-- it does concern me. i work in technology and it does concern me that the kind of hysteria a little bit about this issue because i think while there might be some legitimate concerns, i think that to ratchet the conversation up to the level that it's been is really, it is scary, i can understand why people are scared and i understand that people have different cultural lives and places and things that have happened to them that might influence how they feel about this, but i would just say that, i mean, as a school and really studying the science and having the kids look at the science about this thing would be an important thing to remember in this because we can't lose sight of that. i think we all know that there is a lot to be learned in that space and maybe one of the kids will come up with the ground-breaking research in this area. i just think that that's, i would like to really encourage us to kind of bring it back to

that. vice president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. could i talk to the representative from at&t? why don't we start with you, ma'am, i might talk to you mr. hammond. i guess there was a presentation made at the beginning of the -- our discussion from the gentleman who was talking about the radio frequency levels and i just was wondering what the distance is that we feel is a safe distance for radio frequency and it seems as though we're dealing with, i think it was a 57-foot space between the school aped denied also i understand there has been a moving from the antennas to a different location and the distances are greater. if you could elaborate on that and mr. hammond, or the fellow

from hammond edison wants to add some comments. >> sure, i'm with at&t. the 57 feet was actually the old configuration, so the antennas are on the north eastern side of the bureau of jewish education, which is one building. then there is a building in the center and then there is the academy. so it's quite a distance, but i'm going to turn the mic over to mr. erickson with hammond edison to answer any questions that you have around that. commissioner antonini: sure. that's great. so now what is the distance from the antenna to the location where most of the children would be? >> let me clarify that 57-foot distance is unchanged. that's how close you could get to these antennas if you were up in the air and then the main beam. commissioner antonini: ok. >> but normally, that would require somebody in a

cherrypicker or on a ladder or something like that. commissioner antonini: right. not to interrupt, but i think the gentleman said that the beam is sometimes directed at a downward angle. >> you have to understand these are four different free consequences si bands involved here, so there are four sets of elevation patterns and four sets of azimoth patterns. it's a complex set of three-dimensional calculations. i agree that it's more than just what the predicted maximum is at ground level. that certainly has to comply with the federal standard. but also any nearby buildings have to be taken into account and the height of the building and our studies do take that into account. the northwest face of the school, previously at the face of the building, that's the second story, the calculated maximum was 3.2% of the public

exposure limit. it's now .04%, that's 80 times lower. and further, you could expect about another 10-fold reduction inside the building. and by all means, once the cell site is built, there are calibrated meters which we maintain and you can go in and do actual measurements. commissioner antonini: ok. so you did say at one time, your safe distance if you're hovering in space is 57 feet and what is our distance now from the antennas to the school ? >> i don't have that exact distance, but they calculated at 3.2% previously and now -- commissioner antonini: presumably and also the fact is that the school is not at a direct angle at the level that

is in space of the antenna? >> correct, from the two remaining antennas, they no longer have line of sight. however, we assumed what's called free space path loss which could be conservative calculations. commissioner antonini: ok, following that up, there were two existing or are two existing antennas from singular from 1997 and those are no longer operational, i would assume? >> that's my understanding. >> do you have any idea how much radio frequency these two antennas were putting out over the years? >> well, they would have been required to meet the f.c.c. public limit, even back then. >> i guess what i'm getting at is the fact that you have to, even the low level that you're having now, you have to also factor in and subtract whatever that level was because you're taking away what was there before. >> yes, i understand your

question. the calculations have to take into account any other existing two-way antenna, cellular, whatever, it's the aggregate of the exposure. however, since it follows a square law, typically once you get more than a few hundred feet, you're down to thousands or tens of thousands of time below the public limit. commissioner antonini: so what we did also in addition to moving the antennas, there is a decrease in the number of antennas, is that what you're saying at this site? are there still six proposed or fewer now, down to four? >> yeah. commissioner antonini: down to four. you're netting a net increase of two antennas in a location that's quite a ways further from the school. ok, i just wanted to establish that because i think there have been significant changes on that and i don't know that it

wasn't a problem before, but it's even more remote now with the changes you made. >> that's correct. commissioner antonini: thank you. and the other thing, sir, while you're here and it may be a question for at&t, but would you be receptive with at&t be receptive to checking the levels inside the school afterward to assure that it is, in fact, what has been projected? >> we're certainly available to do those measurements if requested by at&t. commissioner antonini: i think it would be a good thing to do if you do that. i think you are asked sometimes to do those after installation. >> it's actually a regulation. we have 10 days from the day that we turn on the site to go out and test and to turn those measurements into the department of public health. and then subsequent, every two years, we have a requirement to do testing and turn those results into the department of public health and anytime we go

out and/or make a change to the antenna, we also have to test and submit results. commissioner antonini: ok. i know we have already done this and we found out that we have done a lot of other sites were surveyed in the area, of course, and found to not be as successful as other sites as the case with this site? >> you mean alternative sites? commissioner antonini: yes, very good. vice president miguel: i'm sorry, public comment is closed. >> can i ask a question first? vice president miguel: no. i will allow you to come -- >> unless you are directly requested to speak, you can't speak. >> i don't know what the question is. >> the question is whether or not i can make a rebuttal? >> no, i already heard your comments the first time and i know what you said, so thank you, thank you. vice president miguel: i'm sorry. public comment is closed.

>> was there a motion? she agreed to make the motion. >> i made the motion. >> can i say something to your comments about -- >> he is seconded it. [[inaudible] >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this motion passes. >> [inaudible] >> your mic. commissioners, your now on item number 11. 1737 post street, suite 300

also known as 11 peace plaza. >> good evening, members of the planning commission. sharon young planning department staff. the item before you is a request for discretionary review involves the change of use of a vacant space previously occupied by a retrail store into a small self-service restaurant located within the interior of japantown center kitt mall in the n.c. 3 neighborhood district and the 50-x height and bulk district. the restaurant was approximately 490 square feet in floor area which consists of a sales and service area, kitchen and storage area. restaurant seating will be provided within the interior courtyard of the mall.

the applicant has also filed a separate permit to legalize improvements that have already been created in the commercial space. the request for review was filed by the japanese cultural and community center, a neighborhood organization located at 1840 souther street, two blocks north of the subject property. the d.r. requesters are primarily concerned that the small self-service restaurant appears to qualify with the use requiring conditional use authorization. the proposed self-service restaurant are in the controls of the special use district and the proposed small self-service restaurant, speciallizing in selling stharks and desserts, within the commercial establishments of the japantown center and would not contribute to an overconcentration of small quick food outlets which currently exist in the mall. the requesters that have indicated that without changing

what the caffey is, changes could be implemented. the project sponsors will provide a response to the d.r. requesters concern in their presentation. the restaurant is the personalitied use on the first ground story under planning code section 712.44. section 703.3 of the planning code defines a retail use as a type of retail sales activity, retail sales establishment which has 11 or more retail establishments located in the united states and contains two or more of the following centers. a centerized array of merchandise, color scheme, uniform apparel, standard diced signage and a trademark or service mark. the planning departments has identified the corporation as qualified as a retail use under the planning code.

it also appears to quality as a retail use under the planning code since it appears to be a trademark of the corporation. the project sponsor had modified his original plan indicating that the small self-service restaurant will be under the name k.b. cafe and complete a formal retail affidavit and provided information that is won't be a former retail use. because the proposed 490 square foot small self-service restaurant will update the space at the mall, it will not significantly affect the existing cultural and historic integrity neighborhood character, the patent and design aesthetic of the japantown special use district and will support one of the purposes for establishing the japantown special use district by revitalizing the economic diversity of the neighborhood by occupying a vacant commercial tenant space with a new business.

in addition, under the current draft japantown plan, the proposed project would be consistent with the development framework vision for space with high traffic shops and restaurants and consistent with maintaining a significant number of small spaces with its small retail use size of 490 square feet and currently under the draft neighborhood plan and japantown special use district controls do not include development objectives or requirements regarding the concentration and mix of commercial establishments listed in the japantown special use district and japantown center malls. the planning department and the planning commission take discretionary review and approve the project with conditions. this concludes my presentation. vice president miguel: thank you. d.r. requester.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is robert, i'm speaking on behalf of the petitioner for discretionary review. paul is the center's executive director is recovering from surgery and is unable to attend. i have a letter with the text of my presentation to give to you as well. this is a leading commune-based organization dedicated to the preservation, conservation and vitalization of japantown. it's been active member of the japantown planning process and organizing committee which does present it to this commission and the department extensive revisions and recommendations of the 2009 draft plan for japan town and it's from that perspective, from the community perspective that they object to approving the permanent application. discretionary review is

appropriate and denial of the permit is propose because k.b. cafe is a formula retailthose o. we respectfully disagree on findings. this was enacted in 2006 following the sale of development to help insure the continued vitality as japan town as a testing it and authentic neighborhood community. i will address the main findings furs. formula retail. i will begin where one would

end. when something looks like a duck and walks like a duck, is probably a dock. -- duck. there is evidence, including the five deaths the trademark incorporates a key element -- now that it includes trademark key elements. its admission that it will be selling products at less than 50%. we submit the party cannot just except the south of firming effect -- self affirming declaration it is not retail.

three further factors. kb said it never had an agreement, but how and why did it submit under that name. quigley has not objected. third, while cavy -- kb asserts it will sell quigley products, there is no confirmation that it would. kb looks like formula of retail even though it has been designed to skirt the.

they would be compatible with a dose. we disagree with the analysis on this. compatibility with historical integrity and neighborhood character. kb cafe is not compatible with the community character we have enjoyed, content we have spent years attempting to revitalize. it is a retail business but enjoys an unfair competitive advantage to formula of retail, including predatory pricing and other economic elements. it is offering the same or

similar products as many other small businesses already existing. some of them are long standing community businesses, and that does not contribute to the japan town character. >> speakers in favor of the d r requester? >> my name is rose hill sen. i am a member of the organizing committee. the project sponsor is intentionally trying to disguise this connection to get a foothold into the japan towne mall but prohibits a retail inconsistent with the special use mr.. this is not compatible with the

character, and the trademarks are all the same. >> thank you. >> commissioners, good evening. i am before you today to request you not approved this application. i trust the department to try to do its best to research this case and respect its conclusion. the facts when taken collectively all suggest to me this is a formula of retail operation.

i believe this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. it is surprising they are not complaining about the use of their products without a franchise agreement. i believe this retail business could have an unfair economic and vantages that would be a threat to the mall. this is not about the owners ethnicity. it is about the formula of retail business model that threatens to undercut family competitors and could eventually eliminate them. i am of the opinion there have become too many snack food restaurants in the mall. traffic has picked up, and the mall is pretty much fully occupied. however, restaurants are telling me businesses are beginning to

suffer. i think the mall could benefit from other retail tenants. we will address this more. there will be more clarity. as commissioners, i am the director of the japanese community center. we request you not approve applications for a change of use. one of the missions is to preserve and maintain the culture of japan town

community, and one of the main elements is and will be the small independent family-run businesses. good looking at the applications, -- after looking at the applications, a makes me quite suspicious and believe they really are a formula retail restaurant. i have nothing against the owners, but i do not support a formula retail restaurant that will have an unfair advantage over the existing, small, independently run family businesses. the independent merchants are the fabric of our community, and by looking out for them today, we will be looking out for the culture of japan town for the future. i encourage you to take a closer look at this.

>> good evening, commissioners. >> if you have an application that says mcdonald's, and this says joe blow's burgers, and you start with a big mac and fries, but over time, that changes to over 50% of mcdonald's menu. if this happens, and what action will occur?

we have made a mistake. i guess we will have to turn the page. special use district was designed to enhance and protect. starbucks was designed a permit under a special use district. this appears to be similar. if this is approved, please consider what you will do. you cannot just say, we will take care of it next time. i hope you would take care of it is time. people can come in and get false information. it is a bad practice.

drugs are there additional speakers in support of the d r requester? -- >> are there additional speakers in support of the d r requester? if not, project sponsor. >> i am speaking on behalf of the project sponsor. he represented he would be selling when than 10% of products in the store, and he does not need 50% of retail concentration for a specific product. we went through the remaining six items that were required to qualify for formula and retail.

we signed a lease with yemen -- with him. we had two useother leases that were written. they were both small fast-food type restaurants. one sold cupcakes. the other one sold yogurt, and there was no objection to either of these businesses, because they did not qualify for formula of retail common but it is the same fast-food they are complaining about, but it is consistent with other uses in the moderall.

it does not qualify as formula of retail. in our opinion, it does not qualify for discretionary review. another point they made that it would have an unreasonable impact on the mall, the special use district required us to maintain that. there was a major change. we were able to replace that use with a company that also sells japanese projects, and they had a space of about 3000 square feet in the mall.