tv [untitled] November 8, 2014 6:00pm-6:31pm PST
why i'm puzzled as to why certain intersections are getting traffic management and others have no control. it's something that i have been wondering about and it would be nice if the ones that are really dangerous got some traffic management. >>president david chiu: thank you are there any other members who wish to speak in general comment? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. let's go to committee without reference. city clerk: items 27 and 28 without objection.
single roll call vote. >>president david chiu: colleagues i would like to sever item 27. city clerk: kim, mar, tang, supervisor wiener, aye, yee, aye, supervisor avalos, aye, supervisor breed, aye, campos aye, chiu aye, supervisor cohen, aye. there are 11 ayes. >>president david chiu: thank you. next item. city clerk: sf 27. anti-arab and anti-muslim bus
advertisements. >> this board took a unanimous vote against bus ads and we appreciate how unfortunate it is again that we are back in this situation. i would ask this board stand up again condemning these ads and i appreciate the public coming together to stand with our local residents since 9-1-1 who have been subjected to significant discrimination and hate crimes in the aftermath of that tragedy event. with that, clooez, colleagues, i ask for your support. supervisors wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you. i support this. i think these ads are vial and disgusting. i know the 1st amendment is
what it is. it's unfortunate that our public buses have to be will littered with these reprehensible ads. icon democracy -- condemn them and will be supporting this resolution. this is not only the ads of this nature that have been run on muni, last year i also stood with the community and condemning these ads in fact the jewish community came forward to condemn the anti-arab and anti-muslim bus ads and that muni turnover the proceeds of those ads to the commission and i did that which was a good thing. shortly
thereafter anti-israel ads one on the buses and organized a campaign to this state to legitimize israel which came into existence after 6 million jews were murdered in europe and millennium killing jews came into existence as the only place on the planet where jews knew they could always go and be safe. when those ads went up, unfortunately we did not have unanimity on this board in condemning them and in addition mta declines to donate those proceeds to human rights commission despite request via letter from i believe it was seven members of this board. i do believe that we should be consistent in condemning
these ads and again the 1st amendment is what it is and we have to respect it, but these ads are unacceptable nonetheless. again, colleagues i will be supporting this resolution. today. >>president david chiu: thank you. supervisors avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: actually i will just keep my mouth shut. >>president david chiu: thank you supervisor avalos. let's take a roll call. city clerk: farrell, kim, mar, tang, wiener, yee, avalos, supervisor breed, campos, aye, supervisor chiu, cohen high. ayes. 11 ayes.
>>president david chiu: let's go to special orders. city clerk: 14.141047[approving the conditional use authorization decision - 395-26th avenue]motion approving the decision of the planning commission by its motion no. 19229, approving conditional use authorization identified as planning case no. 2013.0205ceksv on property located at 395-26th avenue, and adopting findings pursuant to planning code section 101.1. clerk of the boardd1234 agenda15.141048[disapproving the conditional use authorization decision - 395-26th avenue]motion disapproving the decision of the planning commission by its motion no. 19229, approving a conditional use authorization identified as planning case no. 2013.0205ceksv on property located at 395-26th avenue, and adopting findings pursuant to planning code, section 101.1. clerk of the boardd? 16.141049[preparation of findings related to the conditional use authorization - 395-26th avenue]motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings relating to the proposed conditional use authorization identified as planning case no. 2013.0205ceksv on property located at 395-26th avenue. clerk of the boardd. >>president david chiu: supervisors
mar? >>supervisor eric mar: they have agreed to continue this until november 25th and i know that is already a packed meeting and my apologies for that. i move to continue this item until november 25th. >>president david chiu: supervisor mar has made a motion to continue this. second by supervisor campos. let me see if there is a public speaker who may not be able to come on that date who may want to say a few words. >> now i'm back, i think it's legitimate time. >> this is the right time. >> fine. i live in richmond across the street from that building and i would like to voice my objection to while there are a couple of things. one their proposed building is not contributing to anymore affordable housing as far as i know. secondly, it's a commercial area clemente between 25 and 26 and has four small neighborhoods restaurants. people come from all over to those restaurants and parking is already at a premium. this building with it's luxury apartments for multi-residents is putting in only six parking places and parking is already chaotic. all of us around have problems with people parking in our
driveway all of the time. the richmond doesn't need this and it doesn't seem to me that it contributes to any form of neighborhood pleasant ry and any traffic management on that corner which is already extremely hazardous will make it worse because people cannot see from the driveway depending on where they are. i'm just putting in my two 2 bits because i don't think i can come to the next meeting. thank you very much. >>president david chiu: next speaker, please. >> hello, month i name is john haen. i'm here for the conditional use authorization. there is too many cars. i don't want to see our neighbors go as other neighborhoods have
to high rises. it's just not right. we need what we have. thank you very much. >>president david chiu: thank you. any other members wish to speak. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mar continued these items 14-16. colleagues, can we do that without objection? without objection is the case. madam clerk please call items 17-20. city clerk: 17.141064[public hearing - appeal of conditional use authorization - 115 telegraph hill boulevard]hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the planning commission's decision of september 11, 2014, motion no. 19232, relating to approval of a conditional use authorization case no. 2013.1375ecc, to allow the construction of three new dwelling units for a lot total of four unitss with three off-street parking spaces within the rh-3 residential house, three-familyy zoning district, telegraph hill - north beach residential special use
district and a 40-x height and bulk district located at 115 telegraph hill boulevard, assessor's block no. 0105, lot no. 065. district 33 appellant; vedica puri, on behalf of telegraph hill dwellerss filed october 14, 20144. clerk of the boardd1234 items ,,. clerk of the boardd1234 items 18-20 are approving the decisions through findings. >> >>president david chiu: colleagues we would entertain a motion to a companion of ceqa for conditional use authorization. can i have a motion to continue. motion by supervisor mar and second by supervisor farrell. any other members of the public wishing to speak to this. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> can we take a motion to continue this item. these items 17-20 to november 18th without objection. madam clerk, can you call the third 3 :00 p.m. order items 21-24. city clerk: public hearing pa appeal for conditional use authorization permit to be located at 431
balboa street. for the conditional use operation item 22 ks item 23, disapproving the conditional use authorization decision. item 24 #shgs preparation of findings. >>president david chiu: supervisor mar? march >>supervisor eric mar: march they are here from the richmond area. this is a proposal from the macro wireless telecommunications facility from my understanding will be on the roof of i don't know if any of you know where sushi bistro is near sixth and balboa. it's close to my house as well. this will be on the roof and it's a location preference by site on a mixed
used building on a high density district. the proposed antennas would either measure approximately 55 inches high by 7 inches wide and 12 inches thick or 48 inches high by 29 inches wide and 10 inches thick and will be located in three separate areas or sectors and it's in an area with a number of either child care or schools. elementary is is very close by as well. also a number of restaurants and key transit areas as well. i wanted to also say that some of the residenting from my district have raised concerns whether it's necessary and desirable and i'm looking forward to hearing the testimony from my neighborhood but also from the planning department as well and at & t as well. >>president david chiu: colleagues we have the appeal for this
conditional use project for 431 balboa to consider whether this conditional use authorization to approve a wireless communication facility to be installed at this location was valid. as we typically do we follow to give -- them for a presentation of 10 minutes and we'll hear from the project sponsor for 10 minutes and hear from speakers that oppose for 2 minutes and then we'll hear a rebuttal. why don't we proceed to the appellant. >> good afternoon, president chiu, fellow supervisors. my name is dr. john make low representing the appellant and not only myself but all my fellow
residents. i would like those who stand in support of my appeal to stand up and be recognized. thank you very much. we have many other supporters who could not be here today but signed petitions for this project. we are pealing the planning commission's approval for the conditional use authorization for the at & t towers at 431 balboa street. we are asking you to reverse the decision based on the ground that there is no coverage gap and the many negative impacts to our community with the installation of 9 cellular tower releasing 9 watts of power over an area to 10 square city blocks. at & t says there is a data
peak period. we challenge this with our analysis and our data does not substantiate this claim . we utilized and apg and found no coverage gap. the data will be presented later in testimony. we also have many at & t users amongst us and they can testify that they do not experience significant drops in performance or slowness in performance on their cell phones. this project also has many negative impact and one of them is the safety of the neighborhood. it is in direct opposition to planning code section 303 which states the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health and safety and general convenience of the welfare of persons working in the vicinity and also it is in direct
opposition to the general plan human needs objective four with states improvement to increase personal safety, comfort pride and opportunity. my argument is based on statements by the engineering consultant ham get us and edison and the department of review of cellular antenna proposals which states that workers shall not have access of 32 feet of the front of the antenna while in operation. appropriate rf safety training be provided to all personnel marking prohibited access areas with yellow pain stripes on the roof and antenna and posting signs at the roof show
case ladder in front of the antenna which will be visible to persons who might need to work within that distance would be sufficient to meet fcc adopted guidelines. i wish to show you a diagram which demonstrates this 32 -foot hazard area. this is balboa street. the red circle is 32 feet in front where the front antennas would be emitting forward. the purple circle is to the west of the three antennas located here and the yellow circle depicts where the scatter would be 32 feet south to the rear. now, these 9 tower is would
be emitting radiation into the back yards, patios, porches as well as into the the street. why is it that there are no safety precautions or notifications for the public or the residents. they are being exposed without their knowledge. why are there two standards, one for workers but none for the public. i find this totally irresponsible. we are in the predicament in these areas because walls touch eeven -- each others. cell tourists towers do not belong in these areas. as opposed to the least
intrusive gap, we might not be having this appeal. at & t has their priorities wrong. why? simple. they did not engage the community. at & t council stated "at & t also held a community outreach meeting to meet with nearby residents to answer their questions and consider their thoughts and suggestions for the site. in this way at & t made sure to select it's means to close this gap" that meeting was held in 2012 and three people attended. hardly representative of the 200 property owners that live within the 300 -foot radius. why was there such a poor showing? quite obvious. no one was properly notified. anyone i talked to could not remember this notification. within the two 2 years there has been
a total lack of community engagement with at & t until the past two 2 months when their application was approved by the planning commission and the community was aware of it. next i want to mention that there is negative effect on housing. both housing element states new housing is sustainably supported and also planning code section 101.b states that affordable housing shall be preserved. both of these were necessity negated by this project. also property owners that are in the direct 32 -foot hazard zone would be unable to develop their property as well. we feel there is going to be negative impact on businesses.
there is a restaurant immediately below the towers and outdoor cafe. they will suffer once they know that cell towers are directly above them. people may not want to walk below these cell towers. people must be notified there are towers above. there are compliance issues with this building. there are building code voelgsz violations which is a current building for a single family residence has four families living there and we also find fire code violations in that there are no fire escapes at the rear of the building. so in conclusion, we feel
that we have significant grounds to reverse this decision by the planning commission that was done on september 18th. thank you. >>president david chiu: thank you, supervisor mar? >>supervisor eric mar: can i ask you, my understanding is that there is a peters place child care center on 4th avenue and there is a balboa preschool in addition to cinderella bakery with outdoor tables right across the street from the site, is that correct? >> that's right. >> and there is a school where my daughter went and other schools in the vicinity of the homeowners.
>> that's right. >> when you had an independent whether it was a gap in coverage, bhs that data taken in >> we did it two 2 days ago sunday and monday. >> the diagram you show with the colored circles that's based on the location of the antennas and the direction that they are facing as well is that right? >> correct. >> and then for the community meeting that was pretty much not attended by anyone and you said 3 showed up, were you and the homeowners notified of that meeting in 2012? >> no one can remember that notification. >> okay. thank you very much. >>president david chiu: colleagues any other questions to the appellant. let's listen to members of the public who support the appellant.
>> good afternoon, i live in the neighborhood of 431 balboa. i love technology. i carry two cell phones myself. but there are a couple of things i wanted to point out in the application one where the coverage gap, we use fcc app and measured the multiple types that were to have coverage deficiency. we were above the national average and these were done at peak hours in times that were claimed to have bad service. some of the exhibits that were given in the application also lacked proper access. it just said is saturday and sunday and nobody knows what that
means other than that it's an exit and shows a gap. we took this data seriously and all the data is available for them to look at too. that's the first thing that is wrong in there was a service gap. that caused a reject in my opinion. the second thing is the politics is applying for the entire spectrum from 700 mega hertz to 2001 mega hertz. it's not just the at & t but any cellphone provider. you do realize there is a lot of trading going on with cellphone powers and at & t with the $4 billion deal last year. this is more of a land grab and trying to get thousand for trading.
as far as the coverage gap. >>president david chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> my name is michael murphy, i live and 625 sixth avenue. i would like to address the fcc act now codified in section 322c. first, my qualifications. for about 20 years i worked as a research attorney for the court of appeals initially for judge women -- william newsom and judge wagner. i have written eight law receive articles and the journal and the nyu journal review in business and the business lawyer, a peer review of the american bar association. the critical point i want to make relates
to familiar parentheses pl that status should uphold their constitutionality. section 3c would encroach on our constitutional rights. fortunately it lend itself to a common sense interpretation. the right of petition applies not only to the petitions in the common sense but also guarantees access to the courts and administrative agency and protects an individual's right to challenge the misused guide of all as the result. it lies to the part of the democratic. what does section 322c say? it recognizes the authority of the government over the placement of wireless services.
then it adds a caveat. local government cannot regulate in the business of their environmental effects if the emissions comply with the regulations. >>president david chiu: thank you very much, sir. your time is up, actually. thank you. sure, that is fine. you can provide a copy to us. we'll include that on the record. thank you, sir. are there any other members who wish to public comment? >> good afternoon, president chiu and fellow supervisors. i live at 264 sixth avenue
with my husband and two boys. our backyard are to the site on west balboa, the proposed site of the towers. i would like to show you how close we are. this is a view from our deck. this is 431 balboa. that's the view from our bedroom on the second floor. this is the roof of the 431 balance -- balboa. i would like to say that at & t states they will put a locked view for appoint -- antenna and no access will be allowed while it's in operation. in addition, at & t states that it will post prohibited access signage on or near the roof to warn
anyone getting close to the antenna, in other words at & t recognizes the danger and will take the measure to protect the safety of it's workers. what i would like to know what are the precautionary measures to protect me and my husband and my children. where are the measures to protect our safety. we have no safe guards for ourselves even though it's dangerous for authorized personnel to go near. clearly at & t see's the hazards but only cares to the hazards to the workers, not residents. these workers will be there for a short amount of time. >>president david chiu: thank you very much. let's hear from the next