we do not want to upset the schedule of the project, but, like, one quick over my help. the second thing, although it is none of our business -- i was wondering if you have interim facilities to take care of new people. to put this out of business for the length of construction demolition would probably be 18 months to two years. i hope that you have facilities in the area. could you answer that for us? that would be very encouraging to hear. >> thank you. in our building at 150 golden gate, we build in a ground-floor dining room, and that will be utilized during the duration of the project. commissioner moore: when are you planning to start construction, if i may ask? >> july of next year.

commissioner moore: thank you. commissioner olague: i have a couple of questions. i believe that commissioner moore's questions addressed the issue about the lions and the food lines, so i think that's, you know, i'm satisfied with that response. i was wondering the impact that the construction might have on the residence. is there anything that is being done to make sure that their quality of life is not terribly impacted by the construction part of it? >> we have been meeting with the residence over the last several years to address their concerns regarding impacts during construction. we had a meeting last month

that reviewed all the city requirements for construction mitigation as well as additional construction mitigation for the eir in terms of noise, tines of work -- times of war, making sure there is no effect on the building due to our construction work next door -- times of work. our contractor came to the meeting last month and explain how they would insure their safety during construction will continue at communication during construction with the site superintendent, with his or her contact information being available to residents so they can be constantly in communication with them. commissioner olague: i believe it is the tenderloin housing clinic. >> right. we have been in communication with staff and property management also. commissioner olague: great.

thank you. i support commissioner sugaya's commons, but what is important for me, and i think this could all be done within a reasonable time, to have a conversation with both commissioners and maybe any commissioners here who want to be part of the conversations as it relates to the design, but for me, what is more important is that it's stay on schedule, that it break ground in july, and th reduced. because i work now looking at issues around senior housing, and it is really just -- there were thousands of people that -- thousands of people apply for any affordable senior housing that is -- that comes -- you know, becomes available and comes on line. i know hundreds of people who applied. maybe two or three of the ones i

know actually got into what was maybe 120 units of affordable senior housing. so it is kind of like the need is sort of beyond anyone's sense of reality, really. and the other thing -- so i think in that sense, it is addressing a need that is really there. as some of you are aware, the population in san francisco is aging. many seniors are on very fixed incomes. many that i have talked to, once they retire, there income shifts, so they can no longer afford the appointment -- apartment they have been renting for 40 or 50 years. their children move on, and they are stuck with $1,000 or more rent and very fixed income. a lot of the cuts from defense and state are intensifying. so we are talking about a population that is in severe

need of affordable housing. and i have been working with mr. picarello on the project. we are looking at the condition of seniors in single room occupancy hotels. we're finding that in many instances, the only immediately available affordable housing for seniors in san francisco are single room occupancy hotels, so we are forced to look at that stock of housing to see how we can start looking at the needs of seniors. still need to follow-up about doing some outreach in the tl. yes, so, the need is great. this is like a drop in the bucket compared to what we need. so just want to thank you for moving ahead with this project and for mr. picarello for coming out and advocating this, as

usual. i also wanted to -- if you could follow-up and let us know what dpw says about the lighting and some of the other things in the area, that would be great. i think that is really all i have. commissioner antonini: i agree 100%. the importance of moving forward on schedule, but the things that i agree with commissioner sugaya about some of the design, which at think should be fairly quick -- to be done fairly quickly and that change the interior layout of the project. maybe making the quarter so stronger to address the height of the hotel and the other buildings that are next to it, kind of set the street-there would be good. as pointed out, using a little bit more punch window approach. again, that is a facade issue, but it is one that i think would make it fit in a little bit

better architecturally. but it is pretty nicely designed, i think, with those two changes, it will probably be really good. commissioner sugaya: not to hold up the project, but i thought just popped into my head. since we are considering tax incentives for certain companies -- well, not certain companies, but a company, to be expanded into a larger area, including the tenderloin, maybe you guys could add a couple of floors on this and rent it out to future high-tech companies looking to relocate into the mid market area in the tenderloin. it would help your bottom line and it, and sure. commissioner olague: commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval, and that will be for the adoption of ceqa findings and the conditional use approval with conditions. on that motion, commissioner antonini: -- antonini aye.

commissioner borden: aye. commissioner olague: thank you, commissioners, on the various. >> on the matter of the variants, inclined to grant condition, and if anyone would like a copy of the decision letter, please give your name and address to the secretary. commissioner olague: thank you. we're going to hear item 9 after item 15. at that time, we are hearing 16 and 17, which all relate to wireless, so we may as well do it then. we're going to hear 14 now. >> ok, thank you. commissioners, item 14 is case to thousand nine. 0646c for 524 howard st. --

2009.0646c. >> the request before you is to continue operation of an existing temporary parking lot. if granted, the request will extend the operation for an additional two years, which is the maximum length of entitlement permitted by a planning code for a temporary service parking lot within the district. a parking lot was first approved in 2005, but the term of the original conditional use authorization expired in 2007. the law has been in continuous operation passed this expiration and is therefore now the subject of an active code enforcement case, which a approval -- approval of the request today would resolve. the lot can accommodate up to 60 vehicles in a valley or tandem configuration. the lot was recently acquired by a new operator who installed of

grit landscaping with in the parking lot and installed two street trees within planning's along the howard street property. these improvements have soften the appearance of the law -- the lot. in conclusion, believes that the parking lot is a suitable interviews for the property. it is a relatively small lot. pursuant to planning requirements, the lot they short-term parking over daily commuter parking, so the law helps to bolster the viability of the retail, restaurant, bar, and entertainment uses in the area. staff recommends approval of the condition to extend the term of the parking lot for an additional two years. then, there is one item i would like to bring to your attention and hast out to you revised conditions of approval. there were no substantive changes from the conditions that are shown in the packet materials. however, essentially, it is just a reform rabbi of the condition of approval in order to match

the recently adopted template from the department, but again, no substantive changes to the content of those conditions. that concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i would like to introduce next to me an attorney in my office. she is not here just because she can put things in a slide projector, but she knows more about this project than i do. i am here representing the operator. i do not know much about the older and his plans and have not

had any contact with him. we believe your authorization will not hold of the breaking of ground if that goes forward in the next two years for any new office project there, if it goes forward, or any other kind of building you approve, given the entitlement processes, given that even the office one has to come back to the commission, perhaps, but also that any building permits and financing and finding contractors, bidding, etc. i do not really believe that anything you did tonight would do anything to get in the way of what you really want to see on this site, which is some kind of new structure. and i do not think you disincentive is anybody who owns it today to go forward by allowing this to go forward because they would make a lot more money in something other

than this as the owner. i would like to show you a little bit and give you more information about the current operation. you see on the overhead, the newly installed landscaping, irrigation, and lighting. the cross streets are between first and second, harrison, and natoma. no new curb cuts would be created. there is no transit muni on either one, so there would not be any congestion created because of that. a little background -- my clients lease began in the early 2010. five years earlier, the owner obtain a conditional use, as you heard from kevin, for temporary parking. that approval did not affect that office entitlement. the older found a tenant. the tenant operated until 2007.

in 2009, the owner submitted is conditional use application. once it was submitted, my client was told it was submitted and told that it was only four months or so to a hearing, and that it was pretty likely to approve because it was just an extension. not being new, my client did move in. unfortunately, it was left to him to have to process the conditional use permit after the older submitted at his own cost. so he moved in. he has been there since, paying his parking taxes. we have been working with kevin, and i want to thank him. he is very professional. i did not call him professional just because he returns by calls quickly, but whether he puts us

through the hoops or not, he is one of your professionals. so, a couple more things to mention. i do not need my full-time. the city car share program has a spot here. it is not required by law. therefore, the client did not have to do it. i urged him to. by the way, that requirement applies to covered parking, structural parking, structured parking, not open air, and that is why there is no requirement. basically, we asked that this approval go forward for the full two years. that is all that is allowed anyway under section 156, which is unique to downtown area. parking is needed, and the

reason is needed is that -- first of all, your staff reported to your commission in 2005, when it got a parking permit, that between 1998 and 2005, the area within 10, 12, 15 minutes walking lost 2500 to 3500 spaces due to office development and residential. that is 1998 to 2005. i would easily say it has lost thousands since then. that is because the bay terminal and its rams lost a bunch because people park under an right near the ramps, and also because the bay bridge widening and everything that led to it has left a lot fewer parking under the bay bridge ramp, and more nearby.

we do not believe that this will incentivize more commuters to come, and we do not believe this will incentivize more visitors to come downtown. we believe that this is really part of a very small percentage of what was lost, and it is merely perhaps considered a replacement of that. 33 spaces -- independent. up to 60, tandem. the other thing that has been going on in the district is there is a lot of new retail and entertainment, even though there has not been a lot of new office buildings. the percentage of people come here to access entertainment has gone up every year since 2005. just to conclude, the rules

allow the additional findings for rebuttal for me, and i do not plan to take it, but if there is a member of the public speaking to has concerns about the project, i hope you will let me reserve the right under the rules to come back and speak in a bottle. but at this point, -- speak in rebuttal. that i really would like to say. commissioner olague: we have not approved yet but -- >> and sorry? commissioner olague: nothing. i would like to open up for public comment at this time. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner sugaya: [inaudible] get this thing to work. i have a quick question -- what are the hours of operation? >> the hours that an attendant is there are monday through

saturday, no attendance sunday, but you can self-part by putting money in the machines. the hours that an attendant is there is monday through friday, 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. the attendant is there from saturday at -- i believe is 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. because of the entertainment spaces, but i understand all hours of the day all days a week, you can self park. let me confirm that with the client. that is correct. commissioner antonini: from the pictures and from going by there, a nice neat, clean parking lot with lighting and foliage and a lot of things we have spoken about with interim uses. so i would move to approve.

commissioner olague: commissioners, the motions -- that the commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. [roll call] thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. commissioners, you are now on item 15, and this is what the court reporter is here for, i believe. item 15, for pier 36, the brand and street wharf. this is a public hearing on the environmental impact report. -- the brannan street wharf. >> good afternoon. i am from the major environmental analysis section of the planning department.

this is case 2009.041ae. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comment on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the draft eir, an old global action is requested. i would like to briefly introduce you to the project team. with me today is the director of waterfront planning, the preservation planner, and the project manager, all with the port of san francisco. the proposed project involves the demolition of pier 36, including 133,000 square feet of debt and house. the warehouse building, and 18,800 square feet of baldhead wharf sections 11, 11a, and 12, which runs between pierre 30 and 32 and construction of a 57,000- square-foot open to the board,

which would be approximately 830 feet long. the park would consist of a raised lawn, and a 2000 square foot float. the construction of the work would require driving 269 new piles and reinforcing the adjacent sea wall. the planning department prepared and eir for the project because it would have a significant impact on the environment to historic architectural resources and air quality. the deir was reviewed at a hearing on march 16, 2011, by the historic preservation commission. i have just provided you with a copy of the comment letter. staff published this draft eir on february 9, 2011, and i have the 48-day public review of period, which closes this next

monday. for those who are interested in commenting on the draft eir in writing, they may submit comments to the environmental review officer at 1650 mission st., suite 400, san francisco, california, 94103. four members of the public at this hearing today, please state your name and address for the record. all comments will be transcribed and responded to. for those who have commented, will receive a copy of the document prior to the eir's certification or any approval action taken on this project. this concludes my presentation on this matter and unless commission members have questions, i would respectfully suggest that the public hearing be open. commissioner olague: i would like to open up the public hearing at this time. is there any comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners?

commissioner fong: i just wanted to comment, as i have been watching this for a while, and i am supportive of it and realize we are just opening it up, but for everyone who sees the waterfront, sees the port, sees the dilapidated pier, and asked why we cannot put a parked there, this is it. a lot of work has gone into this. this is hopefully the fruits of that labor. commissioner moore: this project is one part of a much larger open space strategy, which i'm quite familiar with, so it just complements and fills out everything, which ties the waterfront together as one solitary development project. i do believe that the historic preservation commission's

concerns are something which need to be considered, and i support their input. i am generally quite supportive about where this is going. commissioner miguel: i am also very supportive of the project. what we have created in this area is the change from the former use of the port to what we have there now, which is a residential and mixed use community, and that type of community as well as the city itself could well make use of recreational facilities in this particular area. we talk about having parks and recreational uses when we talk of areas such as treasure island, hunter's point, other areas in the city where major

projects are coming in. this is an area of the city where major projects have already come in, and yet, that provision was never truly made in the manner it should have been. to me, this is a correction of that. not too late, but something that should happen. commissioner olague: thank you. >> commissioners, if there are no other comments by the commission, and public hearing has been closed, that would conclude this item. thank you. commissioners, we then go back to item nine on your calendar. for 1799 19th ave.

>> good afternoon. planning department's staff. before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to establish a macro at&t wireless telecommunications facility at 1799 19th avenue at the northwest corner of 19th avenue and noriega street. the project site contains a single source structure that was conducted in 1996 -- constructed in 1996 and is operated by an automotive repair business. the project is to replace two at&t omni antennas with 12 panel and tennis -- antennas. the existing equipment, as will be replaced at the same location, which is within a fenced area directly north of the building. the project site preferences for

location for the wireless telecommunications service facilities guidelines. because it is a wholly commercial structure within an nc-2 district, and since the mailing of your packets, the department has received one correspondents in opposition to the apartment. the department of public health has received our report prepared for the project that has in terms of its proposal complies with guidelines, and the department recommends approval of the conditional use with conditions for the following reasons -- the project complies with applicable requirements for planning code and general plan policies. the project site location preferences for the site, which is the preferred location site, and the project is desirable, as it will improve the wireless telecommunications network, and the proposed antennas would be not visible from st. view. this concludes my presentation, and i'm available for questions. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you.

project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i am regional vice president of external affairs for at&t california. i'm here in answer questions, along with my colleagues. i just want to address commissioner moore's concerns about the proposed at&t acquisition of team mobil -- of t-mobile that was announced. this will lead review by several government agencies. while we believe and hope that it will be approved because it is the right thing for our customers and our country, it will take several months to move through that process. in the meantime, it is imperative that we operate as two separate companies. what we do know is we have had an 8000% growth in data traffic over the last four years