Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 1, 2011 10:00pm-10:30pm PDT

10:00 pm
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
10:01 pm
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
10:02 pm
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
10:03 pm
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
10:04 pm
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.
10:05 pm
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
10:06 pm
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
10:07 pm
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
10:08 pm
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
10:09 pm
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
10:10 pm
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
10:11 pm
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
10:12 pm
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.
10:13 pm
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
10:14 pm
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
10:15 pm
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,
10:16 pm
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 alone, and we project the number to grow by eight to 10 times by 2014. it is important to address these issues to better serve our customer experience, which we believe this site will do, and as i said, i'm available for any questions you may have. commissioner
10:17 pm
president olague: and a public comment? seeing none. commissioner antonini: this is inappropriate public sight. it is located at the top of the hill on 19th avenue, which gives it a good place to project from. there is a big change in coverage if you look at the coverage maps. i can tell you there are some dropped calls that occurred, being a customer of this company. on 19th avenue, the volume is very high. it sounds to me like it makes a lot of sense. as was pointed out by the project sponsor, it will be quite some time until this merger, if it is approved, occurs. also, the demand is probably going to continue to increase. we will have to reevaluate that at the time and the merger may occur and make assessments as to the antenna needs at that time.
10:18 pm
i would be supportive of a movement to approach. vice president miguel: if i have been reading the general financial news correctly, it will be at least a year until anything is approved regarding the merger. i have asked the department, in order to get a better thought, of the other three corners, without realizing i was going to be driving by their twice yesterday. even though i have seen that corner for years and years, it did not occur to me before how ugly and stubby that tower was. it is not in proportion to the building. raising it will make the building but better, oddly enough. the antennas that are there now are somewhat slack on to the side and will be gone.
10:19 pm
architecturally, whether we like antennas are not, -- or not, this will improve the building in my mind. commissioner sugaya: i agree with the length of time this might take. i have no doubts it is going to be approved. the mood for not doing it i do not think exists in this country at the moment. i could be wrong. i think from a planning standpoint it would be nice for future at&t and t-mobile sites, we had coverage maps that included both companies. i can see from the one that has been provided here that the need, at least from the maps we reviewed, will increase coverage in areas that are currently lacking signal. but i do not know if there is a
10:20 pm
t-mobile antenna sitting 10 feet away from this which will suffice in the future. maybe the gentleman from at&t already knows that. from what i have been reading, your systems are compatible. somebody was crooked from at&t in the news saying anybody that has a t-mobile phone now can use if we takeover. >> on the point of coverage maps, we do continue to operate as separate companies and do not have access to their data. i do not know if you can compel them to provide that data. we can grant you our coverage maps and will continue to do so until the merger takes place. we do not have access to any of their corporate information, unfortunately. commissioner sugaya: i was directing this more to staff to see if they can pry something loose. [laughter] president olague: i would support the request, going
10:21 pm
forward, if the department can keep that in mind. commissioner moore: the question which i continue to raise does not as much address at&t, verizon, or t-mobile, but covers the request for considering a comprehensive network of coverage, a respected of who owns it. who tells me that in this neighborhood there are 5% of people using t-mobile or at&t? who knows. there are many people who get frustrated with one particular phone. they buy and iphone but t-mobile does not cover iphone. you buy by taste, and switch companies so you can buy their phone. it is more about the phone, the look, as to whether you have
10:22 pm
company loyalty. i am personally more interested in how do we deal with 21st and 22nd century technology relative to a network or if i like this phone as my fashion statement i will get roaming rights else, rn continuing to overload everybody's towers. somebody needs to pick up this discussion for the city at large. i will be prepared to vote for whoever is of a mind to be the operator of one of those sites. commissioner sugaya: we could go the direction of what i think australia presumably is doing, which is to build up the system -- have the government allowed the system. the think phone companies sort of lease it or something.
10:23 pm
i am not sure exactly how it works. the "was, "why do we need 85 different companies building the system when we can do it and reach everyone fairly throughout the country?" socialist, i know. president olague: we cannot even get health care straight. vice president miguel: that is a difference between america and other countries. we have competition. wife -- while we have the entitlement before us on this installation and the others, the customers of the cellular phones are not limited just to san francisco residents, but many people who passed through san francisco but still would like to be able to pick up their cell phone signals, or those who are visiting or maybe vacationing here. we have to take into consideration the fact that we are serving the broader public than just the residents of san francisco when we deal with
10:24 pm
these questions. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. president olague: aye. >> that motion passed six to one. commissioners, you are now on item 16, case 3438 mission street. mission street.
10:25 pm
>> diego sanchez with the planning department's staff. at present the request for a conditional use authorization to install a wireless transmission facility, five panel antennas and associated equipment by t- mobile within the nc-3 zoning district. the project is on mission between kingston and brokok. this complies with the planning code and is consistent with setting guidelines -- sightinti guidelines. it is a mixed-use structure in a high-density district. they have held community outreach meetings for residents within 500 feet of the proposed meeting in december 2010.
10:26 pm
the objective is to maintain a comprehensive wireless network in san francisco and provide service that serves the public good. the staff is aware of one telephone call in opposition to the project, and one request for further information, citing health concerns. stepper commence approval of the conditional use authorization with standard conditions. that concludes our presentation. i am here for questions. president olague: project sponsor? >> good afternoon. i would like to think diego sanchez and staff for their diligent preparation, and for preparing a thorough and accurate staff report. t-mobile feels this product
10:27 pm
design is of a very high quality. all five proposed antennas would be placed in false events on the roof and would blend in nicely -- false vents on the roof and would blend in nicely. you cannot see them too well here. existing and proposed. this is one view showing from mission street looking northwest at the site. you can see where our three sectors would be located. it is a total of five antennas, as diego mentioned. there is another before and after photos. this one is on mission looking southwest. this is above mission street. this is the before and after. there are also some existing rooftop bentz already in place on the roof. -- vents already in place on the
10:28 pm
roof. his is dealing from san jose avenue -- this is viewing from san jose avenue. this is on the west or backside of the roof. the facility would benefit the surrounding neighborhood, extending coverage north to 29th street, south to highland avenue. this is pretty low-tech, but -- oops. i don't know how to expand this about -- out. you cannot assume about -- cannot zoom out? that is ok. this is the existing coverage in
10:29 pm
the area. this is our proposed site. where it shows yellow is essentially where you just have good coverage in your vehicle. you cannot get good coverage inside of the building. a large swath, a radius along our proposed site would be filled in. you would be able to get excellent coverage within buildings, as well as on the street and in vehicles basically all the way from whitney to 29 st. and highland avenue. the project would also provide 3g infrastructure and services which previously had not an available, such as faster data transmission, internet, and multimedia, the kinds of things you can do with your smartphone. it would