to approve this project. if you have questions, i am available. >> thank you. now is time for public comment. i apologize. i made you get up twice today. calling rev. roland gordon. >> thank you, honorable commissioners. i'm president of the church directly across from the proposed project. my position is neutral. people wanted me to sign a petition. i am the newest person. i am going to be the intermediary to bring peace and work with everybody. the bottom line, a long-term community member did sign a speaker card. i understand the owner is here also. i would host a meeting for the

community to hear both gentleman -- both gentlemen present what is positive about what they are going to do, and have the community here, so we can have some peace at the bottom line. i am neutral. i came here to represent the community so we could have good diplomatic relationships in that area. >> my name is jesse waters. i would like to present the commission a signed petition against the cell phone antennas. i have 36 signatures from neighbors who were within the 300 foot radius of this proposed project. these individuals all are against this project. we feel if -- there are already six antennas on this project.

this proposal is an additional 6 cell phone antennas on this project. that is going to be a total of 12. but it is going to overshadow other carriers. i have metro pcs. when at&t first went on that building, i used to have full bars. now i have one bar. now if we put verizon up there, i am going to end up with no service at all from the carrier. that is one of the concerns. there is a health factor. the concentration of some of the towers on one place -- i have looked at different studies. if you have six, it is not a big deal. if you start piling on and

increase the number of antennas on a property it will be a health problem. we are asking to continue this acceptance of the cell phone antennas. it will let more people and neighbors get involved in this. president fong: is there additional public comment on this item? >> i am the one trying to design this rooftop system. i would like you to refer to the package that came with this. there is a report from him and madison, an independent consultant -- from hammond madison, an independent consultant. this will put a radiation level which combined with at&t's would

be less than 4% of the public limit. the public with it goes out to within 41 feet directly in front of these antennas. it is reduced in distance as you get above and below. thus, there is nothing but this one particular building we are going on which is within 41 feet of these antennas. these meet the public safety requirement of the san francisco health department and the fcc and osha by 4% of what is allowed. from horizon -- verison's point of view, we need this system. we have a hole in coverage, demonstrated by the maps in front of you, and to the west there is a serious problem. additionally, this will provide coverage on the west side of san

francisco city college. they are building a number of new buildings. that is blocking the coverage being provided by the bart tracks. the system with sprint being harmed when at&t comes on -- i suspect this is a problem with sprint equipment and antennas. each carrier operates on separate frequencies, as licensed by the fcc. there is very little interference. the only interference that verizon wireless has ever had has been with t-mobile. those problems were rectified by the fcc by reassigning their frequencies a few years ago. i am here to answer any questions you may have. thank you.

president fong: is there additional public comment on this item? no. commissioner moore: zoning administrator, would you go ahead? scott sanchez: i want to see if the commission would like to move forward with this item, if you would consider the proposed condition of approval the department has developed for pipeline project, on recommendation by the board of supervisors. i can read that condition into the record. commissioner moore: i wanted to address that, giving you the word first. if we are creating a larger level of comfort for the public that there are new checks and balances, this is supported by the supervisors, has been initiated by us for the last 18 months. this being right in front of us at the beginning of the new year, i would strongly support that we do that. i am making the comment as a generic, and for other project

of a similar kind in front of us today. scott sanchez: i will read the proposed condition, which states use is authorized as long as an independent evaluator selected by the planning department determines the information and conclusions submitted by the wireless service provider in support of its request for a conditional use are accurate. the provider show fully cooperate with the evaluator, and shall provide any and all data to allow the evaluator to verify that the maps, data, and conclusions about service, coverage, and the capacity are accurate. the independent value witter, upon request by the wireless server which service provider, a professional engineer licensed by the state of california.

commissioner moore: as a follow- up, i would have had our discussion first to get more detail. i know that is in the spirit of commissioner borden, coming from the industry. i want to express my support for your own work and working with the supervisors to have another possibility for checks and balances. i would ask that we consider that. obviously, there are other people who may speak to this matter. commissioner antonini: we could take action and implied a verification -- verification that would occur after our approval? scott sanchez: that is correct. you would have to adopt the draft conditions of approval in addition to the commission i just mentioned here. commissioner antonini: we could in this action approve those for this project, and then decide

whether to approve this project. i would be supportive of approving the draft conditions as presented, and also approving this project. it has been pointed out but a couple of speakers there will be a big population gain occurring in the area. buildings have almost completed construction, so the demands will be even greater, especially with the proximity to mass transit available there. many people will come from other areas, passing through here. as far as overshadowing -- i have never heard that before. i believe many deficiencies are of a particular carrier. as we know, they are on different wavelengths, the exception being the t-mobile and of horizon -- and verizon sharing the same wavelength. i think the have repaired that.

additional antennas should not impact carriers on other wavelengths. the question about the rf wavelengths that are cumulative -- the findings conclude all of the existing antennas were still less than 4% of the public limit at the difference of 41 -- a distance of 41 feet directly at the level of the antennas, a place where you have to be hovering in space to be that close. i would make a motion to approve both, if that is ok. commissioner borden: second. commissioner sugaya: although i understand the board of supervisors direction, it does not seem to me to address the concerns of most of the people we have been hearing from.

that is less to do with the coverage aspect and more to do with the health effects of additional antennas. while i support it, i am a little reluctant to do so. i was not at the hearing, so i do not know who appeared to refute i guess it was at&t's request for antennas. there is a gentleman here from hamilton edison. were you at that particular hearing? i do not know at the hearing whether it was health concerns or coverage. when we hear about coverage issues, it is usually people who say, "i have a cell phone and it works." if you look at the map, i think it is a matter of interpretation on the maps we have, in which

they are going to be taking -- placing their antennas. it is coated in red. i am not exactly sure what poor coverage means. we have different terminology coming from different companies. i think at&t may not use the term poor coverage. they tend to use something called -- is poor coverage if you are inside the house, and is ok on the street, and that kind of thing. we have different ways of describing what poor coverage or good coverage is, which also is confusing, i think, to us. >> my recollection from the hearing -- i was not there, but did what a portion of some of these hearings. there were concerns regarding public information on the at&t web site that part of our coverage areas. whether or not the provider would work in your neighborhood

-- it said it would. the information provided to the commission said they did not have coverage. there was a discrepancy that led the board of supervisors to require this condition. that was all i was going to say. >> who looks at the website and believes those maps in the first place? i go to utah off and on and would like to have coverage in this town called delta, which is out in the middle of nowhere. it says there is no service for certain carriers. if you look at the at&t map, it says it is fine. but you cannot accurately say where it is fine and is not fine. in town, which is only 32,000 people, it is fine. if you go 5 miles away, there is no coverage. but the nine journalists as you would have coverage. to rely on that kind of thing is

-- i won't say it. it seems to me that the carriers have a problem in their marketing department saying things are great to get you to buy the phone, but when they want to fulfill that by placing antennas -- you can point to the map and say, "you already told us everything is ok." since we cannot address the radiation or health issues, i don't know. it does not seem we are going to resolve that problem this way. commissioner moore: i have a minor detail. if we are going to have a separate meeting on the subject, i started to ask myself -- with residential buildings with echolocation -- co-ollocation, i have been

using a cell phone since 1992. it was a tiny thing that looked beautiful but did not worked so well. -- work so well. some of these installations of and around a long time. when you are looking at a location on residential buildings, we might want to add when the other one was done, because standards for the public health and radiation have changed greatly in a larger time from. i am just throwing that out because i think we might have to look at co-location on residential buildings. >> to address that point, i think it is important. it is my understanding there are reports generated and reviewed include all existing rf. if it was approved in 1972 or recently, the rf image from it

would be included in the report to the department of public health. commissioner sugaya: i would like to clarify that. thank you. commissioner borden: i want to thank the board for trying to make headway in this direction, because we have been asking for that for some time. i share commissioner sugaya's cynicism as to whether distance makes it accurate or inaccurate. that has become a kind of sticky wicket. the thing i would love for us to be able to get -- we are talking about making the state to confidential. it would be interesting to know how closely the map that was identified mirrored what was found, and how much greater or worse the situation might be. i do believe, kind of to commissioner sugaya's point, if

i am trying to sell you a cell phone, i'll show you a map with coverage, not gaps. on the other side, you will have lots of issues. i have spoken to most of the commissioners this week and had trouble hearing each of them on a cell phone at different times, or in some cases had dropped calls. i know there are coverage issues in the city. we among ourselves have those issues. it would be interesting if we could, in a confidential way, get the data not at this project or the site, but be able to look at the discrepancy between what the map says and what the actual coverage areas are. if you want to go one step forward and looked and marketing data, that would be interesting. in the abstract, which would not identify particular projects, but it would be nice to know in the trance department -- trends department how things were looking. one of the things we said at the board of supervisors was it would be useful to have a

hearing at the health department where people would be part of the process. the health department has criteria by which it makes decisions to determine a health risk related to antennas, which is why we do not have jurisdiction over this issue. that is not our purview. it would be helpful if people could talk to the health department or have insight into why they make these decisions this way. i will put that out there again. i will approach supervisor olague maybe to address that. again, we do not have that as our purview. commissioner antonini: before we act on this, project sponsor, there was a question about definitions of good in terms of this particular project. what do we mean by those general terms? just so we can have something to hang our hat on as far as those

definitions. >> at the pleasure of the chairman, i am the designer of the system. these maps with the berries covers -- colors you can see, i generated. they are based on engineering data and drive test data. we have backup drive test data, and buried in thousands of drug test data, for olympic canoe -- thousands of drive test data, for alembic ave. these are engineering maps. the red means there is poor to no coverage. in this area, driving in your car, you will probably get a drop call. the yellow is called marginal area. you will probably get ok outdoor coverage, but no in-building coverage. in the green, there is good coverage. you will have in-building

coverage also. do you have questions? commissioner antonini: i think that gives us a pretty good understanding of what the colors mean on this map. >> i am available if you have any technical questions. commissioner sugaya: just a quick -- to staff, can we work with the carriers to standardize that kind of language a little bit? assuming that the carriers all have similar engineering approach to how they talk to light their coverage. scott sanchez: that is something we can look into. commissioner sugaya: which they may not. scott sanchez: i would like to clarify whether the commission wishes to adopt that additional condition of approval, to make that clear for the record. commissioner antonini: my motion included both. >> the motion is for approval

with conditions, including the condition as read into the record by the zoning administrator, scott sanchez. on that motion? commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. president fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. >> that motion passed unanimously. now consider item no. 6. the zoning administrator will consider item 7 at the same time. this is for 371 and 375 11th st.. >> you have before you a request for a conditional use operation to expand an additional business use doing business as the dna lounge, located within a industrial mixed use zoning district. the western soma planning district, and a 50-x-book the

trip. it will create interior connections -- the bulk district. it will create interior connections to increase the volume of the lounge from 8000 square feet to 11,985 square feet. it will not result in expansion of the existing building envelope or square footage. the project sponsor is also seeking a variance from providing an off street loading space. there has been public comment only in support of the project. the five letters are included in the ks report. the department recommends approval on the grounds it meets all requirements of the planning code and has demonstrated it has adhered to the good neighbor policies affecting 803.5. additionally, the enlargement of the use secures an active use within its neighborhood, and promotes arts and entertainment activities which serve the city

and region. this concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions. thank you. president fong: project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is aileen. i am here on behalf of dna lounge and a pizza parlor. before i get into the substance of this, i want to point out that we did have a meeting and only two folks attended. i believe one is in the audience. we did not get any letters of opposition. there was no outreach to dna staff, who are always available, because of the nature of their business. we will address what we believe the issues are, but i want to hope we can reserve some time to rebut any concerns. we are here on a conditional

use application and variance, required under the planning of section 181 f, which is geared toward nighttime entertainment uses. it allows a non-conforming nighttime entertainment use to expand as long as it meets all the conditional use criteria and meets all the other criteria under the planning code, hence the need for the variance, because we do not provide a living space. as many of you know, dna lounge is been around for many years. it is located on a block in the city where there are many other nightclubs. it is an intense nighttime activity use. we have letters in the record from our supporters that say, "i have lived on the block, and when i bought my unit, i had to sign a notice informing me i am moving into a block where there is a lot of noisy activity at night." the benefit of the project, in

terms of addressing concerns about noise, is all we are doing is building a communicating walkway between the buildings. we have to do a subdivision map to do that. we are eliminating the lot line between the two. there will be more internal circulation space for patrons to enjoy dna lounge, get a bite of pizza, and continue to enjoy that activity. the result will be fewer folks on the sidewalk potentially making noise. again, that is a tremendous benefit. it keeps an existing news and enhances it, allowing dna to continue the program they are doing. the last point i will make before i turn this over to the architect is that dna does adhere very seriously to its good neighbor policies, and implements them, is open to complaints. the women who attended the meeting said the we are open and will work with you. we said we would do that and

heard nothing. i will turn this over to mr. anderson. i am available for questions, as is a member of the membership -- management and ownership of the lounge. >> my name is jason anderson. i and the designer working with dna lounge. i wanted to take a moment and perhaps draw your attention to a couple of items that might be of use to you. if i could have the overhead, please. on a sheet a02, there are diagrams that clearly illustrate the existing use, showing the ground floor. the larger building, the dna lounge -- >> you can move the mike brim. >> thank you.

-- the mic. >> thank you. the upstairs art gallery is currently vacant. the other diagrams on that sheet show unification of the entire new parcel as an aide to occupancy. but the communicating openings which bendix brought attention to can be seen on sheet a1, right here. right here, we have an existing dividing wall, which we are hoping to open, two six-foot openings in for communicating entrances between the formerly separate parcels. the exterior elevations -- there are no changes to the exterior elevations.

essentially, it is the two communicating entrances. it is an increase in the number of bathrooms and other minor changes to the interior, but no exterior facades changes. that concludes my presentation. i am available for any for the condition. thank you. president fong: any public comment on this item? i have one speaker card, jackie bryson. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it is good to see a familiar face i have not seen in a while. my name is jackie bryson, and i do live in the south of market area, not very far from the dna lounge. i am the person who walks around a lot as a form of exercise for me, in addition to which, i am on top of graffiti, illegally done flyers, etc.

toward that end, i have had problems getting down 11th street. gavin newsom was with me a while back. i am very eager for those people to get into the lounge and spend money and tell their friends and come back but they must leave that clear path of travel for myself and other disabled people. i had to come down here and go on record so that it will not be, nobody came and complained about not being able to get down the sidewalk. the flyer, i can take up in a different arena. as far as the 3 ft. wide clear path of travel,