the world as well as connected even inside their local communities. >> if we value the diversity of our city and we value our diverse neighborhoods in the city, we need to ensure that they remain economically viable. equiping them and equiping residents in those areas with jobs that will enable them to stay in san francisco is critical to that. >> the important thing that i see here at caminos is it helps the low income community, it helps the women who wouldn't have this opportunity otherwise. >> the workers with more education in san francisco are more likely to be able to working that knowledge sector. where they are going to need that familiarity with the internet, they are going to find value with it and use it and be productive with it every day. and half of the city's population that's in the other boat is disconnected from all that potential prosperity. >> we really need to promote content and provide applications that are really relevant to people's lives here.

so a lot of the inspiration, especially among the immigrant community, we see is communications with people from their home country but we as much want to use the internet as a tool for people to connect within the local san francisco community. >> i think it's our job as public educators to give them this access and give them this opportunity to see that their efforts are being appreciated beyond their immediate reach. >> you have to blend this idea of community network with computer equipment with training and with support. we can pull all that together, then we've got it. >> it's as much about social and economic justice -- in fact it's more about social and economic justice than justst

>> good morning. this is a special meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday, october 20, 2011. before i take role, let me remind all of us to turn off our cell phones. >> soon as i find mine, i will turn it off. [roll-call]

thank you. commissioners, just by way of explanation for the public, this special meeting was set up because you have recently had a number of large items that have pushed aside some smaller items, so this meeting was set up so we could kind of take care of some of those smaller items. as such, we set up the calendar as we usually do for a regular meeting, and we did not need to do that. we will not do commissioner matters or directors import at this morning session, and we will delay those until the afternoon session. thank you. commissioners, first category on a calendar items proposed for continuance for 112 7 street,

proposed to january 14, 2012. with that, i am not aware of any other item on the special calendar that is being proposed for continuance. commissioner miguel: is there any public comment on items proposed for continuance? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner borden: i move to approve item one for continuance to the date on the calendar. >> the item is moved. on that motion -- [roll-call] thank you, commissioners. the item has been continued to january 14, 2012. commissioners, the next category and calendar are consent calendar items. items two, three, and four make up the consent calendar. they are considered to be

routine and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, public, or staff so requests, and in that event, the matter or matters will be removed and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item number two is 676 howard st.. it is consideration of a resolution of intent to initiate an amendment for the fire facilities plan within the community facilities element of the general plan to delete the reference to the property of 676 howard st. as a prior facility and add a reference to the property at 935 folsom st.. the requested action is associated with the expansion of the san francisco museum of modern art, which would relocate the existing fire station from the property to a new facility located at 935 folsom st. pier 3

is 545 irving st., formerly 555 irving st., retail 1. it is a quest for a conditional use authorization to modify the conditions of a prior conditional use authorization to extend the hours of operation of an existing wine bar doing business as inner father in the inner sunset commercial neighborhood districts appeared and item four is case 2011, -- this is a request for conditional use authorization to allow at&t mobility to locate up to eight wts panel and tennis in faux vents on the roofs of two separate structures and related equipment in a building basement of the tibia and three-story

commercial buildings within a residential, commercial combined, and high-density district. commissioners, following public comment, which would automatically remove the item from the consent calendar, these items are in your hands. is there any public comment on items on the consent calendar -- commissioner miguel: is there any public comment on items on the consent calendar? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner borden: move to approve items two, three, and four. >> on that motion -- [roll call] thank you, commissioners. those items have been approved. commissioners, you are now back your 15 minutes general public, category. members of the public may

address you on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter of jurisdiction of this commission with the exception of agenda items, which may only be addressed at the time the item is calendared. member of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes. i do not have any speaker cards. commissioner miguel: is there any general public, on non- agenda items? if not, public comment is closed. >> thank you. we move forward to item eight on your calendar for 1625 post street, a request for conditional use authorization. >> good morning, commissioners. adam before you is a request by at&t to look it up to 12 antennas on the fourth story

portion of the kabuki hotel. the department received a petition in support of the project with 17 signatures appear at this time, the department recommends approval of the proposal with conditions. thanks. i am available for questions. commissioner miguel: thank you. project sponsor? >> good morning, commissioners. i am here today with the conductors of the radio frequency and repairs of the report in your packet. we are seeking your approval to install a 12-panel antenna wireless facility atop the kabuki hotel. this is an area regularly used for cultural events and is a high-traffic area for us. i would like to thank planning

department staff for their efforts to help direct and design this location and to help make sure that it is compatible with the neighborhood. as you are aware, the san francisco market area continues to see a very steep, steady incline in data traffic, and with the introduction of the iphone 4, the upgrade, we are continuing to see that and do not anticipate there being any fall-off in the future. this is an essential site for at&t for our coverage and capacity, and we would appreciate your support and approval on this side, and we are here answer any questions you may have. commissioner miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on

this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i have a question -- why is item four on consent, and a similar items are not? >> essentially, there was no opposition, and i believe the staff report indicates there were one or two either calls or letters in opposition to these two. >> that is the only reason? >> yes. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya: moved to approve. >> on that motion -- [roll call] thank you, commissioners.

that item passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now on item 9, 389 ninth avenue, a request for conditional use authorization. >> good morning, commissioners. this item is to allow at&t to locate 12 panel antennas on the at&t switching station on ninth avenue and. . it is a preference one publicly used structure, and at this time, the department recommends approval of conditions. thanks, and i am available for questions. commissioner miguel: thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. if so a different budget manager for this site. this is a very important site for us, as many of them are, but as you know, gary boulevard is a

very busy thoroughfare, transgressed by thousands of cars, buses, bicyclist on a daily basis. it is a necessary site for us in terms of coverage and capacity, and we are happy to answer any questions you might have with it as it relates to the site. i think sarah mentioned that it is an at&t central office, so it is traditionally used for telecommunications equipment. thank you. commissioner miguel: is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner borden: move to approve, and i am watching the calendar. we are getting close to 10/24 the big shakeout. the red cross is promoting across california the great california shake out. today is the 20th anniversary of

the fire in oakland and monday was the 22nd anniversary of the loma prieta as quick. the point is you drop and a cover to emulate what you would do in an earthquake. i hope the commission secretary will let us know when it is 10:20 so we can drop, cover, and hold on. >> hopefully, we can conclude this item prior to that. commissioner sugaya: i have been informed by city hall staff that there will be simulated earthquake here because they're going to test the base oscillators. >> did we call for public comment on this item? commissioner miguel: yes. >> is there a motion? >> it has been moved. ok. was there a second? thank you. there is a motion and second for approval of this item as proposed.

on that motion -- [roll call] commissioner olague, were you here long enough to hear? there was no real testimony. commissioner olague: i was going to ask your i came in at the end. >> they are going to mark your absent for this. that is a unanimous vote for approval of this item. thank you, a commissioner. -- thank you, commissioner. commissioner antonini: i wonder if we could reconsider whether we do questions and that is at this time since we will not be having another session until 1:00. >> we could, but i announced it, so those people that left --

commissioner antonini: ok, we will have to take up the time in the afternoon. >> we are going to do it in the afternoon. >> ok, commissioners, there is a general public, category at this point. members of the public who are here can adjust the commission on items of interest to the public eye in the subject matter of jurisdiction of the commission for three minutes. commissioner olague: is there any general public,? seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> ok, commissioners, is this meeting adjourned? commissioner miguel: i just wanted to mention this seems to be confusion among the public or to misters why it 10:00 session for such a short number of items. the original girlie calendar had a lot more stuff on it, but things have dropped off and then postponed by the sponsors, by

everyone else, and it was not anticipated we would be out of here before the big shake. >> one minute. >> thank you. commissioner olague: 10:20. >> the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you.

>> are we taking item 2 at the beginning of the calendar or now? president olague: now. >> for 6 52nd street. >> the project proposes to merge to existing units into one unit with an a six-story building. the proposal will involve interior renovations as the space has already been merged

and operated as a single unit since the building conversion in 1996. the building was converted in 1996. the previous owner filed for application. the permit was withdrawn in january of 2009 after it was submitted. also the project sponsor purchased the unit in 2009 and continued to occupy as a single unit. it will remain unoccupied. the sponsors are here as well, and they have documentation to further explain the process. the staff found that the project is applicable subjected to the general plan. the next density area with no

limit, it will bring the unit into conformance with existing use. we recommend that the commission approve the project as proposed. >> and you want me to respond to questions? president olague: if you could describe the project and state your name for the record please. >> my wife and i own the unit at 6 52nd street. in 1996, this building was converted from the warehouse to livable space. prior to build out of the interior length of the building, a man purchased units

401 and 402. they were never separate units. we purchased it as a single residence, lived in and from 1996 forward, and in 2008 and 2009, the unit was placed on the market. it was approximately 2950 square feet. we were looking for another,, and it fitted. we entered into an agreement to purchase if during the entire process. it was described to us as a single residents and as a matter

of fact, it was believed to be a single residents by chicago title, by the company that opened of the escrow. there was a single price paid for it. the real-estate appraisal that was submitted said, per legal description lived the original report, the subject units as separate parcel numbers. we had no idea that it had not been legally merged. as a matter of fact, they signed the disclosure statement to us in which he said that the unit's work combined and that all necessary permits have been obtained. we bought the unit, we hired an architect and hired a contractor.

a permit was issued by the city showing no separate kitchen either before or after the improvements were made. we went through and got the approval of water, the electrical sign-off. and at that point, the district oinspector gave us a notice of violation that came as a total shock to us and everyone else involved in the process. and that is why we're here today. i looked at the rules that you operate under and it says that they are to preserve affordable housing and to avoid merging the units to lose the number of housing units that are available. this has never been to separate units, nothing is being taken

off the market because from the day the building was first converted to today, there has only been one of owner and it has only been a single residents. as far as affordable housing, the unit, we bought it after our improvements, the appraised value plus the improvements are over $3 million. which isn't what i would call affordable housing. if you look at the pictures submitted to, the cost of converting this to two separate units would not only be prohibited, we would probably just walk away because it would be more than our equity in the house. it is not physically really feasible to do it at this point. all i can say is that if i had known that there was any question about whether the legal

approval had been obtained and not, we would have never bought it because at this point, it could wipe out my retirement if we had to do anything more than just live in the place that we've got to live in the rest of our lives. any questions? president olague: not at this time, but we might have some afterwards. we will open it up for public comment. i have one speaker card. >> as a preliminary matter, i don't believe that commissioner antonini should be sitting on this case. this is a block from where he is. this is a live work use. that issue is a huge issue.

ok? we were the group that challenged live work. when the projects were approved, they were exempted from the requirements because they were not housing. we do not have any inclusion area live work units because they were all supposed to be spaces where people work and spaces were people filed annual disclosure statements saying they were aware of the law and they were in compliance with the law. and they had filed the necessary tax statement every year. the documents in this file cannot show any disclosure of the live work status at all. in your file, in your case report. it is not a small issue.

it is a huge issue. with 3000 units of live work and mostly artists that people are saying now they are housing units. the city was cheated out of 300 affordable housing units because we have this section that these were places of business. you do not have anything in the file and the staff should have asked for it. how is this legally a live work unit? is the status restriction disclosed on the sale? it should be in the file. it should have been asked for. was the purchaser told that he was purchasing not a residents but a live work unit, and he had to maintain the live work status. you cannot push this under the carpet. i understand that at a certain

level, it is a minor issue. it is a huge issue if the staff just checked out, and doesn't ask the questions. what is the nature of the business being conducted in this unit? have they filed every year, the statements and the tax forms to show that a business is being conducted there? was this used described as a limitation when they bought it? if you allow live work units to become residential units, we have been cheated out of affordable housing. it is true that this is not an affordable units, but this is a huge issue. housing affordability was ignored. i am asking you to get the additional information, continue this. if you don't have the information to show that this is live work, and they have

continually kept of the status. you cannot find it is a legal live work canada. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i did check with the interest that i have, a very small interest in what is classified as a live work unit. it has occupied my family member and is more than 500 feet away and we have already established that. i am not quite sure if that is what she was speaking to, but i believe that is the only reason why i would have to recuse myself from these proceedings. president olague: pat o'tellni? >> we are a building