ask me my opinion about the historic resources. at that time, the survey had been going on within the department. there is no proposed commercial district i don't think in this area for valencia's street in the survey. i don't know if the additional historical resources which were identified in the survey were taken into account by project and city staff win they did the additional work for it was part of the additional.

i am not on either side of the moment. i've not formulated an opinion except maybe some good comments were made by the neighbors. that piece of information might be something that needs to be looked at at this point. >> i have my questions regarding the project itself, many of which have been commented already by commissioners. i am very familiar with the area, not just because i have been a patron. i understand there question regarding construction which is not something normally before

this commission. i think that there are many questions regarding the building as presently proposed. this is not the hearing to deal with that but i think that there is strong consensus that i'm hearing from the commission in that regard. i feel that this should be upheld because i believe that department has done what we have asked them to do in this regard and i believe that it does not meet a full eir. all of the problems can be dealt with during the entitlement process. >> i will be voting to uphold this but i think i've made my

position clear and i hope that as we go forward with these various plans that we realize that it means of to a height but it does not mean the most possible. it means of to a certain density, it does not mean as many possible units as you can. i am not necessarily being critical of this project but rather it might not always be more intense or more high which is the best solution. if you lock yourself into too low a maximum parking, that is the only flow that you can get. >> the motion on the floor is to

uphold this. on that motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> you are now on item number 1643131 fill-- 16 for 3131 fillmore street. >> the plan is to turn the former tattoo studio an art gallery into a full-service

restaurant. the project sponsor intends to establish a new full-service restaurant with table service. this is in planning code 202. the recent legislation was adopted in january, 2009. this will consist of a preparation area and seating for approximately 44 people, a kitchen area, and a restaurant in town -- and a restaurant. the operations are 4:00 p.m.

until 12:00 p.m. monday through thursday. 12:30 p.m. monday and saturday. the business will be operating as a restaurant table service offering wine, small plates, and advertisers. this will provide a minimum of -- of the gross receipts for food sales compared to other purposes. as far as issues and considerations, the restaurant will be independently owned and not considered a formula retail use. the project sponsor currently operates a wine bar which she has operated since 2008. the restaurant will not be operated as another branch of the wine bar.

they will have a collection of domestic and international wine. they will apply for a license from the department about a halt beverage control. in february, 2010, the plan department survey estimated approximately 12% of the business and the entities occupied by eating and drinking establishments. since the survey was completed, there was just one other restaurant approved. this is well below the 20% threshold as indicated in the commerce and industry element of the general plan which signals a potential overconcentration of eating and drinking establishments. to date, the department has received -- has not received any letters or oppositions to

the project. we have received free e-mail for additional information. the department received two letters of support. the plane department is recommending approval with conditions. the proposed project is considered very desirable because this will allow a neighborhood-serving use which neighborhoods can access by walking or taking public transit. this is the mixed commercial and residential character which currently does not have an overconcentration of eating and drinking establishments. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you.

>> good evening. i am on the board of the merchants association. i met with various different groups and organizations in the neighborhood and have gathered support from homeowners' associations and is also reached out to all the neighbors and i got everyone's signature for approval. >> thank you. >> i read through the report and i find that i will move to improve with conditions.

this still keeps us below 20% with the addition of a restaurant. >> i was impressed which -- with what was presented and except for supporting and i think your tin tin to the demographic that you want because you see a population growth which is very significant in those under 20. there is a really significant decrease in those 30 or above. what you're getting is fewer families but larger families, more families with children. i think that you are right on target with what you are dealing at this particular establishment and i appreciate

the information. >> the motion on the floor is for approval. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> you are now on item number 17444 for 444 presidio. >> this is a conditional use authorization under the planning code. to install wireless medication facilities consisting as part of the clear water network. this would have three antennas and one gps antenna.

that pursuant to this, the city and county of san francisco wireless vacation services and the proposal is a preferred location purpose to the co location site. there are new cylindrical enclosures above the roof and one would be on the east side of the penthouse. a new agreement cabinet will be located on the rooftop and a new gps antenna will be located on a new mount.

the project sponsor has indicated that the preparation of the new site in this geographic area. the proposed will -- this is part of the plan. the project sponsor will provide more information. i do have some good copies. this plan was submitted to the planning department. today, the planning department

has not received any letters or phone call. they're recommending approval with conditions. this is consistent with the 1996 facilities siting guidelines. the project site is a location preference for a preferred location. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> think you. -- thank you. >> project sponsor.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the project sponsor for clear wire. i would like to say thanks to staff. i really appreciate all of the hard work. clear wire is a new wireless internet service provider in the process of launching a

neighborhood network. we're proposing the installation of a new wireless facility to provide wireless internet services and ensure the needs of the resident, commercial, and industrial services in the area. clear wire is proposing three palace and one -- three panels and one equipment -- the remaining installation will be on the east side of the penthouse. all of this is designed to match the existing buildings. [inaudible]

and here it is looking west. the existing configuration with the sprint and tena and the additional antenna. this is looking west. this is the existing antenna on the corner of the building and the proposed clear wire which you can barely see on the penthouse. the existing coverage for the laurel heights area is nonexistent. this is a new carrier. that would be the proposed coverage if this was to be built. thank you for your time. i'm also available if you have questions. >> is there any public comment

on this item? public comment is closed. >> i would like to ask the director, we are in the middle of a more comprehensive plan regarding coverage. we have many of these have applications had continued. many of these fit into the same discussions because they are only continuing on the first discussions. >> i'm not aware of a plan we are doing. i think commissioner sugaya asked for clear wire on the coverage plans. this is wireless internet. i'm sorry, i'm forgetting

something. i'm not recalling the conditions of the comprehensive plan. >> because we have so much push back on the public, i think that there is a push by the board of supervisors to create a more comprehensive discussion about how much is enough which would mean that to the carriers would start sharing locations rather than establishing&r=q be possi. that's partially in light of potential conflicts in health reports. people are concerned about a larger policy question which i thought was initiated by the board. >> i will certainly find out. i'm sorry. i'm not recalling anything specific. i certainly know that you have had discussions with individual carriers about looking more broadly at where they might go. i will certainly find out if there is other requests that

the board has made recently. president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: in response to commissioner moore's concerns, of course, this would -- there's probably more of a national issue and the way it stands now, although as was pointed out, we're talking about internet connections rather than cell phone connections. so we're dealing with a different kind of carrier first of all. and they've done exactly i think what we were asked. and they basically showed us their entire plan and their proposed locations. and we've approved a few of them. but that's just the beginning of the process. so until there's some sort of national policy regarding the competitive situation, that's different from the situation we're in now, i think our only place sloongs it abides by the guidelines -- as long as it abides by the guidelines is to approve it so i move to approve the conditional use. >> second. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, i have a question for the project sponsor.

i don't know the right term for this, but isn't clearwire some kind of strategic partner or something with sprint? >> yes. sprint is actually a 51% shareholder in clearwire. and is -- clearwire has been deemed an affiliate. commissioner sugaya: so is part of the intent that sprint stays voice and you guys sort of take over the data aspect of it? >> yes, yes. commissioner sugaya: and wouldn't you say that you have wireless broadband, voice and data transmissions, voice will be voice over internet, is that right? >> that's correct. commissioner sugaya: ok. and this is the same system where you're using clear -- whatever the term. >> microwave dishes. >> yes. ok. thank you. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. on that motion commissioner antonini. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i want to

add and thank the project sponsor for providing the long-range plan. i don't think we've seen one -- of course, we haven't asked the other ones yet. >> thank you. commissioner olague. commissioner miguel. thank you. a unanimous vote for approval. thank you. commissioners, you are now on item number 18. case number 2010.0669-b, for 1259 lombard street. >> good afternoon, president miguel and members of the commission. i'm with planning staff. the item before you is a mandatory discretionary review for planning code section 317 for proposed demolition of the existing single family two-story building. this project was first reviewed by the commission on april 8, 2010. when the planning commission took the d.r. and disapproved the demolition based on a lack of information concerning the historic resources use and past approvals related to the property. the project was then sent to

the historic preservation commission for further review on june 2. the h.p.c. issued a memo that found that the property does not retain historic integrity and is not an historic resource. i have copies of that memo if any of the commissioners would like to review it again. based partially on this information, the planning commission then approved the new construction project, proposed for the property, on june 24. however, because of the new demolition permit had not yet been noticed to the public, the commission was unable to make a determination on the demolition at the same hearing. the required noticing has now been completed and the project is before you for a decision. the department is recommending that the commission not take d.r. -- sorry. that the commission -- that's right. not take d.r. and approve the demolition of the existing single family dwelling based upon the fact the commission has previously granted approval for the construction of two new structures at the property that require the removal of the existing structure.

and that the project -- nine of the 18 criteria for consideration of demolition under section 317. that concludes my presentation. and i'm available for any questions you might have. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. brett gladstone for redwood mortgage, the lender that took titles of the property after the previous developer defaulted on the loan and abandoned the project after he started demolition. as you just heard, when the project was put before you on june 26 for your approval of the building, the public notification was affected and therefore we have to go before you tonight to seek the actual

demolition permit. we've resubmitted it. and we hope that you will approve it tonight. i wanted to thank staff for their support. i would like to thank the commission for its 6-1 vote in favor of the new building. and i wanted to remind you that you had asked before approving the new buildings or the demolition that this could go before the h.p.c. for determination of whether it's a historic resource and we're very pleased that the -- they unanimously decided it's not an historic resource. i also want to mention that when you have the building permit plans before you on june, and approved this, the plans may -- called out very clearly that demolition of everything that's there today except the retaining walls was the necessary part of the new buildings.

i know my client, tom burwell, has had a lot of conversations lately with adjacent neighbors. to go over the details of methodologies, of demolition, demolition protections for foundations, etc., etc. and i don't know who's here tonight. but i certainly notice that there's a lot fewer neighbors here tonight, if any, than there was over the past six months of hearings. and i think that may be because of a lot of the outreach lately by tom burwell who's behind me. we would also like to thank the four immediately adjacent owners and tenants who have come here and written in support throughout. and of course the russian hill neighbors have been extremely supportive. they wrote strong letters of support. they had their doubts once they heard the public testify at the first hearing. they then did their due diligence several times over, interviewed all the parties and

looked at the records and came back to you with a renewed letter indicating that the concerns had been checked into. and they feel more comfortable than ever in allowing this to go forward and quickly. one of them was supposed to be here tonight. but probably is delayed. so in sum, we really hope that something go forward here quickly. i know the neighbors do. the site has been in the condition that is shown here for over 10 years. and there's a lot of people who look forward to the issuance of the building permit. and as you know, my client is a mortgage company. and one in good financial condition. and thus my client has the funds to start work. and remove this blight as soon as the building permits are issued. if you have any questions, there's -- the architect is here to answer them. thank you very much.

president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. and i think mr. gladstone summarized things pretty well and really happy that the historic preservation commission got a chance to look at this and decided it wasn't a resource and didn't have integrity for getting two family sized units, three bedrooms each and really well-designed. but i think it's -- and so i would move that we do not take d.r. and approve the demo. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is that you do not take discretionary review and approve the demolition as requested. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice-president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously.

>> we'll take a 10-minute break. >> commissioners, a 10-minute >> the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, you're on item 19, a, b and c for kice number 2009-ddv for 374 fifth street and 19-c which is case number 2009.0288-c, for 235 o'farrell street. >> the project before is you a discretionary review and variance application for 374 fifth street. the proposal is to convert the existing three-story, 47 room tourist hotel into a 46-room market rate residential hotel with single room occupancy, group housing rooms, on the second and third floors, a