiction of this commission. each member of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes, keeping in mind the entire category has a 15 minute time limit. i do not have speaker cards for this category.

>> in the general public comment on these items? if you come up to the microphone, please. this is something not on today's calendar. >> i am here to request type permit #124455. i'm kathleen johnston. i'm here to request that site permit 1244255 issue 2173115 st. be rescinded and the jurisdiction be returned to the planning department for review where it belongs. i have lived doors away from the subject report were decade and i am curious.

i was never noted -- notified about the intention of use. and only one person, one neighbor, was alerted to the situation. had she been on vacation, no one would have known when adding a convenience there on our property, i had to alert everyone within 100 feet, so why does this building owner get away with notifying only one person? i am angry, and you should be angry, too. you are misinformed, and as a result ofthe permit never had the benefit of the planning apartment review. i am an architect, and i know. there is an intensification in use in the more than doubling of occupancy from 21 used to 52. -- 21 rooms to 52.

they could potentially house to persons fwo persons per room. there is an addition of a third- floor roof deck that has a quality of life and had on the neighbors. furthermore, there is no insurance that life safety analysis has provided that every room good house two residents puritan-- coul-- could house tw residents. lastly, this building is a historic resource and should be brought before the preservation commission. and this is listed as a historic resources. this project sponsor plans to alter the exterior.

additionally it contains 12 units, 13 pertaining to storage on the ground floor. it is designated in the 2012 letter for religious purpose. [inaudible] in addition to other planning code requirements. these are planning controls nor notification were triggered. you could expect -- cannot expect the parliament of appeal to unravel this. this is a planning issue, and this is where it needs to go back to. for all of the reasons stated above and more i am for you resend this permit. -- i employ the reason this permit. -- you r resend this

permit. >> i have lived in sentences go for 22 years. i have lived just down the street from their property in question for over a decade. the owner of this building received a permit to convert it into institutional housing with 52 rooms. the building has never functioned as institutional housing. from 1973 to 1986 it was a buddhist monastery. from 1973 to the zoning administrator approved the use as "church, a lecture hall, one kitchen, 23 monastic rooms." that use ended 25 years ago. it was essentially abandoned. i find it utterly purse -- perplexing that a building used 25 years ago for religious practice could now be converted to institutional housing for parolees under the died o guide"

group housing." in fact, in a 2005 letter of determination for another building on 21 boats -- one of this that east avenue the zoning administrator cited an exclusion for housing of religious orders for the definition of approve housing. this would seem to apply the transfer of this use was highly questionable, and certainly deserves further review. it should be noted the approved plans have been designed purely to maximize density of this property. this is an exercise in stepping as many nine by 13 rooms as possible and what building. the building owner is clearly not concerned about the rehabilitation of its occupants, nor the impact on the neighboring residents do we feel to contact come despite owning the building for a year. this owner is truly concerned

about profit. as citizens we were denied the 311 notification. this permit some house circumvented proper procedures and slipped out of the building permit back door. it has never received a couple planning department review, which seems to be proper considering the scope. i respectfully request this permit be rescinded and turn -- return to planning for a comprehensive review. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is channing more, and i am here to address the same property. i am here to request that you resent the building permit, and that you send control of this project back to the planning department where it belongs, as my neighbors have stated. i have lived in the mission for seven years very near this, and have spent the last five years just down the street from this property.

i am outraged that i was never notified that this project was going forward. the project should have never gotten out -- as far as that has come and i am very concerned about the lack of transparency and review for such a major project, this doubling of occupancy that my neighbors have spoken about, and possibly cramming as many as 104 parolees into this building should have received the planning department review, but has not. this all started, as far as we can tell, with the owners' own statement for the request for determination that wants to avoid a plan of review or avoid the 311 notification. that is exactly what he has gotten. i am shocked in particular because the entire project is based on the fact that this was a buddhist monastery. his request for letter of

determination state it was a buddhist monastery until 2008. that is completely untrue. nobody on the street, or almost no one on the street, even remembers being bilbuddhists in the building. india talk to talk to u -- if he had to talk to us, he would have noticed this. the zoning department provided very clear instructions for how to avoid 311 and notification and avoid a planning review, but the owners the went around us. as my neighbor stated, he is converting a portion of the first floor from "religious housing" to residential housing. all of these things should have triggered a review. i am confused, frankly, as to how this permit got approved in the first place, and i would like to see a little bit of

sunlight in the process, and i think the planning department are the right people to do that. for that and all we have stated, i implore you to reject this project. >> good afternoon, commissioner. this is for the same subject. i would like to ask your help and the request of -- and the request of reviewing this permits of the housing building on 1731 15th street. i live just across the street. we find out the owner figured out how to really manipulate everyone from the city, everywhere going on. not just one person get a letter, and very lucky she was not on vacation at that time.

this person, the owner pretend that was a building with a monastery for buddhists. i had a chance to talk to the reverend of that ministry, and they moved in 1985. they own the building and moved in 1985. i went there to talk to them. they're wonderful people to work with. what we're looking at here is this new owner tried to shovel 53 tiny rooms, and it will probably put to bed in these rooms, very tiny space for these people. and they were changing the structure of the roof, windows, and so forth. i am here in front of you, commissioners, please help us do not have people living in this building like animals and have space for themselves and not. also, it would be wrong for our

school and family community around the mission area. the only person that will benefit from this would be the owner, and that would come from our tax money. thank you so much. >> any additional public comment? cnn, public comment is closed. mr. sanchez. -- seeing none. mr. >> it is before the board of appeals, which presents -- prevents us from taking any action. also, the project is for group housing units, which is principally permitted in the zoning district and under planning code section 312 does not require neighborhood notification. after goes to the board of appeals we will report back to the commission the results.

>> i wanted to comment that i had a meeting with the mayor's office on housing about this issue, which has to do with a process around that notification when it has run the programmatic use existing housing. so i think at some point it might be good for us to have a conversation, either here or in public perhaps, because i do the we need to look more closely at the conversion of some of these spaces too programmatic uses. with those programmatic uses -- i am sure this is something you would support, mr. sanchez, as we talked about this before, but i think it is time to start creating a certain policy around this, because i think it maybe

we start to see the occurrence of this more often, and we can certainly talk to people run up some of these facilities. i have visited a few of these myself and they are very well onrun and manage. maybe there should be more meetings with the project sponsors and neighbors so they can discuss the use more, so i think it is something. thank you for coming here. i think this is something we need to start thinking about more. if you could e-mail your nabes to secretary a break so we could talk more about this. -- if you could e-mail this to secretary avery so we could talk more about this. i think we might hear more about the programmatic use in

neighborhoods. commissioner antonini: ,i would like to have a hearing in the future on these issues. thank you, and thank you for your work on this. >> thank you. commissioners, you can move forward on your calendar. we're going back to item number seven. item #7 of the regular calendar. case number 2,010.1084730 polk street. -- 2010.108 for 730 polk street. >> the proposed installation

would include a penthouse that is approximately 70 feet, along with the equipment can answer that will be in an internal storage room. a new screen wall would be installed. a new screen would be installed to match the penthouse. according to the guidelines the installation is outlined as a preferred location. the department of not receive any support or opposition until the hearing today. after analyzing all aspects of the project, the planning commission has found it to be compatible with the neighborhood and recommends approval for the following reasons. this would allow at&t to expand the wireless network coverage in the project area. it is consistent with the wireless citing guidelines. when viewed from public rights of way, the attendance would avoid intrusion and destruction of the architectural integrity of the subject building, as well

as the surrounding air right. this concludes my presentation, and i will be available for questions. thank you. >> we are from project sponsor now. >> thank you, madam commissioner, care, and staff. i am shepherd reareit. i work very closely with mr. hollister in designing this. i have had a very minimal -- it will have a very minimal impact on the neighborhood was still providing a service that at&t wants to provide in the area and needs to provide to close certain service gaps. i am here to answer any questions you may have. i am asking for your approval today. if you have questions about frequencies, bill ham it is here.

his firm prepared the report that was prepared by the department of public health. >> thank you. i would like to open it up for public comment at this time. you have three minutes to speak. thank you. >> i am totally against this. >> can you state your name for the record? >> jamie hannah. i have a beautiful bay window right there, and that is the one room i live in. franklyfrankly, i do not trust e frequencies or what ever is going on in the little inside it contraption. i do not know what is going on there, but i certainly do not want i