here. the handling of individuals around the structure, that is a separate issue from the antenna. it should be mentioned to the owners in the area. i am in support of this. commissioner miguel: i will support a motion on this. i would like to say to at&t and every other individual that can hear me that is involved in cell phones. they are probably one of the major scientific advances in recent years, without question. in putting together your coverage and your use of

sulfites on transmission towers , all of you who comprise the least scientific group of people i have ever known in my life. you are confused, you are disorganized, and it seems to me that when these things come before us, you don't know what your talking about. you should be able to be able to run a computer program that can tell you what the coverage is for any area of the world including san francisco. you should know that going in. you should be able, if your transmission ability changes, your tower cellphone and his change. you should be able to plug that

into a computer program and, with new coverage. there is no reason in my mind that you can't do this. and you come to us in a confused and piecemeal manner. it is disgusting. commissioner moore: i would like to add that other cities in this country have established a more comprehensive system analysis relative to where coverage should be collected. we have this case and others that are part of our agenda. i ask the board of supervisors to start creating policy around a more comprehensive way of doing this. it does not answer the questions

that are far larger. it is still in the absence of a more comprehensive plan. while i am not opposed to this, the cumulative effect is not addressed. that is all i want to say. i would support a more comprehensive program at some point. maybe we could wriette a letter. it seems that what we do and what the board does frequently contradict. at some point, it would be useful to have a conversation where all of the pieces are in the same room to give the public a better sense of how we are

responsible. commissioner moore: there is federal legislation here that is involved. we have to find an overlap with federal regulations for us to have some guidance of what we are doing here. this opposes the general concern by the public, and i would support your suggestion for more comprehensive -- commissioner antonini: commissioner miguel brought of some good points. there is a point where a lot of people don't even have a land lines anymore. the usage requirements are

increasingly thin abounds. it seems to me one of the things we are producing more of his communication. at least something is growing. that is very important because the president of the united states is in the bay area meeting with leaders. i was going to say, that is good. many of these countries are taking of former orchards where they should be here. it is important that we show a message that we are supportive of communication. a good point was made about federal law. the good place to solve this is federally because there are very strong, non discriminatory laws. and of course, there are levels

set for emissions. those are the overriding thing is. if there are people concerned, you should talk to the federal or state level. see if there is a way to get some sort of comprehensive planning done at that level. to do it locally will not have much effect. we think that is the overview on this. commissioner moore: i would support that we are asking the board of supervisors to help us in the discussion. i think it is something that we are all responsible for. i am not going to wait until somebody does that. but we would like to engage them

together with us, all other commissions to be responsive to the citizens don't take it forward. >> have a motion on the floors for approval. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: no. president olague: aye. >> passes 5-2. commissioners, you are on item number nine. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is for a conditional use authorization, to confirm a space into a massge

age center. nc3 zoning district. the proposal involves interior improvements to convert into a new shower room. there will be no expansion of the building envelopes. the proposed hours of operation are a 11:00 a.m., seven days a week. it was previously advertised by a beauty salon. the project sponsor intends to retain the same business name. the proposed establishment of the family-owned under that section of the planning cut.

there have not received any letters or phone calls and opposition to the project. this concludes my presentation and i'll be happy to answer any questions. i believe an interpreter is representing them. president olague: project sponsor. >> my name is ken wong, i am here to translate. basically, my name is ken wong. i haam here to translate for mis lee. what she has done here is rearrange that she would like to

have your consideration and approval for her to operate the health center. she would like to provide health and wellness to the neighborhood. in the place she would like to have is a block away from a police station. she would lie illegitimate business under the guidelines. she really appreciates that. president olague: i would like to open it up for public comment. public comment as clues -- is closed. commissioner borden: move to approve. >> second.

commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner mooreolague: aye. >> you are now on item number ten. 235 francisco street. >> good evening, members of the commission. the proposal will convert 47 square feet of the existing third floor balcony on the west side of the building to an enclosed sun room. it will also replace an existing

spiral stair. the sunroom addition will be constructed on the space that is values that will project 6 feet from an existing rear wall. this is in compliance with the planning cut. the support has reviewed this project and found that it will not adversely impact the open space that is already compromised because of numerous buildings having full plot coverage. this project does not contain any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. it warrants an abbreviated analysis. this concludes my presentation. president olague: d.r.

requestor. >> the owners of the property. the rear yard her face is the rear yard of 235 francisco that is located, slow down held. one of the issues we are bringing out today is that there is a very interconnected relationship between these buildings. it was initially built in 1930. the area behind the building was open space and a parking area. they decided to build a condominium complex on the lower portion of this property. this came before the planning commission in a very specific decision. under the decision, several

things were considered including the reduction of the rear yard open space and the parking issue. because of the detriment, losing their open space, losing the rear yard, also, at the area where the living space would be. it was required that a data set back be replaced. it specifically states in the 1980 decision that although the rear yard halfback is proposed, the building is quite small. it has the effect of providing needed separation between that building and occupying floors.

we have a situation where the planning commission allows the building of the project, but added to certain benefits in the report that allow for parking and that very small area of open space between the building. it would not feel completely closed in and blocked off. the property line and that was placed directly behind the building, there is essentially no rear yard because of the decision to place the property line at that location. you have a property line with there is only 15 feet on one side and a very small space in between the buildings. we feel these issues were

completely overlooked when the planning commission was approving the sun room. the current owners took a look at this property for about 26 years. it is a very dense residential area. the recently built out their rear yard. the way it is set of is just further than the other property line. also have the building at francisco street. they're wanting to encroach further into the space. i actually have a declaration here for mr. wilson. he developed this project, he was required at the time, it

states but will conform with the findings. he was required to add this to open deck space. on the bottom floor, there was living here and at that time. it was cut off by the planning decision. that brings me to another issue here. including this rendering of the properties. it does not show the footprint. i have sent a letter to the commission is a personal matter that extends out to the

property. this portion is expanding very far out to the property line. president olague: are tehre sp -- there speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? seeing none, project sponsor. >> i represent the project sponsor. while they won't be making a presentation, i will be available for questions. the purchase of the house in

2010 and it will be a full-time residence for his family, including their children. the purpose is to provide a safe place for these young children. they have asserted that it will have some negative impact. this is a plan that was included. what this shows is the overall arrangement of the properties. this is the small area. it is only at the very lowest level.

we were focusing on the distances between the buildings. it occupies a very small level, a very small portion of the deck. it will be almost completely glass, minimizing any potential impact. it was also at that level that had been there for a number of years. we believe this will have an impact on the request your -- requestor. it claims in a letter that the staff did not raise that. i assume it is no longer an issue, but we'll be happy to address that.

they somehow claim that this violates the variance. they claimed her specifically that it required at this and that. there are conditions stated, none of them mentioned the that whatsoever. -- deck whatsoever. they say it provides a needed to separation. i like to point out this is not a requirement, it is merely a finding. because of the slow, the new building will have minimal impact. this is something that we prepared this morning in an effort to try to illustrate the

relationship of the buildings. this is the small sunroom. i believe this is the unit showing the small that. you can see that at the very most, this is level, and how it can have any impact is beyond me. especially if it is north of the unit. while there was a finding referencing this, there is no requirement for the debt. and the statement made about the separation continues to be true because going back to the first diagram, the tiny portion is the

area between the buildings. it will provide separation between the buildings. they have presented no information that the substantial effect violates the variants. and determined that this was consistent with the variants. we request that the commission cannot hold this over for a full hearing and approve the project. [chime] president olague: d.r. requestor , you have two minutes. sorry, speakers in support of the project sponsor? ok, you have two minutes.

>> we have an issue about how the rear yard averaging was applied. we have a francisco street property. the rear yard averaging, they used a larger property on the lot. we felt this was an inappropriate application as they skipped over the adjacent property in use a more and built property. that is definitely an issue. you can clearly see this as a fopho -- is a photo. any building out further than this deck encloses the open space of 124. what we have here is a

continuing building in a very dense area. this might seem like a small issue, but it is big to a person who has lived there and seen firsthand the continued building trends in this neighborhood, to the point where they are feeling locked in and closed in in their own residence. that being said, we would like the commission to stay true to its prior decision. these findings should not be set aside. there is a reason this open space existed in the proper -- in the prior variance decision. i also have copies of the declaration from edwin wilson and other owners and residents. should i provide a copy of that? president olague: thank you.

project sponsor. >> thank you, commissioners. regarding the rear yard averaging, these are different condominiums on the same property. they have one of the front door. they have a common roof and a foundation. you do not do rear yard average and based on half of the building on the lot. you go to the next physical lot. that is what was properly done in this case. i offer this diagram. this is the dr requestor's diagram. this is the sun room that is good to have a major impact on closing them in. frankly, i do not see it. i do not see a case for exceptional circumstances here.

the room is very small. the setback remains one of the larger rear yards on the block. the applicant has also reduced the sun room by 40% of the proposal in an effort to compromise and satisfy the dr requestor. staff has properly applied the rear yard averaging rule. the variance does not contain a requirement as to some specific dimensions of the deck. furthermore, the statement in the variantce that the deck provide substantial separation between these units remains true. the sun room occupies only a tiny portion of the overall deck and a tiny portion of the overall separation between these buildings. no case has been made for discretionary review. there are no broader issues in

terms of the priority policies or the issues in the planning code. we respectfully request that you deny -- that you take action to approve the project and to not schedule a further hearing. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. the public hearing has closed. commissioner moore: i would like to take issue with some of the presentations i heard and ask the commission to examine the project further. i had put the request forward that the packet submitted to us did not show the section which mr. atkinson just showed. i think it is important to understand what the real issues are. i find the package that was submitted difficult to understand, somewhat misleading. i should be able to see it with a glance. that is not the case. but it seems important to go back to what this project is. this project is a submission to

build on a substandard lot in a dense urban environment. in 1982, a very good architect designed a building which had a twin building mirror around its axis to create something which i consider to be ingenious. at that time, we did not use that word much. but it is a really integrated project. the mere fact to take it out of symmetry is arrogant and someone missing the point. building on a substandard lot, the provision for separation applies then and applies today. it is a fact. in addition, a think other things are being snapped in which i find personally unacceptable. the spiral stair on the rear i