property looks like right now. this is about how tall everything is in the entire surrounding area. i cannot tell you how tall it is but it could go pretty well off the page. i live right across from the development and it was a very long process. i've spent close to $200,000 on repairs on this house that i'm working on now. i am disturbed that i received no notice of this disturbed construction except for a flyer i got from the neighborhood association.

i don't understand how such a huge construction project could happen so close to my home without even being told about it. this seems like a completely ridiculous and out of place building to have over here. i am not opposed to the development, i just think that it is ridiculous. thank you. >> thank you.

>> my name is james lundgren. as a former resident, i wish to state my opposition to the proposed building. the eastern neighborhoods plan needs to be administered as wisely as possible. a 55 foot high building should not be allowed on this residential block. this goes a long way toward undoing the fabric of this building. who want to make sure that they

don't develop the this. >> the entry to the liberty hill historic district should not be in question. it should enhance the high expectations of the community. this building will dominate the streetscape and undermine the aesthetic and environmental life in this area. the environmental impact of this project.

this project definitely has negative impact. the air quality will be worse, the noise will be louder, the shadows will be greater. in the aggregate, this poses an instrumental impact. this architecture should build community, not destroyed. they specify their concerns. one, the scale was a concern. the architect has refused to budge from his plan.

setback is a concern this is not take the place of a setback and is inappropriate at this location. materials are a concern, this building does not have a cynical attitude that would tie it to visually to our historic district. aluminum windows are just one glaring feature. with the advent of the south of mission and stark research survey, this side will be surrounded by historic resources and the historic district. the site really should be developed in a way that is comparable and compatible and would add to the feeling of this committee. think you. i think that that concludes

this. >> is there additional public comment on this item? public comment disclosed. -- is closed. this is a hearing on the deck. as i might amplify, the majority of the buildings for about the sign and this has yet to be reviewed or processed so i can answer any questions.

>> i want to thank all of the neighbors for coming out and speaking to this. i believe that this document is adequate and they did in fact addressed the concerns that we raised adequately at the original hearing. also, the project will be coming before us so i think that there's still time to discuss specifics around the project. this was discussed during the eastern neighborhood process, this block of valencia. there was an extensive discussion there. the height limit there is actually 55 feet and i believe

that as it is at 55 feet. i believe that the staff adequately addressed the questions that we raised regarding the peace of this draft. with that, i move to uphold the proposal. >> do i hear it second? >> i have a lot of concerns and i realize and agree with my colleague that many aspects need to be analyzed and they were analyzed. my concern is this, if this comes back as a building that is 35 feet or 40 feet and if we have 10 units and there are 12

units and they have 10 or 12 parking places, the impact will be less. i guess i have a question for the environmental staff. if this building comes back and the commission would approve a smaller building and the parking and other changes such as design and things that the neighbors have spoken to, does this maker the deck still adequate if the building is different? >> this was still be adequate because we have analyzed the larger projects. anything smaller in scale or less would be less of a less than significant impact. >> i believe that this is not

the time to make a decision on the project. i want to make sure that if it was smaller, if some of the other concerns are mitigated like the deficit which is 34 parking places could be a largely mitigated by providing parking, that would not need to be analyzed. >> right. >> >> thank you. i share a lot with what has been said. many of the things that we are looking at, we will be looking at this and i think that we can do some designs that are more compatible with the neighborhood perhaps and a case can be made for putting in something that is smaller. this does not have such a large impact. i'm not saying that that is

necessarily what happened but i would be sympathetic to something along those lines. i'm not sure what the history of what this whole project was. i would assume sponsors worked with staff. this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. many people ride their bicycles off and they used the transportation. they meet their needs to be comminations to new residents as exacerbated in the parking situation. maybe we should put closely at what we are promoting and telling people to do our may be the project sponsored is this and that is the way it came to be. i would have hoped that we would have drafted something that would have been an little bit smaller and a little bit more sensitive or encourage staff when this was possible. thank you.

>> i want to express my support for holding the preliminary deck and i encourage the project sponsor and the architect to be responsive and in dialogue with the neighbors because this project comes before us. also the argument made today normally applies to in we have a specific project. i suggest in order to minimize everyone's effort and antagonism, that you all work with each other to -- which has more than neighbor support. the project has certain requirements based on the new zoning which prevailed including the how valencia street is about to become. >> i would agree with both commissioners who previously spoke with respect to the design

aspect of the proposed project. i will try to emphasize the need for the project sponsored to work as much as possible with the neighbors and the neighborhood organization. this is one of the larger turnouts we have had for an appeal. the project comes before you. i don't know if the appellants will appeal this to the board of supervisors, is that the next round? >> yes.

>> i apologize because they did 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. commissioners. i am the project sponsor for