i also understand why the russian population adheres to this school. my college -- my cousin, who is a college professor in new york state, used to spend his summer smuggling hebrew text into russia, followed by the kgb. he got to know them so well he would invite them out to dinner. i am not unaware of all of this. i am going to do something i do not do in these cases. i will do this before the other commissioners speak. i am going to give these institutions one last shot at getting together. more than anything else, as a san francisco do, that bothers me. it really grates on me. you have to get together and talk to each other.

you are physically and emotionally sitting side by side. i am going to move to continue until january. commissioner sugaya: second. president olague: what date in january? >> the 12th is the first available date. vice president miguel: the 19th of january. president olague: and the public hearing will remain open. commissioner antonini: can we comment in addition to the motion for a continuance? first of all, i really appreciated the testimony from the audience and people of all ages, with particular reference to the opportunities america affords us all. i really like to hear that and

appreciate it. i feel the same way. i had the same concerns that commissioner miguel had. we need this opportunity to figure out what can be done in this instance. this is somewhat an internal decision between the school and the bureau of jewish education to figure out what can be done to perhaps solve this. some of the concerns i have had mentioned is the actual distance of the antennas from the school , the students. what are we really talking about here? the other concern would be the better we generation and the plant that runs the antennas, and what risks there are in case of any seismic event. these are things that need to be discussed and answered. those are some legitimate concerns that have been raised.

the other thing that is very important, and this goes without saying, is there is already a perceived danger, be it real or not real. if it has an economic effect on this great institution that would cause it to be less viable, that is really important to do. i know it is a preference. i know there has been a search. perhaps at&t can also work with you and there may be a way they can find another site or grant assurances to those in the audience, as to the antennas that will be added. those are replacement antennas. i am in support of the continuance and public and find a solution. commissioner moore: i am in total support of the continuance and appreciate

commissioner miguel summarizing his perspective, pointing to where the discussion needs to be. i would like to ask all of you something else. what i am asking you is to empathize with where we are. we have the aging community of chinatown speaking to us in opposition to antennas being installed on top of a chinese hospital which is still to be built on pacific avenue. i am asking you -- these are older people. they barely speak english. they do not have the education and eloquence with which you presented your case. i would like you to take your discussion also and involve supervisor mar, who as you heard earlier today in the case which preceded years, brought it up in conjunction with another neighborhood. i asked you to involve him to

really start to cast a wider net around an issue to which we ourselves do not have the full answers. some of us have children. some of us are parents with children in schools in locations where they are exposed. you give us the opportunity, because you are very well organized and prepared to come to help us do with the question in an equitable way. commissioner sugaya: i would like to thank all the people who came out and testified. i think it was a demonstration of what democracy and everything

is supposed to be. you are the staff expert on antennas and cell phone systems. are their antennas in the city that have been erected in public rights of way? >> yes, there have. >> do you know the nature of those? are they on separate polls? are they on light standards? apart from the tower and the microwave towers -- the one i am thinking of on bernal heights. -- commissioner sugaya: >> recently, there has been a move to start mounting smaller antennas, called distributed antenna systems because they can carry more than one carrier. that are being erected on the utility poles. that are lower power, but they

are much closer to one another. commissioner sugaya: i have a question for at&t, someone that can answer a question about the mounting on a separate colorado system. -- poll system. -- pole system. is there anyone who can answer that? >> i know t-mobile installs their own antennas on utility poles. otherwise, they go to a third- party vendor. 40-x -- commissioner sugaya: can the antennas you are proposing be mounted on a pole?

>> i cannot. the frequencies put in the distributed antenna system do not afford us the ability to use the radio bands we serve our customers over, whether it is data or cellular. that is why we do not put up distributed antenna systems right now. we do not have a solution to be able to do that. we do buy pieces of the carrier network, but we do not have a solution that would allow us the capacity. commissioner sugaya: i was thinking, since this is adjacent to a huge landscape area, that if there was a possibility of correcting antennas in the public right of way -- i do not

who we do not know who is in charge of this. >> i think multiple agencies. commissioner sugaya: would that present the opportunity of more flexibility where these could be erected? if the kind of antenna does -- of the kind of -- if the kind of antenna would only need to be mounted on large polls -- poles, i will not consider that further. i think other sites are still in the cards, since we are continuing the item until january. president olague: i want to make sure the january date works for at&t. >> is there an opportunity to take a five minute recess?

president olague: we will take a five minute recess at this time. commissioner sugaya: i was not completely through. president olague: we should take a recess at this time. you will ha vice president miguel: i would first of all like to, which i did not do before, so weak -- speak to the rabbi about exposing the students to the democratic process they would not have if there were still in russia, or going there, regardless of what the papers say -- or born there, regardless

of what the paper said. i will amend my motion and move to continue to december 8. that is sufficient time. is that all right with at&t? >> it is. thank you for giving us a few minutes to consult. that is ok with at&t. vice president miguel: is that all right with the rabbi? >> i think, to be fair to these parents, we did not know anything about any meetings until we got two hours notice, so the parents could not get their act together. there was a meeting in april, which the neighborhood knew. we were not told. i think the first motion of january 19 was more fair.

you have to give us a chance to get organized and present our case. i am telling you there is tremendous anxiety. again i want to tell you there is tremendous anxiety among the parents of this school. there are other people who are concerned who are not here. i am amazed so many people came. some people call me to bring the whole school. i said, "i am not we to bring the whole school." i am serious. i want to tell you something. i have been here 42 years. i have been talking to the bureau and federation people for 42 years. i get support from the jewish community. we talk to them. but i understand they have serious financial problems. i commiserate. we talked. they are determined to move ahead, because that are desperate. but you cannot take it out from the children, you see what i am

saying? you cannot do it. we need until january 19. vice president miguel: i am going to stick with december 8. that is sufficient time. this is not an unknown situation. it has already been continued once. there has been enough time. december 8 is it. it is going to succeed or fall depending on how the two institutions get together. you both have a lot of stake in this. there is no public comment on the motion to continue. i am sorry. >> commissioner sugaya was the second air. -- seconder. commissioner sugaya: i am fine with the date change. will we keep the public, open or closed?

president olague: i think we will keep it open. vice president miguel: at the time, you will not have a full three minutes to talk. it has gone on too long. commissio: i will add also that given today's testimony and what we have heard, when this comes back to us and there is public testimony, i would encourage you not to try to repeat the same things we have already heard. i cannot prevent you from doing that, because this is a public hearing and anybody can speak. but i think the commission is well aware of the arguments that were already presented. repeating those will, in essence, not do any bodies cause any good. -- anybody's cause any good. just a suggestion. the more organized the testimony

can be, the better. >> excuse me, sir. you are out of order. commissioners, on the motion to continue to december 8. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> so moved. president olague: we are actually taking a 20 minute recess.

>> i am encouraged by my memory of the attempt to install only one antenna on the church on 16th street near guerrero some

time ago. and due to a big public outcry i imagine that was not done. it was not approved. in this particular case they plan to put up nine antenna's so that's nine times worse. i hope that you all -- even though i seem to be alone here, i hope that you will decide on a continuance for number 10 as well. i would greatly appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >> approved. >> on that motion to approve -- >> commissioner miguel? >> aye, >> and commissioner olague? >> aye.

>> you are now on item 11. at 324 hugo street request for discretionary review. this is an abbreviated discretionary review. >> good afternoon, sarah, department statute. it's a building permit for a three-story horizontal edition and a two-story horizontal permitted property. the plans were approved by the public after the notice expired. the project was then put on hold by the sponsor. in 2010 the sponsor reinitiated the project and made operations that required a second session three notice. a question of d.r. was submitted by a group of neighbors. the three-story horizontal edition, a two-story horizontal

edition, both stories have a five-foot setback. they want a small horizontal -- and add a horizontal addition to the east of the three-story edition. the revisions that the sponsor is suggesting have not been submitted to the department as a formal revision. the department supports the project as proposed with a three-story edition, the two-story permits b -- obstruction and the five-foot setback. with regard to the proposed revision, the department supports the reduction of the permits obstruction to one story but is not generally in support of the new horizontal addition to the east. with that, the department recommends the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as submitted.

i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. d.r. questioner. -- d.r. requester. >> good afternoon, my name is john he is ler. i'm the owner of 12394th avenue, together with my family, members of which occupy both units of the property. thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this request for discretionary review. first of all, i appreciate the effort and expense that the developer has undertaken to modify the original proposal. no one would dispute that some of the changes they have proposed are marginal improvements from the standpoint of surrounding properties. i assume that the planning department, i just learned that the planning department, having been granted an approval for

the original proposal will in all likelihood go forward with the plan as now revised but none of these facts change the basis of our original appeal. i'd like to make three quick points. in recommending that the commission not take d.r., the planning department has in our view not given adequate consideration to the extent that the proposed development would encroach on the mid block space. it will extend into that space well beyond any structure on the block, will obstruct the neighborhood's character and will set a precedent for erosion. a single building out of context with its surroundings can be disruptive of the neighborhood characterer and if repeated often enough to the image of the city as a whole,

end quote. if they can be granted once why not again and again and again? second, we believe that adequate consideration has not been taken as to how the proposed development as an out of scale rear yard edition will leave the our property but adjacent properties feeling "boxed in and cut off from the mid block open space." we have submitted a photo of the structure taken from the rear window of 1241, our property showing current access to the mid block open space. side by side on that photo which has been imposed of the original proposed structure. even when permitted by the planning code, building expansions into the rear yard may not be appropriate if they

are uncharact ristically deep or tall depending on the context of the other buildings that define the mid block open space. an out of scale mid yard addition can leave residents feeling boxed in and cut off from the mid block open space. that's how we will feel. thirdly we believe that stated in our request for d.r. that adequate consideration has not been taken as to how to propose development as the key lot on this block excessively affects five contiguous houses on the block. we think it property for you to review its policy regarding what it has acknowledged to be an authority issue, namely the issue of key lots which is heretofor not resolved. thank you.

>> thank you, other speakers in support of the d.r. requester? would anyone like to speak in regards to the d.r. requester? >> my name is david groover and i own a property that is in line with john's and will be affected by the proposed development. and i just want to concur with his statements that again, we were actually after the big picture that this is a key lot and what is about to be built there is going to impact and could create or will create a kind of a domino effect for the rest of the block. and i think it's time that the commission steps in and develops a policy for these types of issues. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, mary o'connor, i own the building at 1235, 1237 12th

avenue. i'm obviously in communion with the people that have just spoken that it will certainly affect the character of the neighborhood. it's a building that infrigs upon the open spathe -- space. it affects our light, everything about it. it's excessively big. it's going from a single family dwelling with two huge units with 4 1/2 boss each which is a lot of boss. if welessen the building even more it would impact us even less. and if you do decide to approve it, we ask that you also give a notice of special restrictions limiting it to two units because of the number of bathrooms and things. thank you. >> additional speaker in support of the d.r. requester?

>> hell oh, my name is brighty newman. i live at 1237 a 4th avenue. i am on the ground floor unit. i have lived there for 15 years. the light that comes into my apartment all comes in through the back. and as it's a ground floor unit, that lighting is extremely precious to us. we don't have very much light. so a main concern i have -- i was a little bit puzzled about if you are approving the project, if the recommendation is to approve which drawing there -- there have been so many drawings. and the most recent

accommodation that was suggested was to build three stories and then one rather than three stories and then two . and i understood sarah to say that -- that she was in support of that. but it was confusing to me just which drawing she was in support of. i'm in support of one that -- that keeps the -- what is built to a minimum. there are -- i'd like to say 12 people who are very, very much affected in their every day lives by anything built out in that lot. thank you. >> thank you. are there any additional speakers in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon,

commissioner, jeremy paul for the project sponsor. i'd like to thank sarah velve for her efforts in this matter. we've worked very closely. with these neighbors. i have tried to achieve the goals of the tong family and still -- and mitigate as many of the concerns as possible. we've submitted to you sets of plans shows what had been approved by city planning back in 2006 fold by the set that is that's currently subject to review, recommending approval. additionally, we have come up with another plan that drops the rear extension, rear yard