dina adelphia and linda chapman. can we imagine a drug-free community center? when asked the question, she laughed, ashley couldn't. she said, why we put trees or benches here? the drug dealers will just take them and use them. we may wonder, well, who is ashley anyway? ashley is 24 years old and ashley has no teeth. they wouldn't let ashley into the church. stan, stan was in a wheelchair on monday. we think stan, what happened to your leg? we just saw you walking around on friday. are you injured? no, stan is not injured. stan complains that he can't get up, that he's too hungry,

too famished to move. stan is 19 years old and he hangs out with ashley at our community center. he sits with a cup in one hand and a glass pipe in the other. where he participates regularly. this is [speaker not understood]. in our hearing today we will regulate on at least four equal opportunity employers. are we an equal opportunity employer? municipality graduation rates are 18% lower than our standard. we've given ashley and stan d's for the opportunity. one of our demographics constitutes 7% of total population, yet 60% of our parole population. in 2011 one of our municipalities' racial demographics constituted 7% of total population and 60% of our parole population. if we're wondering whose names

have been on all of those police offenses. every day we host [speaker not understood] we incarcerate another unknown. we teach another stan how to live, and we reject another ashley. and we prohibit our ability to act as an equal opportunity employer. we wish to see no more stans. we wish ashley could live in a drug free community. how we move from point a to point b? linda chapman, nob hill neighbors. it's important when people care about conditions in a neighborhood like that, for example. and my concern about people who are dealing with developers and coming before you and getting projects approved and so on and being recognized as if they were somehow representing the community when, in fact, you

know, the community knows nothing about it. last night at lower polk neighbors, it was announced that a contract was signed for $2.46 million in connection with cpmc. there were about 10 people there. i don't know that many of them were members. i couldn't say. and three of them were there to get a permit because that's what that operation is. and no paper about this had ever passed before anybody when there were members there to vote, you know. it's like these people say, okay, i'll support this project, i want this money. i've been told by people who were officers there who left that it was like they're always there with a hand out for money. and also about the secret bank accounts that the co-he treasurers didn't know about and had to quit, and then about the $20,000 bank account that was found by somebody else by chance, and [speaker not understood] lower polk

neighbors and former officer on there. that's one thing. 1111 california, there's been some kind of arrangement made, some kind of settlement which nobody in nob hill association, 900 members, really knows anything about unless they happened to have read the chronicle. people saw me and tried to find out what was going on and then wrote this letter to one of the officer. there is a hearing at the planning commission about the draft e-i-r. you are driving force in this issues. [speaker not understood]. however, since the nob hill association annual meeting last november, members at large have not been told what has happened behind closed doors. i was nominated for the board and then a new board emerged forcing her off and the other people who have been opponents in effect. some of us who spoke at planning commission meetings and attendedth the abc hearings are in the dark, but rumors a bound. no official updates on live nation's issues have come from nha.

linda chapman nor nob hill members were alerted of the meeting on may 23rd. i will mention at the annual meeting at nob hill association that the planning commission we always lose, don't bother to go there. you really want to render the public process irrelevant, this is what's happened. it may not be your intent. so, she says, is there a way to rally some troops? i so appreciated the work of you and dave and amy and robert , all very righteous people and all shoved out by those four negotiators that mary badiner treated as their neighbors in the coalition. >> is there any additional public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, it will place you under your regular calendar and we'll be taking item 6 that was pulled off of consent at this time. case no. 2012.0231c - 758

divisadero street, request for conditional use authorization. >> commissioners, if i may, another new staff person to introduce you to, omar masry as a new planner with the department, and he is working on our wireless facilities for us. omar was raised in southern california, is a new transplant to the city. welcome to the great north. he worked with the city of irvine for six years as a planner and he also -- in that capacity, worked on wireless facilities. he has also worked for the city of pomona and he is also a u.s. army combat veteran. so, we welcome omar to the commission. >> welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. before you is a request for conditional use authorization for a wireless telecommunications facility. the proposal by taint is to install a facility featuring nine antennas on two separate sectors. it will be mounted on a three tori mixed use building located at the southeast corner of

divisadero and fulton streets. the feature 6 of the 9 antennas and a full roof element on the bay penthouse at the edge of the building closest to the street intersection at divisadero and fulton. remaining three antennas would be undescribedv and located within roof deck area and not visible from adjacent public rights-of-way. location preference 5 according to the wireless telecommunications service siting guidelines. as part of the review process, the applicant's required to conduct an alternative site analysis. the applicant was not able to identify any sites that were public use buildings or co-location opportunities that were considered feasible or viable within the [speaker not understood] area. as of today's hearing the department received one phone call and four letters from residents concerning potential health effects. [speaker not understood]. the esthetic impact of the facility with respect to storage structures in the neighborhood and the condition of the building as it relates

to recent fire damage of the attached single story former restaurant space at the rear of the property. staff has made the caller and those residents aware the city is enjoined with respect to considering a project as it relates to health effects. other than those standards sanctioned by the fcc. in addition, the full roof element would appear consistent with other elements found within the surrounding neighborhood. staff is recommending approval because the project conforms with the planning code, the general plan, the wts siting guidelines, and the site has been determined to be the most viable site in the area. i'm available for any questions as well as the applicant eric wince. thank you. >> thank you. i'm opening up for public comment. douglass martin -- i'm sorry, project sponsor. thank you.

thank you. my name is eric wince. permit me and i'm representing taint today on this application. i'm here to answer any questions you may have regarding the process we worked on. if you have any emf questions, i'm free to answer those questions. thank you. >> okay, thank you. now opening it up to public comment, douglass martin. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is douglass martin and i am a resident at 760 divisadero where they are proposing this wireless communications installation. and i understand that you are enjoying some considering ems concerns which was our initial -- residents do not want this tower for the radiation that it proposes to be continuously emitting. however, i would like to say that maybe i can show you some

pictures and we can look at the building itself. i think that it is structurally very unsound and not up to code and, therefore, not an ideal location for installation of other construction. may i -- >> yes. i'm not sure how this works. >> it will go by itself. here we have -- this is the restaurant that is located behind 7 58 -76 0 divisadero. this fire happened six months ago. you can see the debris, the glass and things that are left there have not been cleaned up by the landlord. i'll put another slide there. and still more, what i'll show next here is the back of 7 58 and 760 divisadero. what you're looking at here are the windows that were blown out when the firemen came to put out the fire at the restaurant

behind us. and six months later he has yet to replace the windows. you can see the plywood. the electrical back up or what have you for the cell relay tower is supposed to be located in this third floor structure there. all of this just seems kind of ludicrous to me. i'm going to now show you pictures of the basement. this is what our basement looks like where our electrical and old tiny fuse boxes are. and this here wiring mess is what runs electricity to the restaurant that they're supposedly trying to repair. ~ you can see it even more close youv here. it's quite a jumble. ~ up here next i'll show you pictures from inside our apartment. this here is where a gas furnace was located until two days ago. the landlord just removed that so that pg&e could come in and perform an inspection to reroute -- turn on a gas main to our apartment again. it had been turned off for

quite a while. but you see the mess here that is left, first of all. that is just the way the landlord left our house like this. what i wanted to get at is we are just now having gas restored. we have no heat in this building, that furnace which was illegal anyway, was the last form of heat in these apartments. there is no heat in the apartments. for the period of 2-1/2 weeks after this fire, we didn't even have hot water or a stove or an oven to cook with because, again, there was trouble with the gas main and the way it was routed between a restaurant and our residence. what i'm trying to tell you is this building is not up to code. so, the landlord can get his house in order, please do not allow any additional construction or installation at this property. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item? okay, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> well, this is interesting.

i don't think we've ever had a situation where an individual has come up and talked about the maintenance issues of a building. i guess i would ask project sponsor or staff to say if any of these things would make it inadvisable to install the antennas. i mean, these are item that need correction, i would agree, but i don't know that -- i want know whether there is any reason we would not want to approve the antennas at this time. >> staff would expect that if the conditional use authorization was granted, that building permits would follow and building permits and the review process, department of building inspection would demonstrate the building was up to code with respect to installation for wiring and the effect it may have on the residents in the building. >> and then i would guess i could ask if we have the ability to, you know, encourage

d-b-i to pursue any deficiencies that may exist as a condition of our approval. >> staff would be happy to raise those concerns with our peerses at d-b-i as well. >> that would be a good thing. i'll see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> whatever avenues need to be pursued should be communicated with the person who just commented. and i think this is not in front of us. since staff described the processes by which building applications will be filed after this permit has been approved, there is a process which will probably hopefully coincide with some additional assistance to the people who spoke today. the comment i'd like to make is -- i'm not talking about the technical nature of these applications. i'm talking about seeing visual alterations to buildings in the context of these applications which concern me. i do think that adding this 4

something rather might not be as consequential on this building, but as installation of additional antennas require us to consider more and more buildings which are being altered in their very appearance. buildings of lesser or more importance [speaker not understood]. the impact of wireless communication facilities throughout the city are starting to be very noticeable. i don't have to discuss that because the director has previously stated his thoughts on that. but i do think that we have an obligation to very carefully and which locations require what type of intervention and more really address the change in building nature, i start to not believe that we're going down the right road. technology is one thing. altering buildings to accommodate technology by changing the buildings is a completely different subject matter. and i think requires a different set of criteria than

just sitting here and putting something on consent. so, i'd like to put that out as a note to us as a commission, to department as basically facilitates speaking with taint and verizon and whoever they are. i start to notice that i will not be very happy seeing these kinds of whatever they are because it does just doesn't make sense. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i believe this comment is usually made by commissioner borden, but i'll go ahead. to the person who spoke and to the at&t rep, if you want to have radiation testing done, at&t is obligated to provide that. that means both before, i believe, and after the antennas are installed you can request radiation testing in your units. i believe that's correct, staff. >> that is correct.

>> right, thank you. so, maybe you could exchange information in the corridor if you want to pursue that. >> commissioner wu. >> also to the gentleman who spoke during public comment, i think i would advise you to take your issues to the rent board as well. d-b-i may be the inspection agency, but i think the rent board can help you with your grievances against the landlord. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'm okay with the -- i appreciate the remarks by commissioner moore. if there were changes that were more significant, we'd have to take a look and possibly not have it on consent. we think they're doing a very good job of masking the antennas and making it blend in nicely with the buildings. they are not just putting a box on the top or antennas that are visible without any cover. that is about a good as you're going to do. so, i would move to approve.

>> second. >> on that motion to approve with conditions, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. and places you under -- excuse me, on item 11, case no. 2012.0718e - event center and mixed use development at piers 30-32 and seawall lot 330, informational item updated project design. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. i'm joy navarrete of planning staff. the item before you is an informational item. on the event center and mixed use development at piers 30-32 and seawall lot 330. we did come before you on february 28th with the earlier design, and today we are going to be looking at design 2.0. i have with me here people from the office of economic and work

force development, gen matts and tam drew. also [speaker not understood] craig deckers and [speaker not understood], and they are accompanied by their team also from a com and star. other folks that are here if you have any questions, peter albert from mta, clark miller and jessie bout from strada and we have ellen warner and rick welch from the lawyers. with that i'll start with jen matts and we'll have our presentation. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. we're really delighted to be here today to unveil to the commission design 2.0. this is really -- what you're going to see today is a result of about six months worth of work, really taking into account information that we've heard from various stakeholders from you as commissioners when we were before you in february from staff at bcdc from

community members that we talked to in the citizen advisory meeting as well as numerous other stakeholders in the many, many meetings that we've been having across the city. and we think that this design that you will see really very thoughtfully begins to better articulate some specificity around program open space and the maritime uses that we anticipate being at this pier as well as the buildings and the street level retail that will be experienced by pedestrians moving up and down the embarcadaro and the building topology and uses on the seawall lot. i do just want to take a minute to say congratulations to the warriors for winning their graham last night. it was incredibly exciting game. ~ game and really the history of the franchise, it was a very exciting moment as the new team is really sort of coming into its own. so, i think we are here with a bit of celebrating feeling.

if you have questions around transportation, around aspects of the project that are not directly related to design, or questions about schedule, we're happy to answer those at any time. thank you. ~ celebratory with that, let me introduce craig dikers, principal from [speaker not understood] to give you the design presentation. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, commissioners. we are here today to represent to you many of the modifications and adjustments that have been made in response to various state, city, local community groups as well as individuals from the areas surrounding the project. a number of changes have occurred and we're going to go through them in detail. but before we do that, we thought it might be interesting to raise one particular issue that has been interesting to us in terms of the connection of this project to the overall urban experience of the waterfront along the entire bay areas of the san francisco city limits. there are a number of features

that we all recognize along the waterfront. the waterfront is composed of both natural access points as well as architectural features, all the way from golden gate bridge where the presidio is now being redeveloped, or the palace of fine arts or the buildings there and how they're used, fisherman's wharf that we all recognize and of course now to the ferry building once the embarcadaro has been removed. there is the next point that really is china basin where at&t park is, below that pier 70 is for review for development. ~ under review for development. i wouldn't call it a gap, but a long space that interrupts this rhythm of architectural features along the water front that punctuate one's experience as you walk along the bay. you might felt that yourself. our proposal is not just to create meaningful waterfront access, but also to create something that feels in line with the rhythm of architectural features that

define the shoreline as we see san francisco today. so, that was just one small point we wanted to raise in terms of the larger urban vision that the project represents in addition to waterfront access. the next thing to point out is that there is a tremendous focus being put on the development of this pier in terms of managing the pollutants and other issues that are being sort of -- i would say are component of the decay of the pier as it sits today and to provide more meaningful access than currently exists beyond the fence line that keeps it from public use as it stands presently. we have always shown you this image, and this is the only image you'll see, i believe it's old except for site plan. everything else will be new. we wanted to remind you a big part of the idea of the project is to create meaningful north-south visual access as well as east-west access and to draw the bridge pier beautiful

bridge pier into the picture to the party so to speak. and there is a way of making this building connect to its negative spaces, open spaces as much as it is through the design of the objects themselves. so, here is the most recent renderings that have been created and i believe you have in front of you. this is a slightly aerial view, not too high, but mid level view looking back towards the northeast to the bay bridge pier and to piers 28 and 26 in the distance. you'll see that we have maintained the essential conceptual idea that we're framing between the elements of retail and landscape as well as the event center itself. this view towards the bridge pier. and of course back in the other direction towards brian wolf park. here you can see a site plan that was proposed in version 1, and circles showing the primary areas of change have been significant number of changes that have occurred. some of them rather crucial to our original design. if we start up on the eastern edge of the pier, you'll see

that the one time the roof can't lever cantilevered out over the water. [speaker not understood]. at the northeast corner the building came to that proud point there and occupied most of the northeast corner of the pier level access. so, very big changes have occurred there which we'll talk about in a moment and we've moved the building, the arena building to the west a little bit to provide more access to the waterfront. and you'll see we've adjusted public access points at the northwest corner of pier 30-32. we've worked with the retail to provide more meaningful access up the center stair space which you see goes between the retail functions. and down at the south end we've adjusted public access space there to be more meaningful. we moved the site, if i can just point here. the public plaza that you see in this area here to the north on the seawall site has been

shifted into a space which allows for public access. more porous access to the seawall site. we also deconstructed the hotel component into two individual components rather than one. here you can see the site plan as it exists today and i think more importantly -- i'll set this over here -- this is the outline of many of the components from version 1. so, we have removed the can't letter out over the water to provide a minimum 40 foot of access space along the eastern edge of the pier. ~ we removed the rather dramatic feature which is bringing the building right down into the water and instead we've replaced that with more meaningful open access space for pedestrians as they move along the water front. we created a more intimate setting for the central plaza between the event center and the retail. and you can see that we've minimized the retail space roof lines to make these components

more i'd say compatible in scale with other feature that people experience along the waterfront. the little red square at the top there is reds and we've been in discussion with the ownership of reds and they've agreed and are interested in moving their site to the southern southwestern corner which you can see the little white square there in the southwest corner, the little plaza. and you can see the two seawall side two components of the hotel with a little bridge crossing between them and a passage and courtyard there to make the building more porous in that area from main street. if you notice, that little walkway which i can point here, that's this walkway -- hard to do -- there, that little walkway lines up with main street. and as you're coming down main street you have a view straight out to -- actually to the bay itself. we've moved the residential component which is the southern portion of the seawall site as far south as we can make it to provide as open space as is possible between water mark and

bayview place immediately adjacent to beale street. and we have also minimized the footprint of all of these elements. they were over the general guidelines before and now they're below that, they're about 9,000, 9-1/2,000 square feet in floor plate. ~ this is a general upper level view across at&t park to the bay bridge and beyond. some of the new towers that have been incorporated into the sky line and they're currently undergoing construction. so, we'll see them in the near future. and if you look closely, we feel that there is a sort of a general stepping down towards the waterfront which we're trying to pay homage to the general direction of city planning that's has given us with regard to the experience along embarcadaro. i'm sorry, i put the wrong button there. there you go. this is looking back from the financial district up in here again, across to the east bay and oakland with the event center placed out on the eastern most edge of the pier. these are some of the numbers

that have been evaluated over the course of the last few months. you'll see that we have, in fact, reduced the height of the event center. there was a number of issues being presented to us regarding height. it's not easy to do. i can tell you that. people worked really hard just to get it done as much as we have been for about 10, 10 or more feet. so, a lot of efficiencies in the engineering that we're working on there in terms of the height. the retail areas have come down opt on the arena side. you can see there from [speaker not understood]. the seat capacity has been fixed. i'm not sure if you want me to go through all of these numbers. is that okay? keep going, then? parking spaces have come down from 6 30 to about 500. we've provided a minimum of 300 valet bicycle parking spaces. in addition there are open bicycle parking spaces being placed outside of the virginia lay parking, about 100 of those. valet ~ the event square footage come

down dramatically 770 to 730, roughly a thousand square feet. open space area has increased from 50 to 53%, about 6.7 acres. it's nearly three union square areas of space available for the public to enjoy the sky. there is a new addition of the temporary deep water berth which has been placed on the edge of the pier. not a berthing facility, an overflow, allows access during certain times. year. we've also increased from 0 to 40 feet access along the eastern edge of the pier. and we've provided now you'll see several ways in which you can view into the arena directly and, of course, see out of the arena to the surrounding landscape. that's a new feature. in terms of the seawall site, we have adjusted these figures also. some of them have gone up so we've increased the residential scope from about 160 to 200,000 gross square feet. the hotel has moved from