question the authenticity of this development, a term applied by the well-known sociologist and city planner sharon zugin in her book published last year on the question of authenticity. this concept raises the issue of the tennessee of city actions as to who benefits from city actions and land development, against the right of sections of people that are displaced. this is the most flagrant example rich enclave, a vertical dated community for the 1% of the 1% of the wealthiest in this country at a time when recession has created 8.5% unemployment, and homes by the millions are lost to foreclosure. in the city, with 30% public

housing, and families on the streets, 30% of the homeless are families. of course, the majority of that 30% are children. the city has failed miserably by general standards of public housing. 2/3 of the housing was a market rate, and less than 20% for affordable housing. yet two major departments of the city, the court and the planning department, have worked feverishly to accommodate this development, and even read the selection of the developer -- rigged the selection of the developer. nobody talks about keeping the parking lot. we are talking about the use of this land. the possible use. this house and is protected by a

public trust doctrine. the city must make concessions and exemptions on nine basic requirements of the planning code, and create a special use district for the project without any benefit return to the city for the extraordinary concessions. we have as a society returned to the ethics and values of the days of the robber barons, and our heroes are gordon gekko and donald trump. as a steward of city development, vote against this effort, or at least limit their request. >> next speaker, jackie bryson. next speaker, mark bruno. >> thank you. my name is mark bruno. i am a member of the swimming

club at 8 washington for the last three years. i have lived in north beach for 25 years. i worked at the st. peter and paul church and throughout the city, specifically helping homeless families find places to find food and shelter. i came here to speak specifically about notice, because the city has failed, in my opinion, the members of the swimming club and the tennis club, telling them about what is going on. i want to correct one thing that was stated by the first speaker in public comment, which is that we are all very wealthy people who belonged to the swimming club. i am not wealthy. i work for st. vincent. that is my job. the pay is almost nothing. the reason i can afford to go to this club is because for my health i like to swim. you do not have to belong to the

tennis part. i do not, because it is expensive. i belong to the swimming part. this contradicts with the idea that it is a bunch of wealthy people. i do not belong to any of these groups, telegraph hill or anything. but if you were to go to the pool every day -- i swim every day -- it would cost more to go to the pool in north beach and golden gateway. if you add what i pay per month, i am allowed to go swimming from 6:00 a.m. in the morning until 10:00 p.m. at night every day of the week with the exception of saturday and sunday, $145. those days, the close 8:00 or 9:00. because of my hours at work, i cannot go to north beach pool, but it would cost me more. it would cost me more to go to the public pool then at the golden gate way. many families use it. i know them. these families have kids. look at this chart. i only have a minute left, but i

want to show this chart. i apologize. a supervisor is borrowing my pen. 30 people just came to a meeting at the golden gateway. on another meeting just this week, another group i went to -- 50 people came. you add up all those people and it is less than 7% of the total number of people who belong to the club. what does that tell you about notice? those families who were going had these big notices. i took this down today. it is from june of last year. i know the city cannot do all of this by themselves, because it is time consuming to notify all the members of the club and take down notices that are now almost six months old. it is confusing. but all i am suggesting to the city is you go to the owners of the club and you send them a suggestion. i talked this morning to a person in the marketing

department. send them your note this is and say, "could you include this with your next snail mail to club members?" >> the 15 minute time limit for this category is up. there is one last speaker card. would you allow one more speaker? ok. linda chapman, please. >> thank you so much. i am here about cal. please return it back to staff and ask him to provide you with an amended conditional use so you can vote it again. you got misinformed not just by public people, but by the legal opinions that you got, which prevented you from doing something that you wanted to do. i heard very serious deliberations at that hearing, but you don't, you were misinformed by the city attorney initially, telling you you did

not have the authority to turn down conditional use on a liquor license, because that is abc per view. that was corrected only partly. staff also misinformed about your ability to act. the skin before you on conditional use, and you know the criteria better than i. is the particular use at the particular site going to be necessary or beneficial for the neighborhood or wider community, and will it cause any harm to the immediate neighborhood? the burden is on the sponsor. that includes things like how late it is going to be open at night. is there a liquor license? and this came before you as a conditioner use -- conditional use. i want to mention that abc defers to you for this. they expect you to make these decisions. if you allow it, they will automatically allow it, unless they look at things and see there is something wrong with

the applicant. he has a criminal record or license violations in the past, or something like that. i realize you do not research the abc and all of that stuff. that is why i am bringing this to your attention. your staff also told you you were precluding deciding on a liquor license, whether there should be one at that site. that is what abc is looking to you for. indeed n -- in the ncd, this is in a conditional use, unless you have already authorized conditional use the previous three years. then, you might be precluded. but i do not see any reason that would be. you were told it would be great public benefit because they will buy a liquor license. there is no other way to get a liquor license in san francisco. abc does not issue more liquor licenses. there are too many. they have to buy one somewhere

else. commissioner antonini correctly stated you needed to pay attention to other signatures. i am presenting you with a copy of what they sent out. they did not do public outreach they said. none of them came to lower poke neighbors, where they said they got approval. the did put a round in the neighborhood something that said nothing about liquor licenses or noise, but said you need to get this restrooms so we can have a grocery store. commissioner moore: may i make a suggestion? i find public comment extremely valuable. i would like to ask everybody to listen to her when she steps up, and in addition to her name, reference the projection is talking about. we spend so much time on different things that if you describe something, it takes me five minutes before i know what

you are describing. the public, particularly those who participate and watched on television, would have an even harder time. i would appreciate it next time you would mention the project. thank you. commissioner sugaya: i was confused also. i think there was an explanation about why in certain cases we do approve liquor licenses. in other cases, which apparently do not have the jurisdiction. could we get a memo back on this specific thing? because i think it was explained that in this particular case we did not have jurisdiction to limit it, but in other cases, we do. so if there is a distinction in the code, i would appreciate it. >> next item, please.

>> if we could go back to the items on consent. item five is case no. 2,011.773c on ocean avenue. we have staff. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. before you is a request for authorization to establish a verizon wireless facility at 1344 ocean avenue. it is within the ocean avenue neighborhood commercial transit district. it is a three story residential building that contains nine dwelling units and is operated by at&t. it consists of panel antennas

that are screened out behind a transparent purpose. the proposed facility consists of six panel antennas that will also be roof mounted and screamed at behind the existing power put -- para putt. -- parepet. additional pieces would be located within the building. this is considered a co-location site. the department has reviewed the r f report and determine if it complies with current ftc guidelines. the department recommends with conditions for the following reasons. it complies with the planning code and general plan policies. the project will be compatible with the neighborhood, because the proposed facility is roof- mounted and would be completely screened from view at the pedestrian level.

the project is desirable as it would improve wireless telephone network coverage and signal strength in the immediate area. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. >> i have one speaker card. i'm sorry. project sponsor. >> project sponsor should go first. one second. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with complete wireless consulting come here on behalf of the rise and wireless. -- verizon wireless. this project has been thoroughly reviewed by staff. it is fully compliant with all the wireless guidelines. it is ranked no. 2 on the preference, co-location on an

existing roof top. the antennas are fully screened. we hope you will see the ability 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