need more time? less time? april. first week of april? >>: can we ask for a later date than march 28th? >>: april 11 is a good one. >>: i will second. >>: i will like to be sure that the inspector and the entertainment commission is appropriately involved in this. >>: that is part of the motion.

>>: inherently what pa'ina is asking is go beyond the limit that they recognized. >>: we are not giving that today. we are continuing the item. do you want to restate the motion? >>: the item is continued until april 11 with the understanding that independent sound engineers from both pa'ina loung and sundance kabuki theater will be involved in testing and determine the amount of sound generated within the kabuki theatre for the adjacent spa at levels that could be anticipated in the pa'ina loung in the range of say 94-101 decibels which is a top-level

that is possible to be generated. if it is good there, it will be good at lower levels. the other part of the motion is that any kind of mitigation taken should have another round of testing to determine what the levels are. >>: with all due respect i don't think that 94-101 was the range. maybe we could use the language of " to the point of no disturbance to the spa or the cinema". >>: if we are testing at 74, it has to be high enough noise. >>: we would be determining the maximum level.

>> commissioner antonini: the maximum expected level of noise that could be generated by activities in there. >>: commissioner sugaya. >> commissioner sugaya: i would like to pursue that a little bit. my concern is that the project sponsor went ahead in light of the independent commission's 74decibel limit to push beyond that. there is no excuse to me for having done that. that is why the sound engineer is here to say we pushed it to the other side of the wall. also the number of violations between the time we heard it and continued it and today

also does not give me a lot of confidence. i feel that one of the issues with the sound testing i think is -- and the sound experts can take this into consideration when they do their test because i think that is where we are headed, at different frequencies there are different impacts on the other side of the wall. if i'm sitting in the theater are having a massage in the spa, the higher frequencies i may not be able to hear. the lower bass sounds are going to come through at the same decibel level. is not only a matter of oh, it's 94 one side and 36 or 50 on the other or whatever.

that may be fine with the meter. it is a different situation is to what type of sound penetrates through the walls and through the soundproofing scenario. that has to be taken into consideration also, the frequency levels. i do know we are talking about the project sponsor having one engineer and you notice here in the spot having another engineer and all that, and having the engineer for the entertainment commission involved in some way or whether the case is that we all get together and hire one firm. that maybe another way to go. i would leave it up to the entertainment commission, to design, set up the scope of

work for the engineer or engineers who could do this testing work. >> president fong: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i assume the majority of people sitting in this room know that mr. saltar is a person to go to; over a large period of time, he would be the man as an independent expert witness or as of this moment associated with the other side who could not only tell us what building performance creates different noise levels. or noise transfer. i would have to ask that given his expertise is judgment would guide me and perhaps this

commission as an independent expert. it is about not just noise transfer; also objectively looking at the performance and the workup of the building to respond to additional noise levels. so in the future they can perform at a level acceptable to either side. changing from what it is to what is desired to be. and what is possible with an older structure. it will determine how much it can be. is a science on its own which

results in being tested by the entertainment commission with its instruments. given the limitations of the existing building type and retrofit, and the money that the new applicant would have to spend in order to have this happening within the room. -- that would be a proper summary of what i believe we should be looking for. commissioners you have what we need to do. i don't have a horse in either race. i am supportive to see a new venue to properly operate within the space available to be there but it needs to be able to perform based on technical requirements and all the others. i need to hear from an expert that it's doable and sanctioned

by the entertainment commission by the rules described to us. i'm sorry, mr. -- is there additional comment? >>: i would like to add to what you said is that the kabuki building owner - and i'm sure the theater and the spa would agree to make sure that we will work hand-in-hand with the pa'ina lounge, keep them fully informed. and the entertainment commission because they will ultimately decide what we can do. mr. saltar will not sit in a

closet. >> commissioner moore: i am interested to see mr. saltar step out as an expert. with an overlay, too close a tie to your clients. he is an expert, many decades. he has worked in this community, state of california. >>: i understand. thank you. >>: the way that i work is i'm very open and honest. if the measure is on level i want to share with everybody. i'm a biased.

i work with entertainment people and neighbors. if i continue to be involved this project that would be the spirit that i carry on my work. >>: thank you. >> commissioner hillis: ultimately what i look forward is the entertainment commission -- you limited to 74 dbs. >>: we did at that time because the sound limit was above that. we have a pass or fail. we have a complete report done by the venue; what you got was about a fourth of what should

have been there. you really need something much more thorough. again, commissioner moore stated, ultimately whoever does the report, a full sound report needs to be done. >> commissioner wu: as part of the motion i want the entertainment commission to be part of the motion. >>: if we are talking about an independent analysis as proposed by commissioner moore, and if it's mr. saltar, it is

only fair that the two i don't want to say "sides" share the cost. if it is independent it cannot be funded by one side i don't know the project sponsor is comfortable with that or not at this point. i don't want to have a series of battles between two experts. this is this, that is that. my testing method with this. the other guy says yeah but my testing method was this. i don't think the commissioner wants to get into that. >>: we are a small family business. we only have so many resources. it is hard to go against the big powerhouse like sundance. >>: if we are having an independent expert -- mr. saltar's name has been, but it

could be your guy, i don't care. it could be wanted both you, kabuki, the spas, the theatre shares teh cost. >>: i agree to that. >>: the planning commission would like both parties, the building owner, the lounge to have an initially agreed-upon sound consultant and share the cost. if they cannot agree on the part of the does analysis they both can do separate analysis and they can provide those to each other; they can do across brief 2-3 weeks before the hearing. >>: and i would like to have the scope worked up before hand

by the engineer and submitted to the entertainment commission's engineer for review and approval. >>: is that amendment to the motion agreeable? >>: agreeable only to the extent that i am not dictating some kind of 50-50 split across having to be mandatory; that has to be agreement by the two parties understand consultant who will be used. they can work out the proportion of how the funding will be done mutually to the mutual satisfaction. i don't want to get involved in the economics of it. there will be no possible feeling that things are not objective if it is just being paid by or prove but one side. i think the entertainment commission will sign off too. >>: commissioners on that motion to continue to april 11 for

either mutually agreed upon sound engineer analysis or independent sound analysis and proportion of cost sharing from the entertainment commission to determine maximal levels of noise. >> commissioner antonini: aye >> commissioner borden: aye >> commissioner hillis: aye >> commissioner moore: aye >> commissioner sugaya: something else came to mind, my other comment on frequencies. it seems that mr. saltar, i have a quick question. i forget your name. i'm sorry. you guys can come up. is there a way to take into consideration the type of sound transmission, phase in, high-end, that kind of thing where you are sitting in the

theater you may not hear the tweeter part but you might hear the bass? i don't want to have a db level seet and people in the theatre say hey, i hear the bass. >>: what you said is correct. clearly the objective is to not be fixated on numbers. the objective is to create satisfaction. and so i like the motion because you talk about not acoustically impacting, causing problems, taking a decibel level. your approach would be very effective. thank you. >> commissioner sugaya: aye. >>: anything else commissioners? >> commissioner sugaya: aye >> commissioner wu: aye >> president fong: aye

>>: the motion passes unanimously, 7-0. item 15, case 2012.1113 c, 3015 geary boulevard, request for conditional use authorization. >>: good afternoon my name is -- plan a department staff. the avenue for user requests for a conditional use authorization for the property at 3015 geary. establish a new formula retail and limited restaurant within a grand use commercial building. the project includes interior tenant improvements and minor structural alteration. the commercial space would not be enlarged and it is approximately 900 square feet

in size. is doing business as domino's pizza. there is a location that 1408 fillmore proposed to be relocated at 1109 fillmore, the next item on the agenda. both sides are approximately 1 mile away. the business owner is displaced at the current locaiton in fillmore. the business owner intends to occupy only one of the spaces and would prefer the fillmore street location. the project is located on the south side of geary boulevard between cooke and blake street. subject property contains two buildings a two-story commercial structure, in a single-family dwelling at the rear of the property. the project site is within the richmond district,

covering four neighborhoods. the surrounding development consists of a variety of structures in commercial buildings. there are currently eighteenth establishments. the department recommends approval with conditions. the proposed use to remain off of established;

all the currently vacant it would not increase the number of drinking and eatingestablishments. it is an appropriate continent complement to the surrounding uses. that concludes staff presentation. i would be happy to answer questions. thank you. >>: project sponsor? >>: good afternoon -- i am the project sponsor. i don't know we should wait for the whole commission. we have no complaint about this project. as christina says, our main objection is 1109 fillmore st., we lost the contract and we have to move.

first we were looking for a location and found the closest one at geary street and made a deal with the owner. we would like to lease the place. then we looked around to find something close to the previous project about three blocks away from the original domino's pizza on fillmore street. we went back again and talked to -- looking for a location. there is an indian restaurant or pizza place close to ours. they were willing to -- the location is not the greatest. the decided to discuss it with us. they're willing to release the

lease and lease it to us. that is basically what we are looking for in the long run. at this time we have nothing else to say except wait for a second when to go through and see what is going to happen on the other fillmore street project which is much more desirable for us to take over than geary street. this is a strange case. we had no other choices. that's it. >>: thank you. >> commissioner wu: let's open it up for public comment. david wilcox.

>>: -- 30-day termination notice, completely surprised. we scrambled, found the site on geary boulevard, 3015. not perfect. and then after further -- but that was easy. and then upon further examination i talked to bruno's pizza, i thought he might be available he decided

not. i found an indian restaurant. we reached a price, i agreed with them. supervisor london breed had some opposition. other than that we would like to move to fillmore, only 175 ft. from where we are, we have been there eight and a half years. i'm not flying in from oklahoma. i have an office on 320 bayshore. i happen to be a franchisee of domino's my brand, my life,

all i have been done since i graduated from duke university. it is what it is. would prefer the site on fillmore. the site on geary is near a store will really have. being across the street from mcdonald's -- gosh, they're not going out of business anytime soon. we sell affordable food. it is still a poor neighborhood. that is how we got the first time, it was redevelopment. we sell affordable food. we hope that you will accept it. thank you.

>> commissioner wu: any other public comment? public comment is closed. >> commissioner borden: this is an either or situation. if we vote for geary we would not approve the other? >>: the item now is the geary location. >> commissioner borden: i want to understand, when i think about domino's pizza i think about delivery. is it actually a walk-in? people coming to get pizza? i don't think of domino's a place i would go to grab a slice of pizza. >>: usually by telephone or the internet. people walk in; there is a

safeway shopping center and people live in apartments on top. i was there for one hour and maybe about five people showed up and bought food and left. >> commissioner borden: you sell pizza by the slice? >>: no. we have it personal 10 inch pizza. recently we have been doing carryout specials; our carryout percentage is up. we don't have tables. you pick it up and sit at a bench. it is not a dining experience. we are primarily delivery, yes.