infrastructure. it was previously primarily based on microsoft's -- micro sites, which does not allow the amount of data transfer that current mobile devices require. they are moving to macro sites, which requires an increase in the number of antennas. those are the factors, to the best of my knowledge. commissioner sugaya: do they take the micro sites down? >> for the most part. sometimes, there are replacements. based on the infrastructure, they may not go in the same location, so it is a case by case basis.

vice president wu: can you detail the process for requesting a measurement, in your home or another location where there is concern? >> we have an obligation to test anybody within 25 feet of an existing facility. we are happy to do that. we have extended that to people in the area who have concerns, who would like to have a meter reading in their home. if they do not want to have our consulting firms do it, the department of public health also has the ability to go out and do readings as well. there are two options available. we are happy to do it as part of our infrastructure bill.

vice president wu: for me, although i hear the concerns of the public on the health impact, i do not believe they should play into the decision by the planning commission. in looking at the physical impact, i do not see any reason to turn down the cu. commissioner antonini: what i am hearing from at&t, in regards to concerns, is if there are concerns and measurements or frequency of emissions, they can contact at&t. if that is not easy to find, i would ask that the project sponsor contact members of the community to make sure they can find them.

that is what we need to have for assurances that the emissions are what they are slated to be. i would move approval. commissioner sugaya: second. president fong: the public comment portion is closed, i am afraid. if you have a question, maybe you can speak with a staff person assigned to this particular item. >> emotion on the floor is for approval. -- the motion on the floor is for approval. [roll is called] the motion passed unanimously. you are now on item 13, case 2011.1005c for 1801 broadway.

staff is -- president fong: we will give her a second, there. >> good afternoon. before you today is another proposal by at&t to install a wireless communications facility at 1801 broadway street. the facility would consist of up to four antennas on the rooftop of a penthouse on an existing residential building, with equipment located in the garage. it is a preference 7 site within the rn-3 makes use zoning district. i want to clarify an error in the document. the approval is for four antennas only.

this site is a location preference 7, which requires alternative analysis. according to the guidelines, a disfavored preference site needs to show what higher performance sites are located, and why it they were unsuccessful, and that the proposed location is essential to service demands. there was a church to the south that is the only preference one site in the area. the church has a strict policy of not permitting wireless facilities on its properties. finally, a third party is confirming the data is accurate. staff has received, to date, 1 e-mail, which has been included. it is opposition to the project,

based on health concerns. the staff recommends approval. president fong: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon again, members of the commission. i am with at&t. i am still here with a gain erickson -- with dan erickson, who did the third-party analysis, and with our representatives from the consulting firm. we are seeking a conditional use permit. this is a small site for at&t. it is a four panel directional antenna. we have an existing on the antenna -- omni antenna on the side of the building. we will decommission that as

soon as this site gets built, assuming we get permission to build it. there are of credit facilities we are deploying throughout san francisco, which are all panel antennas. we get a lot more bandwidth. we get a lot more directions. this is one of those sites. it is a preference seven site. there is very little in that area. it is a trouble spot for us. it is a corridor which is highly traveled. if you have traveled it and you are an at&t customer, you know what i am talking about. we talked about the significant load on the network from smart phones and other devices. we are seeking your approval today. i want to thank michelle for her work on all of our sites, but

particularly these two today. we ask for your continued support as we continue to upgrade our network. president fong: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> my name is jennifer moss. i live on the sixth floor of the building, which is the top floor, directly underneath where the antennas are to be installed. they are literally about 5 feet, between where the antennas are going to be and where my husband and i live. i am opposed. i represent my husband, myself, and many of our neighbors. we have found a significant lack of research showing long-term effects of exposure to these

antennas. we are especially concerned about the affects of the radiation on children. i am currently expecting my first child. we are very concerned about the effects of radiation on them. we also have neighbors who use at&t. my husband uses at&t. they have absolutely no problem with their service. i would like you to refer to the comments before about 901 cole. i am opposed to this. many of our neighbors are. i have a hard time believing this is the best spot in our neighborhood. it is a small building, about six stories. there are plenty of people who seem to have great at&t service. thank you very much. president fong: is there

additional public comment? >> in the code-owner of the property at 1801 broadway. my family has done quite a bit of research on this and worked with at&t to make sure the health risks are not going to be an issue for the tenants of the building. we have looked at this extensively. as the tenant who just spoke -- the antennas are actually directed away from the property. they are directional antennas, not the omnidirectional antennas that are currently on the property site.

the emissions are actually away from the property. the equipment downstairs is not going to be a factor, as far as radiation. it is basically just the antennas themselves. a number of tenants we have had over the previous years has escalated, as far as having cell phones as their full use of communications. it is hitting the point where it is maxxam out our intercom system. -- max thing -- maxing out our intercom system. people want it connected to multiple phones, all of which are so phones. there is not the coverage that this site will fulfill. one of the things i also hear it

is about the radiation. there are other sources of radiation that exist in people's homes right at this point, which far exceed what is going to be demonstrated by these antennas, such as wireless systems we have in place, up routers and those kinds of things, microwaves. if you look at the radiation those put out, in comparison with this installation, it is far less than those devices. the last thing i would like to say is the last thing i would want to do is put anybody in harm's way, in regards to something like this. i worked on this for a number of years. we are not interested in placing anybody in harm or jeopardy. president fong: any additional

public comment? the public comment portion is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: the comments expressed in the previous case and in this case are similar. those should be the answers given by the commission, in the addition to the ability to follow up with at&t. the installation of the things we are discussing at the moment are not regulated by the city, nor are the regulated by this commission. federal guidelines are there to ensure that proper health standards regarding radiation are being observed. for you personally, and i do understand your personal anxiety, the follow up with at&t that was suggested to the previous speakers are available

to you as well. i would suggest you contact or speak to the at&t representative in the room to set up the follow up at the time when it is appropriate. commissioner antonini: i have a question for mr. hammond or their representative. maybe mr. hammond would be better. i noticed that we are going to be removing, as part of this installation, the antenna that was originally approved in 1998. maybe you can talk a little bit about the directional -- the owner talked a little bit about the directional emissions. he intimated that the new antennas go away from the building. is that a different case with

the existing microcell? what kind of differences in rf emissions are there between the two? >> i am dane erickson, a registered professional engineer in the state of california. the antennas are directional in the vertical plane. even an antenna that is omnidirectional in the horizontal plane is still directional in the vertical plane. that means it radiates less energy directly downward. both patterns are taken into account, when we conduct our independent type galatians, whether a particular site complies with federal guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency energy. commissioner antonini: i guess my question was more that the older antenna is more

omnidirectional then these are? >> that is correct. it would be on the directional in the horizontal plane, but directional in the vertical -- it would be omnidirectional in the horizontal plane, but directional in the vertical. the new antenna is directional in both the horizontal and vertical. the ready it much less energy directly below the antennas den -- they radiate much less energy directly below the antennas. the throw is about 11 degrees below the horizontal for these particular antennas. commissioner antonini: i noticed this is different from the earlier one, because we are moving the existing antenna. >> we only study the proposed

replacement. commissioner antonini: our case study talks about the removal of an antenna that was placed in 1998. that would have to factor in the rf emissions that are being removed, figuring out what the result is. >> that is correct. the old antennas would not be included in the study. in some directions, that might be a decrease. in others, it might be an increase. those now proposed comply with federal guidelines. commissioner sugaya: move to approve with conditions. commissioner antonini: second. >> the motion on the floor is for approval with conditions, as proposed. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president wu: aye.

president fong: aye. >> the motion passed unanimously. president fong: we will take a 5 >> item 14, amending the san francisco planning code by repealing existing bicycle parking requirements, adding new sections. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you today is initiation of the bike parking legislation.

for the public benefit, the hearing does not include substantive discussions, but seeks approval for an adoption at a later date. we request to consider this item for adoption on september 28. this legislation is coming after the adoption of the bike plan in 2009. it is an implementation arm of our general plan. the major components of this legislation are increasing and expanding bike parking requirements for multiple use categories, requiring class one and class to parking. class 1 is secure and whether -- secure and weatherproof.

class two is highly visible. there are other requirements for placement and design of bike racks. lastly, it will organize existing bike parking requirements in the planning code, which are across five sections. we are working with the mta and other city agencies. we have reached out to other community organizations and associations. we are looking forward to working with other agencies and members of the public to update our bike parking requirements. we look for approval to initiate this legislation and launch the project. from the case report, this

creates -- it is missing, so i have copies. commissioner antonini: there is two page twos. president fong: ok. is there any public comment on this item? none? the public comment portion is closed. i'll chime in for a second. i am a huge supporter of this, and feel that this is a large part of san francisco becoming better.

safety and security how the transportation needs of the city, and increase commerce within the city. commissioner antonini: i am in support, but i have to look at the details. there are a few things doing, from changing the number of employees to the amount of occupied square feet. >> amount to remind commissioners that full discussion happened at the september 28 hearing. -- will happen at the september 28 hearing. this is for initiation, so the public hearing can be noticed. commissioner antonini: is inappropriate to comment on some of the things we see? >> the only thing before you now is to initiate. commissioner antonini: i am

reading some things and i have comments on them, but i do not know if it is appropriate to bring those up. >> you can bring them up with staff in the interim. >> the commissioners can speak on this item. the intent of initiation is for us to release it to the public. then, we will begin to get comments, and we can make revisions in advance of the adoption hearing. you could request that we come back with changes. this is the public release. we are interested in what you have to say. but this is to set the date of the future hearing. commissioner antonini: i realize that. i just thought i would make a couple of comments for

clarification. i noticed this is being expanded to a lot of other facilities. there would have to provide bike parking. we would also have to see the cost implications for these facilities. well you did contrast places like seattle and portland, which are somewhat larger cities and have a lot of by usage, we also want to look at what is done in other locations in the bay area. we can look at timing and what this may add to the cost of doing business. whenever you add more regulation or more costs to a startup for a business, we have to look at it and see if it is discouraging businesses from locating in san francisco, even if it is a noble goal. that was the main thing. commissioner moore: i would make

a motion that we initiate what is in front of us. we have a level of maturity to see that as the next necessary and commendable step. vice president wu: second. >> the motion on the floor is for approval of initiation. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: ate,' -- aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: aye. >> that motion passed unanimously. you are at general public comment. president fong: is there any general public common? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned. commissioner antonini: that has got to be a new record. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon. this is a joint meeting between the planning commission and the stohr preservation commission for july 19, 2012. i would like to remind everyone to silence or so phones and any other electronic devices that may sound off. moore? here.

sugaya? borden? cindy wu? i have a quorum of the planning commission, chase? haas/ ? martinez? we have a quorum of the historic preservation commission. this is on the grants. >> thank you, commissioners. i just wanted to make a few comments of introduction before i introduce her, first, thank you for both commissioners for bearing with us. this was my responsibility for getting * mixed up. i appreciate your forbearance -- for bearing with us on that ledge. yes i have the your coming with

us -- coming together with us for the special item. this is a project it that we have been working on for a while, and has offered a partnership with us on this design challenge, to come merida with innovative ways to deal with the -- come up with innovative ideas for the design problem related to the additions and the new construction in the historic districts, south of the market district and how these may be approached. we will have some interesting possibilities and approaches to this challenge. i will introduce driscoll, who will talk to you about the program. and how the design program is organized. thank you. >> i am the executive director with the center for architecture and design. i am happy that this is