>> thank you, commissioners. i attended his and other 12 hearings on this topic, and it has been a great deal of conversation. what is incredible is the degree of consensus reached between the planning staff, advocates and others. there are very few areas of disagreement that remain. we can look at the amendments that the supervisor has proposed. some people indicated that there are very conscientious about identified memos and discussing thus, taking the recommendations in the consideration and narrowing down his amendments to only those that made sense.

i will talk about a couple of them. it makes sense to require compliance for landmark buildings for significant category one into buildings. i think you ought to consider not making compliance with standards mandatory, but to be something you consider along with other considerations when looking at alterations to vacant lots, and on contributory buildings. there is no distinction in the code. the standard that commissioner sugaya raised is a presumption that if you comply with the standards, you don't have to comply with ceqa. if you have a project the can't comply with the standards, you go through that process. you ought to do something

similar here. if you comply with those standards, fine, but if you can't, it means you have to go through any c-- a ceqa process. [chime] commissioner miguel:than thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: thank you for your input on this, it is extremely important and i am glad that we have more time to look at it. we want to find the sweet spot between something that might be so restrictive in terms of the standards that we impose, particularly with construction and vacant areas, and even situations where building is no longer are possible to be restored. we have to avoid opposition to that. the worst thing we ever did is

mask demolitions. the structures that have gained value and are better maintained, the replacements are ones that probably are much worse off. that was a big problem, and i believe we have learned from that. i think we have to add incentives to people that are going to restore their structures with certificates of appropriateness and resources, and also especially with residential ones to create places that are safe, seismically sound, and functional units. there may be an opportunity to work some of the things that we have worked successfully in the housing market for affordable housing or with new construction. he also require a requisite amount of affordable housing. perhaps we can have an

incentive program whereby if someone had a historic structure, they could have an offset of new construction that would allow changes to be made, not only to conform with the standards. this is something that goes beyond articles 10 and 11. as we talk about economic hardships and other things, we have to talk a little bit about the act and other types of legislative changes to make it possible for people to change these areas that are in disrepair, and they also aren't part of the resources that treasures that we want to preserve. i think we can craft something that will work for everybody. commissioner sugaya: i will be brief since this is informational and we are not taking any action. i am quite prepared, right now,

to accept all the changes they have recommended in single underlined in the documents that we have. if this war to an informational, i would move on that at this point. that said, i am also please have that with the explanation that staff gave, i think it helped a lot to understand where the staff still has issues, and i am looking forward to the hpc completing their work with some w provide aiener. -- with supervisor wiener. i am looking forward to that. i will not go through all of my little notes here. hopefully, these will be reduced to zero by the time

february rolls around. commissioner moore: i want to extend my support to the department and staff as well as the h ppc for common ground so we can vote in january. commissioner miguel: again, i would like to complement the staff. particularly your manner of presentation. the way it was, the way it would be, considering the subject matter relatively succinctly. we hopefully will learn from mistakes, major ones that have been mentioned during these hearings. each of them in their own manner ha, massive mistakes on

historic preservation and each of them a black mark on san francisco. the one thing i take umbrage to, actually, as a blanket rejection by some people of supervisor wiener's comments. the hpc did not do that, there was no blanket rejection. they have been working with him. supervisor wiener has been working with his own comments in order to find common ground. hopefully, by the time we get into february or so, depending on how this goes, we will find a great deal of common ground.

our bookmarks will start to disappear. and truthfully, i have fairly good thoughts that this will come to pass. with that and before we move on, since we have been sitting here since 1:00, we will take a 15- minute break. is there a motion to continue? >> february 2, the first hearing. >> so moved. >> second. >> on the motion to continue this item. commissioner antonini: aye. >> commissioner borden has stepped out. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. >> the item is continued to feb. second. how long as recess? coco

>> at the beginning of the last session, there was a comment about secondary discussions. the commission does, in my opinion, a fabulous job up here. it is hard to concentrate when there is, you know, little discussions going on, people are in the background passing out and talking to each other. just to be courteous and not rude, it would be really appreciated if you feel the need to do those types of things, to take them outside. we want to interact a plan the strategy. don't do it in here. commissioners, you are on item number 10, for 601 14th ave.

>> i am filling in for sarah vellve. commissioner miguel: just so everyone knows, i am making the request of you, since this has already been before us, since we have extensively got over the material, i believe the commission is interested at this point, only and specifically any changes that have occurred since we last heard this item. >> absolutely, commissioner. this item was continued from the november 3 hearing for the academy at the bureau of education to come to some sort of resolution. my understanding is that the modification on the table

today, presented by at&t, is the removal of one of the three sectors that were originally proposed for the building. as you can see on the overhead here, there are two sectors enclosed within the larger enclosure, and a third sector that faces the southwest. one of them is sufficient, i believe. the enclosure here is the one that they are proposing to remove. the entire proposal is being reduced from 9 to 3, at the sector removed his closest to the academy. i am available for any questions. commissioner miguel: i would ask

the project sponsor to deal with the same considerations i asked of the department, to deal only with the changes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. as they pointed out on november 3, we agreed and you voted to continue this item so that the hebrew academy and the education could discuss some of the concerns as it discussed -- as it related to the wireless and that up. at&t recognizes the difficult and distinct position that both of these parties -- based on the public comments here on november 3, a majority of their concerns are centered are round electromagnetic frequency emissions.

it continues to be their main concern. in an attempt to address these concerns, at&t has agreed to remove sector b. it as located in a feaux jimmy -- chimney nearest the academy. they are here today to show the results of the testing with you. in terms of the removal of sector be, it dramatically increases the emissions of the fcc limit down to a 0.04. the bureau of education has approached at&t with the opportunity to consider concessions on behalf of the academy. we will not entertain any additional concessions. the demand on the network does not go away as easily as

removing a sector. we'll be looking to make up the sector at another site and will do so at great expense in time for both the planning department and at&t. i just want to make a clarification that this was originally a six-panel antenna site, it is now a four-panel antenna sites. commissioner miguel: we will go to public comment. at the hebrew academy has requested a 10-minute block of time under the commission ruled that is normally to be dealt with by a minimum of three speakers. it is my understanding that had not been fully clarified. if there are less than three speakers, i will ok it. that means whoever is speaking for the block of time for the academy the request of a 10- minute block can come up here. >> he said less than three can

speak. come on. god. ok. come on. come on. your time is running. commissioner miguel: whoever that is, please come up. >> i had to shut down my computer, i have been here for hours, i'm sorry. thank you for your patience as well. i will show a few graphs. i am a parent at the hebrew academy. we submitted a document to the planning commission and it was before the deadline, i expect all of you have a copy. it was titled objection to the at&t mobility proposed

installation of cellular antenna on the roof of jewish education. i will make the same points as in that document, however, i restructured it so i'm not going to just read what you have in your hands, but i will refer you to the document, the figures. they are the same four figures that you have. the onus is on at&t to show that the proposed antenna installation was safe for the public and it contains item g, the emission report, also called the radio frequency report. this was provided to at&t by a radio frequency engineering firm which served as an independent expert in this case. the powered density that it deems safe which is about one millo watt two centimeters square. we're not questioning this limit.

it's not a separate discussion we're having today. we said that the proposed installation would exceed the limit 13 times. our conclusion contradicts upon close examination of the statement, we found that their calculations contained errors which led them to erroneous conclusions. we submitted a detailed analysis to the planning commission on november 30 and hoped that every commissioner now has a copy of that document before him or her. in that document will show the following -- the statement repeatedly talks about the beginning of the "the power density anywhere on the ground." we contend that the level on the ground is irrelevant and immaterial to the case. it is the children inside the school building, in particular on the second floor that are going to be eradiated from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 people that, is for seven hours straight every

day and not a passer-by near the school on the ground level. by their own admission, at&t seeks this antenna not to improve the cellular reception in the street but to improve it inside the houses nearby. the statement of warden spencer who is an at&t engineer, his statement is part of the docket reads, beginning of the quote." although there is reasonable outdoor signal strength in the area, coverage indoor is weak and the quality of service overall is unacceptable." this statement shows that at&t is not concerned with enhancing the reception "for a person anywhere on the ground" but wants to improve the field penetration into the buildings in the immediate vicinityty of the proposed installation. the statement by gordon spencer is meant to justify the needs for the additional antennas in the general area, but it also shows that the school building

is going to be the first building in the line of sight for the antenna beam. our own calculations show that the predictions are grossly underestimating the power density for the installation of the rooftop antennas. in their statement, e, name a 57-feet distance as a safe three-dimensional perimeter. our calculations show that the safe distance is 150 feet or three times the value they calculated. even if they were right and we were wrong and the 57 feet were the safe distance, the actual distance between the walls of the education and the school is about 35 feet. however, their calculations are indeed wrong and we showed the detailed calculations in the document we submitted and you all have. the antennas installed on the rooftop are to be 42 feet above

the ground according to the docket. stated on the ground, the highest radiation level would be at a mere 4% of that established by f.c.c. yet elsewhere in that same three-page statement or after the of -- affidavit of safety they submitted it is 57 feet. there is no contradiction in terms between these two statements they have made in the same document. however, there is much left unsaid for you to read and discern between the lines of this statement. i'm going to help you to understand and interpret these rather technical statements. a directional antenna has a much different electronic field distribution as it can be seen on figure 4 on the documents you do have which i'll show here right now. can you please turn this on?

this is a picture i'm referring to. this is how the field is distributed. this is directionality pattern. the field is sliced horizontally. i dug up the technical documentation for the actual antenna they're proposing to install and this picture showed the vertical bisection of the field. you see a very narrow beam here. so the field is shaped as almost like a knife blade. the brunt of energy is very narrowly directed slightly down. the equipment they're proposing to install can vary the direction of this beam. again, going by the technical documentation of the proposed installation, it could go down from the horizon as low as 13 degrees. they are proposing to put it at

4 degrees, the recent proposal back in march said 6 degrees. it's up to them. they can do it remotely. they don't have to send a person to the equipment to do that. so i'm going to go back to my text. so basically the main load of the field which is this will slice through the top floor of the school and maybe even the first floor, the rear end of the opposite end of the school, the first floor and that's where the maximum energy will be concentrated.

so the statement stipulation that the three-dimensional perimeter does not -- i'm quoting, the three dismention believe area does not access any areas. this is not true. it does extends into the hebrew building and also on the other side of balboa because that building is closer than 150 feet. the statement by -- mentions that somebody named mr. david kelly who was contracted, subcontracted visited the site on february 9 of 2011. his qualifications are not provided beyond the phrase he is a "qualified field technician." the statement does not describe the equipment mr. kelly used. the date it was last calibrated, the test procedures he performed or whether mr. kelly has received any training for this particular equipment. in fact, the statement lacks

any of the work that he had done on this date. any measurements are dubious. there is a checklist in item number one describes mr. kelly doing measurements of the existing directional onsite in the site of the directionth antenna. some directions are meaningless. this positions vertically as it does now does not at all radiate strictly downward. as you can see on the figures 2 and 3. this is the field distribution on the directional antenna that is there now. mr. kelly standing underneath on the ground, presumably, he cannot fly so he is measuring nothing because there is nothing. so stating that the measurements show that there is only one field of the f.c.c. limit, of course. either he knew what he was doing or he didn't know at all what he was doing.

there were similar affidavits of safety sore cellular antennas. they provide the similar calculations. i have looked over many of them. after the antennas are installed and become operational, the radiation density can be measured, but no one has provided any evidence of such measurements have been done. may i finish the paragraph? vice president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. and the rest is in the paperwork you already have. vice president miguel: correct. vice president miguel: rabbi, laura, peter keene, elsa, hirsch. as was mentioned before, there is a one-minute time limit,

that is not unusual in the second hearing of an item. >> sir, as a person of the church across the street, he has been waiting for three hours. vice president miguel: and we have been working for three hours. if he wishes to come up first as well. >> i would like to give him an opportunity to say a aye few words. >> the same amount of time as every -- >> he has the proper authorization. vice president miguel: the same amount of time, there has been no request for any block of time for anyone. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is george holtz and i represent the baptist church directly across from the hebrew academy. it came to my surprise also to learn that antennas will be installed and we are in direct part of those antennas. i was first told it was six and

at&t and it was reduced to four. but two will be directed our direction and this is very undesirable for us. the reason is because every sunday there is a congregation of up to 150 people and small children and also people actually, immigrants came from areas like ukraine. they have been exposed to nuclear radiation and they have very weak immune system already and he is deeply concerned about those people. this is about 40% of our congregation. so would like to bring to your attention this fact also besides technical issues for our friends and neighbors across the street, hebrew academy, so please consider this and please stop this project. vice president miguel: thank you. >> thank you very much. >> san francisco city

government, i would ask you not to install high frequency antennas on our church on balboa street in san francisco. it will affect the immune system. from my personal experience, i used to live in town which was located 300 kilometers consider chernobyl station. as a result of its meltdown, my health, i witness all the people suffering from horrendous illness and experience suffering. in short, i'm asking you to refrain from installing high frequency antennas on our church. thank you. vice president miguel: thank you. >> my name aelyse rue so. i live on 14th avenue. i'm not associated with the school across the street from me.

i had anticipated having three minutes. i'm aware that you are meeting with the board of supervisors and the health department tomorrow and from november 3 hearing, you revealed that you're hamstrung in this situation where you feel powerless but to approve these antennas throughout the city because of the complaints of health being the primary issue of many neighborhoods coming to you saying we don't want these and yet you feel you don't have the power to say no. i am implore you that, you know, it's time to recognize that we need to have a new protocol in the city and the board of supervisors need to create some regulations on this issue citywide. there is a major proliferation of these antennas across the city blanketting our city and i am working with the "chronicle" and channel 7 news to bring this story to the public. vice president miguel: thank you.