|
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
|
president chiu:
midafternoon.
welcome to the supervisors'
meeting of April 12th, 2011.
>> [Roll- call]
mr. President, there is a quorum.
President Chiu: thank you, ladies and gentlemen, could you
please join me in the pledge of allegiance?
I want to take a quick moment to well, -- I understand there is a
classroom, the berkeley school of law.
Want to welcome our future lawyers and interpreters of the law. Colleagues, we have been
provided meeting minutes for
the March 8th and March 9, 2011 meetings. Can I have a motion to approve
at the minutes?
Without objection, as minutes are approved.
are there any communications?
>> I have no communications, Mr. President.
President Chiu: could you please call the special order, the mayor' s appearance before the board? >> the first item is for the mayor to engage in formal policy discussions with members of the board by answering eligible
questions submitted from supervisors representing the odd districts. The mayor May address the board for up to five minutes.
The President Will recognize supervisor from -- supervisors
from districts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11. Discussions shall not exceed five minutes per supervisor.
>> thank you Madam Clark and Mr. Mayor, on behalf of the legislative body of san francisco, I want to welcome you to the chamber for this historic occasion. when the idea of their regular appearance by the mayor was first proposed some years back, I think we would all agree it
was in the context of more challenged relations between
the executive and legislative branches. We are now, fortunately, I think in a more amicable era. That does not mean we will always agree, but I think our colleagues will share my perspective that the lines of communication between the mayor
and the boards of supervisors is much more open. As the voters have asked us to do, why don' t we began our
public discussion of some of the policy issues now facing the
city.
As the clerk laid out did
procedures today -- , we have questions previously submitted by the supervisors representing the odd numbered districts.
I would first like to call upon
our supervisor from district 1 to read your questions.
-- my apologies.
I realize I did not give the mayor and opportunity to make opening comments.
>> thank you very much for inviting me to your chambers.
I look forward to a meaningful monthly dialogue with all of you
in this setting.
Since I became mayor, I believe
we have continuous meaningful
discussions about policy both
in one-on-one meetings and at town halls we have held in a number of your districts.
It is my sincere belief that the
best path forward must include substantive policy based conversations about issues facing our city.
While we May not always start with the same approach to solving important policy issues
like pension costs, budget cuts
and job growth strategies, I am confident we all share the same
goals of creating jobs and balancing the budget.
It is no secret that city government needs to control the increasing cost of entitlements.
We must do this because if we do not, the core function of
government, health services, parks and public safety will suffer.
We have a serious budget deficits. We have a mandate to create jobs
for the people of san francisco.
It is our responsibility to keep the city beautiful and livable for all people of all incomes and in all neighborhoods.
Whatever it takes to accomplish these goals, sessions like this question time or town hall
meetings in your district, I' m eager to show up for those discussions.
With that said, I appreciate the thoughtful questions you sent last week. i look forward to this discussion.
President Chiu: thank you, Mr. Mayor. For our first question, I will
call on our supervisor from district 1.
Supervisor mar: thank you for your leadership. What policies the recommend for a citywide from work or all of
our -- where we get advantages for community benefits.
Additionally, how will you
ensure the greatest possible community participation and engagement in the creation of a community benefits agreement in the mid market area and any other community are realized?
mayor lee: thank you for that question.
We have a variety of different support services for all our commercial districts around the city. They all contribute to job creation and improving neighborhood conditions for all residents and business owners.
We have a very small amount of
general fund dollars and community development block grants to do this work.
However, we have stretched it to launch programs around the city, we tend to focus our resources and staff time on business districts in low-income neighborhoods that need the most support.
The neighborhood marketplace initiative is active in 12
neighborhoods, serving business districts that are most in need
of support, like third street and the bayview, mission street and excelsior, and we just
expanded to fillmore street in the western district.
City staff and our nonprofit partners are providing direct support services to merchants, bringing merchants and neighbors together to come up with an action plan for how want to improve their community.
An independent analysis just completed a five-year evaluation
of that neighborhood marketplace initiatives program and found it
is very effective at creating jobs in neighborhoods and produces a variety of other
outcomes like improved safety, cleanliness, and access to goods and services.
That valuation will be published within a few weeks and I will
make sure every member of the board of supervisors gets a copy.
We also have 11 community benefit districts you all know of. The mayor' s office works closely with over a dozen different
organizations that provide direct assistance to any small businesses in the city that need
help, such as meta, the bayview
research center and the small business assistance center right here at city hall.
We have a number of different loan programs that enable small businesses to get access to capital.
That allows them to expand or strengthen their businesses.
These services absolutely create jobs.
Our offices able to make a limited number of office sought
improvement grants to business
and they can use this money to attract customers so they can
create more jobs.
There is a lot of demand for the program and we wish we could
expand it all over the city, but right now is targeted toward our neediest neighborhoods.
Of course, it is going to be a
candidate for many -- for any major corporation I talk with to expand that program. I commit that to you.
i join the board President This
week in announcing the jobs2 program, which is targeted at small businesses to take
advantage of are still available
funds so that we can increase up to 300 new jobs in our neighborhoods.
Regarding the mid market area and the community benefits agreement, as you know, community engagement is a central part of what we do in
our neighborhood economic development work around the city.
We were directly with community directors, merchants and stakeholders to create
neighborhood action plans where
committee members advertise the most important things their community needs.
most recently, we finish this
project on lower 24th street in the mission.
We are now working closely with community members to implement that plan.
We will be conducting an even
more in depth community planning process in central market.
Over the course of the next two
months, we plan to talk to a wide variety of community stakeholders' by conducting at
least 30 interviews, five focus
groups, for community meetings, a survey of local merchants and
other surveys of people on the streets.
We are kicking this off to
marmite at a community meeting.
You are all welcome to attend.
at the end of this process, we will have a list of the strategies for neighborhood improvements that are most
important to residents and nonprofit organizations on central market. I understand the specifics of
the community-based agreement, the community benefits agreement are still being worked out.
[Tone]
I can ignore that for a second.
I know that twitter and burning man and other businesses that
locate to central market are excited about the revitalization process. I' m confident we will work hard to respond to the needs identified by community members by that process.
president chiu: thank you.
I will then ask and ask question representing my district, district 3.
As you prepare your June some metal, could you please describe
how you would reduce the relative global of cuts that
will be required in major areas
of city government, for example
-- public health, public safety, social services and parks and the extent to which you plan to ratify new revenues to close our
significant deficit?
Mayor lee: thank you for that question. We' re trying to do everything to balance the budget while minimizing impact on direct services to the public.
As you know and as many of you have heard, the three principles
I share with the departments and the commission is that I want to
make sure the city is safe, not
only in the public safety cents but safe with respect to the core level of services we need to provide.
we need this city to be solvent
so that we make sure we can pay for all of the services we provide.
That means we also take care of
the pension challenge and we
want the city to be successful and we continue doing those things in our neighborhoods and our areas where we attract people to come and maintain their interest in this great city.
To address the current deficit,
which is $306 million, we asked the departments to propose reductions of their discretionary general fund support.
These reductions total only $100 million, one-third of our original budget deficit.
an additional 10% would yield a
maximum of an additional $100 million, leaving a large
remaining gap, even if we were
to decide a number of the proposals were acceptable.
There is no magic formula for deciding the best way to balance the budget. The reason we give production
targets to them is to see what they come up with. We not believe in across-the- board cuts.
Some departments can do their
targets with relatively little disruption to the services. Others May have more difficulty.
We need to look at all the
proposals and make judgments
about which ones make most sense for our city.
For example: our largest department, the department of public health, was able to meet
its 10% target by using only revenues without reducing existing services.
At the end of the day, our
options are limited there are five departments that make up
over 75% of our discretionary general fund.
Public health, police, human services, fire department and sheriff.
This is no surprise as these departments are the core responsibilities of the city and county. That is why our budget discussions tend to focus on these departments.
Within these departments, we
face constraints on our options.
Public health and human services
is used to leverage state and federal dollars. If we make expenditure
reductions to certain programs, we feel a disproportionate impact.
Police and fire departments have voter-approved staffing requirements.
General expenses are driven by na populations.
On the revenue question, we have been very aggressive about using revenues to help with the budget deficit.
Our deficit has gone from $380
million in November to $306 million today, and that is most entirely due to revenue. the single biggest thing we can
do to bring in new revenue is
make sure we have a stable, growing economy. Our departments are being aggressive about pursuing revenue. The department of public health
has been able to secure $30 million in additional revenue for next year' s budget which will prevent the need for reductions.
the recreation and park department has been working hard to increase its revenue
collections, which has been instrumental in protecting services our parks.
The board will consider whether to extend the botanical garden which would bring the $250,000 next year from tourists.
If we do not approve this the, it will mean poor conditions in the garden and neighborhood parks.
We are planning a general
obligation bonds for and the November ballot that would bring in much-needed funding to reduce the backlog of repairs to our streets.
As we consider new revenues, we must keep in mind the significant reductions, restrictions we face. [Tone]
Under state law, any notice that goes before the public in November would require two- thirds vote. We are more limited in how we
can use fees given the voter approval of proposition 26 last year.
That said, I welcome an open, responsible conversation about new revenues. lastly, we need to begin thinking about our budget issues beyond what we do to balance the budget in June.
Next month, we will release the
first draft of [Tone]
Of our first financial plan. We have a structural problem
where costs are growing faster
than our revenues and this will remain the case even after the economy begins to recover.
Much of this cost growth is driven by employee benefits.
If we do not address pension and benefit costs growth, we will be in the same position every year,
reducing services to balance the budget.
If we do not take action, our
deficit will grow and there will
not be any revenues to grow fast enough to reverse this problem.
I look forward to continued cooperation in the months ahead.
We can and will solve this budget. I truly appreciated hearing from each one of you about your priorities for this budget. We'
re working in good faith to incorporate your feedback.
I want the city to be safe, solvent and to be successful. Thank you.
President Chiu: let' s recognize our colleague from district 5.
Supervisor mirkarimi: welcome, mayor, it' s good to see you here. As you know, governor brown
recently signed a bill 109 in
the effort to redistribute the inmates prisoner population on
the state level back to
california cities, minutes polities throughout california.
Their goal is to redistribute this population in the near
future, but predicator on the goal is the question of funds
that remain from the state that
would hopefully escort that
population back to cities like san francisco.
But as we know, those funds, frankly, do not exist.
What is our approach from the
city side in anticipating either these negotiations or this expectation?
Mayor lee: thank you for that question.
As you know, I have that very
strong skepticism about so- called funds that might come with this realignment.
While this bill is expected to shift tens of thousands of
inmates back to municipalities here in san francisco, the state' s estimates are
predicting less than 700 inmates and parolees will be returning to the city facilities.
That is according to state estimates. The city has been meeting for
the past few months to make sure key stakeholders associated with
this development is to address the incoming population before the expected release this summer, which is likely to be in July.
Additionally, we have convened public safety clusters combined of the sheriff'
s department, the
police department, the D.A., the
public defender, the juvenile probation department and the adult probation department and superior court representatives. We' re working together to make sure the existing resources will
be ready to absorbent the returning population.
As the budget process moves
forward, we are cognizant of the
fact lead to potentially make budget adjustments during the
fiscal year to respond to this.
we do not have enough certainty
yet about the realignment details to a fixed and exact
cost number to this. It' s also important to note that san francisco does not send as
many people to state prison as other counties per-capita.
Instead, we fund preventative
and pre-trial criminal-justice programs outside the
traditional state prison options.
Examples include the community
justice court, the back on track program, and are drug and mental
health courts and community courts. Furthermore, we are already head of other cities in dealing with the juvenile issues because we
said so few of our children to state custody already.
As you know, assembly bill 109 returns all juvenile to count the jurisdictions. Most other counties have hundreds of juvenile that they have sent to the california youth authority and we have relatively few.
In other words, the budget impact of 109 on san francisco
are not as severe as they are for other places in california because we have been proactive
in years past about managing our prison population.
President Chiu: our next question will be asked by our colleague from district 7.
Supervisor elsbernd: Mr. Mayor,
can you share with us on the need for pension reform and the need for benefit reform?
Mayor lee: thank you, supervisor, for that question.
I appreciate this question and the sustained question you have paid to this. The city cannot sustain its current workforce and benefits structure in light of the exponentially increasing benefit costs.
We need to reform our benefit
structure to provide pension and health care for employees and retirees that allow our workers
to work and retire in dignity
without unduly compromising important services we must provide to the public.
To that end, building on the important work done by the
coalition brought together, we have proposed legislation that reduces city costs of long-term and increasing cost sharing by employees in the short term.
We are well into the required meet and confer process with our labor organizations.
all of you on the board of supervisors will be hearing more
about these details during are closed session today.
We anticipates submitting the legislation we develop in this
process to the board by the May
24th deadline, if not before, for the inclusion on the November ballot later this year.
president chiu: our final question today is from our supervisor of district 11.
Supervisor avalos: Mr. Mayer, welcome to the board chambers. It is great to see you here.
recently, we took two trips to
ballpark station and one was the
unedited version -- to balboa park station.
The other was with our city departments to had sprinted up a bit and had expedited some of the projects we need to make happen there.
just wondering what your plans
are for improving the site,
making it work as a transit hub first and foremost.
I am concerned the mta looks at it as a maintenance facility and not a transit hub.
we to have leadership from the board of supervisors and the mayor' s office to make it was it should become a first and foremost, a transit hub.
Mayor lee: I also appreciate the
question supervisor campos submitted.
thank you for that question . The balboa park station is a very important asset to the city. It is the busiest transit hub in the southern part of san francisco and the busiest part station in the bay area outside of the market street stations.
It also happens to be home to the most important made and yard for the light rail fleet.
all of this is happening in a neighborhood, not an industrial part of the city.
That, I got a very clearly.
It is clear the area is designed around a maintenance function.
It is noisy and often unpleasant for people waiting for the bus, train or just walking through.
There are few amenities nearby.
When we had the tour on march
17th, it was clear to me there are serious safety concerns with the law walkway between this asian and maintenance yard as well as improvements that need
to be made -- between the station and maintenance yard as well as improving the cleanliness of the station.
The city has recognize the problems and the potential of this area.
the bell ballpark station area
plan developed by the plot --
the balboa park station area plan recommend the right variety of improvements ranging from
creating safer, more attractive places to wait for the bus or
train, restoring order reusing the historic geneva office
building and reusing the yard parcel for a development that will bring positive activity to that area.
I must say I, that upper yard has to be preserved for the development, not additional space for the art.
We will be working toward that goal together.
I have asked city departments to take the following steps
starting now -- install solar
powered signs and improve other informational sign it. Clean up the news rack areas. You' ve got the update on that already.
Improve the san jose avenue boarding platform that is already funded and will be constructed as part of the larger project.
Close off the unsafe walkway which will no longer be
necessary when the new platform opens on san jose avenue.
We are cleaning the area twice daily with heavy cleaning my regular basis.
we need a new class -- a
crosswalk, countdown signals at
ocean avenue and I 280 would be of the reach city college. This is scheduled to be
completed by late 2012, but I
have asked the mta to expedite this for earlier completion.
i have spoken to the maintenance and safety issues, but we are
also working hard on
transforming the balboa park
station into a mixed used project focused on development -- on affordable housing.
It would further many regional
goals related to affordable housing, smart growth and
activation of critical public areas.
Accordingly, a residential development on the site is prioritized in the recent
development area planned. I'
m asking for a complete
report for results and next steps.
those steps support a community- led study of potential development sites in the vicinity of the station. [Tone]
Conduct an analysis of current real estate needs to determine which of those parcels are
needed in the future for
maintenance uses and pecan turnover to more neighborhood- oriented uses.
Conduct an analysis by the department of public health related to noise and air quality
for development near the
station and conduct an analysis
of the cost of developing the up briard over the bart station. [Tone]
I think it is fair to say that
in the spring of 2012, city staff and community stakeholders' should convene to look at the result of these studies. My office is ready to work closely with your office to make sure these issues are addressed in a timely fashion.
We created a matrix of follow-on actions which we have shared with you and a meeting has been
scheduled for April 14th with your offices.
again, I think the long term
here is we make this more of a
residential hub man -- and a transportation hub rather than the maintenance yard has been.
President Chiu: Mr. Mayer, on behalf of the board, would like to thank you for your participation. We thank you for your public discussions about our formal policy issues.
Let me now -- colleagues, I would like to leave this item
open for public comment later on in the agenda, which is something called for under the ordinance.
I would like to at this time, out of respect for the mayor' s schedule is to move to are closed session on pensions.
Could you please call item 21?
>>
item 21 is a motion the board of supervisors convene in closed session to consult with the
mayor and the city' s labor relations negotiators for the
purpose of reviewing the mayor' s instructions to negotiators related to pension, health care, retiree health care proposals.
President Chiu: can I have a
motion to gloat -- to go into closed session? Any public comment on whether we
should go into closed session?
Seeing that none of, without objection, let' s go into closed section.
For this item, to discuss our cities situation regarding the
pension, health care and retiree health-care costs, if I
could ask you to please vacate that chambers. We will open the doors up when the closed session is completed.
president chiu: president chiu: thank you for thank you for
coming today and thank you for coming today and thank you for
coming to highlight the coming to highlight the importance of san francisco importance of san francisco putting residents back to work putting residents back to work and reviving the local economy. and reviving the local economy.
Last September, we announced the Last September, we announced the city would have its own modified city would have its own modified
version of the federal jobs now program.
If congress failed to extend the jobs benefits.
Because congress failed to act,
we called it jobs now 2 .
We have partnered with over 100
businesses and employed over 500
local residents, with 70 of them working in the private sector.
Today, we are here to announce
we saw a lot of financial opportunities for private business to participate in the
jobs now 2 program and we will continue to put people back to work in san francisco.
We would like to focus is on local, small businesses.
Local businesses are missing a
great opportunity to use this resource to their advantage.
This increase in subsidy we are
announcing today can help small and medium-size business expand and reduce their overhead costs.
Jobs now
will reimburse employers for wages paid to the
employee to hire to be eligible job seeker pool which would
generally cover between two and a three months of wages, a good deal for participating wages.
It greatly reduces their risk
and cost of hiring new employees which would be a big plus for
any business and getting more for the san francisco residence,
getting them working for our entire city.
This program is funded at
current levels through June 30th of this year.
There will be approximately 250-300 jobs that could be subsidized by this time. We are here to announce that we
still have money and enthusiasm
and opportunity focused on local small businesses to take advantage.
We have done well with the non- profit sector and public sector
as well, but today, we are announcing the availability of these funds, the increase we
have to entice small business to take advantage of this program.
With that, I want to introduce
the head of human services
agency and he will emcee the rest of the speakers.
>> good morning, everyone. I' m the director of the human services agency.
We have had tremendous success with jobs now.
We employ over 4100 low-income
job seekers as well as folks receiving unemployment.
This is underwritten by more
than $60 million in federal funds that expired at the end of September last year.
We react to the program using
about $9 million of local funds,
state funds and federal funds to
target that same pool of
unemployed job seekers as well as public assistance seekers.
Two-thirds of the program has been successful. We' ve been able to place 460 people in subsidize positions as
well as positions with nonprofit partners in the city.
I think the shortcoming was on the private sector side. We initially designed the
program to offer private sector,
principally small businesses, $2,500 to hire an individual.
We had about 70 placements and
with the help of scott, who is
standing here, we decided to double the subsidy amount. That is what we are announcing today.
any business in the private
sector in san francisco can
avail themselves of $5,000 in
the wage subsidy, provided they hire the individual screened through us and is referred to them.
We have the budget remaining for
the fiscal year, arrived -- room for 300 or more replacements.
Given the wage level, we think
the $5,000 will carry small business between two and three
months depending on the person I higher.
We believe the private sector will recognize immediately dubbed the of the individual they have hired.
over 80% of the businesses that participated say employees increased sales and efficiency.
With the subsidy ended, many of
these employees were kept on and
the private sector paid their salaries. We hope the same thing happens
here and 300 or more get placed and add value to the company
with which they' re working and they are retained after the subsidy goes away.
Behind me is the man who has
been a champion of jobs now, providing valuable feedback to
my staff of around the needs of small businesses in san francisco and how we can design
a program to benefit them.
Before I introduce them, I would
like to introduce one of our
leading proponents and advocates
of the board of supervisors,
board President David chiu.
President Chiu: I am very excited to be part of this announcement because before I was an elected official, I used to run a small business. One of the biggest challenges
facing us at this time is our unemployment.
i should mention, my mother used to say there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Jobs now 2 is the closest we can get to that free lunch between now and June 30th.
This was something sponsored by
the federal stimulus fund we got under President Obama.
it was a remarkably effective program.
San francisco created over 4000 jobs with over 800 companies
which brought $55 million of new
activity to our local economy.
We were extremely disappointed and congress not -- decided not to continue the program last September.
Because of the partnership with the mayor' s office and the mayor'
s commitment to jobs and particularly with our private sector leaders, we have been
able to move this forward with a combination of continued local, state and some federal funding.
i would like to single out
scott, the number for the program has been lagging in the private sector, particularly with small businesses. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
We ask you, our media partners, to get the word out. There is still potential for hundreds of jobs to qualify between now and June 30th. i think the latest estimate is
about 300 new jobs that could be created if companies take advantage of what we' ve got here.
With that, I would like to thank our partners as well as our
friends and small-business as we hope will be using this program to put our people back to work.
>> good morning.
I' m the founder of small business california, but I' m also an employer.
I have an insurance agency with 30 employees.
Everybody knows small business is the engine that drives the economy.
nationally, they hired two- thirds of the net job increases.
Is really important that this
information get out to the small business community.
I did hire a
person, for the first person of it.
i did so because I knew at some
point, in six months to a year, is going to have to hire another
employee and this gave me the opportunity to hire someone earlier than I would have otherwise.
She has turned out to be a fabulous employee.
she is our assistant claims person in the office and does a terrific job.
As far as this program, I have not used this program yet.
Increasing it is a tremendous benefit for small businesses.
i would like to ask the small business community in san francisco to closely look at
this program and see what the opportunities are out there for them.
To that extent, I gave an application -- information on a
job we had available and hopefully we will find somebody to take advantage of the subsidies being provided. Thank you.
>> thank you.
Coming from the human services
where we focus 90% of our time and effort on the clients we' re serving, we' re not used to being in the economic development business.
About 8% of our placement in the first program are small businesses.
Let me give you a story about a gentleman I met at our event last year.
He owns a car wash and he told
me he was hesitant to expand.
What does that mean in the car wash industry? It means more staff.
He said jobs now came along and he doubled his staff. He took that risk because it was
not going to cost him anything. It was underwritten by federal money.
He kept those 12 people he
hired and they are still working. His business is thriving. There are dozens and dozens of
examples like that. What we are excited about
getting 4100 people back in jobs, we lose sight of the
import of money pumping back into the economy and helping small businesses not only stay
in business but to grow and flourish. We have an example here.
A company called book pig.
Charlotte is here to talk about
her experience with jobs now one and two and she brought with her a couple of folks she hired.
they manage the most recent thing.
president chiu: welcome back to
the board of supervisors meeting for April 12th, 2011.
We are back from are closed session.
Can I have a motion to not disclose what was an hour closed session?
Without objection, the motion passes to not disclose the information.
>> item 2, or dent amending the
article establishing a payroll tax exclusion for businesses located in the central market street and tenderloin area.
>>
supervisor kim: last week, I introduce legislation that aimed at reducing the tenderloin area into which businesses can enter the tax exclusion. The version that was publicly noticed and is in front of us
now does not reflect the amendment I introduced last week.
It was unfortunately submitted by the city attorney' s office and is now publicly noticed.
There is an inconsistency between the narrative and the
math and the narrative by introduced. I' m going to reintroduce my amendments today. The amendments to not change the
nature of the scope or area,
latest clarify the statement I made last week.
This is obviously a very important piece of legislation
and we wanted to be reflective of our intentions and what we are voting for.
i have distributed the amendments.
We are deleting blocks
0716 on
page two, reducing the scope of the legislation to apply to
parcells on the north side of alice.
we also have the consistency
which changes the from the mayor' s office of economic development to the office of city administrator that shall
submit the annual report to the board of supervisors.
Those amendments are not substantive but will require us
to have a second reading the following week. Thank you.
President Chiu: is there a second?
any objection to the amendments?
Without objection, the amendments are adopted.
Now, if we could take a first reading vote on the ordinance
as amended.
>> [Roll-call ]
there are eight ayes and three nos.
President Chiu: I would like to
go to our 3:30 special orders because I know we have a number of certificates and commendations today. I would like to start with
supervisor avalos.
Supervisor avalos: thank you.
I would like to call kathy chen to the podium.
Colleagues, as many of you know
or May not know, this is national public safety telecommunications week.
officially established by congress in 1991, this is an
opportunity to honor the
dedicated women and men who are
on the line without fail,
responding to emergency calls, dispatching emergency staff and equipment and saving lives.
San francisco has the third
busiest dispatch center in california. I am not surprised. Handling approximately 1 million calls.
The average answering time for a 911 call is 3 seconds. This is all things to the dedicated work of our emergency dispatchers.
Of which cathy is one of.
I would like to honor the extraordinary work of one particular emergency dispatcher
who has been honored by the department' s emergency management as dispatcher of the year.
She is a district 11 resident.
Most recently, she was the
dispatcher who took a call on
November 11th, 2010, from a distraught man who was threatening to blow up his vehicle and jump from the bay bridge.
Kathy maintained contact with
this person and kept him talking until the negotiation team of the police department arrived.
As the first public safety official in contact with this
man, her calm and professional manner helped keep the incident from escalating further.
It protected the public from harm during a busy morning
commute and got a much-needed resources to this troubled man and his daughter as well.
She has an outstanding public
safety dispatch career, spanning 15 years. She has consistently demonstrated extraordinary skill
in handling life-threatening and
police called in a calm and
professional manner and adapted skills as a radio dispatcher.
She is also at a patient and effective trainer to new dispatchers.
She is a model of professionalism and courage for her co-workers and that inspiration to us all.
i would like to invite the
director to offer her word on her great experience and work. Thank you for all of your great work.
[Applause]
>>
I am the director of emergency management and I am so thrilled to be here today.
thank you for this honor for the department. All of our dispatchers have
their lives on the line every single day working with the
public and we are such an
important part of the public safety system.
Thank you supervisor and thank you all. If you have time this week, he
should come to our communications center. I know you could not make it to
our open house, but we have lots of festivities going on to
celebrate the great work our dispatchers do. Thank you. [Applause]
>> good afternoon and thank you for this honor. I am the that the director in charge of the center.
it is our honor and privilege to get this today.
All of our dispatcher' s work
tirelessly and every day, they' re saving someone' s life.
Kathy did a fabulous job and we want to recognize her. Thank you. [Applause]
>> thank you very much supervisor and the other board
members for this honor. I appreciate it.
It is a wonderful to be here and
share this day with my husband,
like children and with my co- workers at the department of
emergency management.
on November 11th of last year, the caller explained he stopped his car on the bay bridge and claimed he had explosions with -- had explosives with them.
He also threatened to jump from the bridge.
I worked to keep him talking until negotiators arrived.
It was a challenging call and I' m glad I was able to help the police department bring a peaceful end to this incident.
911 dispatchers answer difficult calls every day.
We receive an average of 2500 calls per day.
I am proud to be here to
represent my fellow dispatchers
and put a face on all of the men and women who worked so hard to
bring help to all the people who call us every day.
Thank you again for this honor. [Applause]
[Applause]
President
Chiu: congratulations and thank you for keeping us safe. Our next commendation is by
supervisor kim.
Supervisor kim: I get the honor
of representing some great neighborhoods here in san francisco, come up -- , including south of market.
Including one of our institutions here, that eagled tavern. [Applause]
-- that eagle tavern.
Today, our office and board of
supervisors want to recognize this institution, the eagle
tavern for their 30 years as
both an entertainment venue, a cultural institution, a safe
haven, a home and community for
the city of san francisco and of
course our lgbt community. Many of us heard over the weekend that the tavern might be
closing at the end of the month. it' s amazing the hundreds of individuals who have come out for an emergency meeting last night at the tavern to figure
out what we can do to save this important institution.
The south of market has had a
long history of serving our lgbt
communities.
many business establishments
that cater to our community popped up in what is known as an
aging industrial belt and revitalized this area and created a home for many people who flock to san francisco.
Supervisor wiener and a former supervisor were there last night. It was part of the committee
that walked to the skylark bar where I heard there was a set
in -- asit in because I heard
there were negotiations for a --
we want to recognize you.
It is more than just a bar.
For years, every sunday, and has been raising money and supporting our city, raising
close to $3 million over the
last 30 years for an important community groups like dykes on
bikes, the asian emergency fund and countless communities in san francisco.
we are honored to honor that eagle for its leadership in our community and your service.
As much as you have given to our
city, we are behind you and do
what we can to support that eagle continuing to be an
institution here in san francisco. i would like to call up anyone who like to come up to accept
our commendation to the eagle talon.
-- eagle tavern. [Applause]
>> thank you. >> thank you.
I would like to say a couple of words real quick.
We are in the fight for our life. Over 30 years, we have raised millions of dollars for charity
but in this city through the eagle tavern.
it is my passion to keep this going and with the help of everyone has gotten involved in
the last three days, we are hopeful we will be able to do
this for the city and our community. Thank you. [Applause]
>>
I would just like to add on top of all of the benefit fund
raising for all sorts of people,
that it has become a beacon --
is the jewel in the crown of san francisco globally.
it is a beacon to the rest of the world.
A friend from argentina
described it as the eiffel tower to gaze everywhere. I' m so glad the city is behind
us in helping however we can to
preserve that there will be an eagle in san francisco.
thank you. [Applause]
Supervisor campos: I just wanted
to add to something that was said -- I speak as an openly gay
man when I recognize the importance of the contribution
this has made to our community.
This has been demonstrated in the last few days. You cannot threaten to do
something, without the community
rallying to support this.
i am very proud of them, and we
will do everything they can. Thank you.
[Applause]
>> I want to second campos' s
remarks, and thank supervisor
kim for stepping up on this issue.
I must closely identified with
the lbgt community.
The communities throughout the
city, in terms of the population and cultural
institutions, and the gathering
spaces for the community, this is a critical neighborhood.
>> we will move to the final commendation of the day, which
has been offered by supervisor mar.
Supervisor mar: I want to abolish the important collective that has been in the city for several years.
i know a lot of teachers from
all of other institutions that have often used modern times.
This is often a refuge for me, with activists for 30 years
supporting the modern times bookstore.
i hope that they can come up and join us.
Modern times bookstore began in
1971, one of the last remaining bookstore collectivist in the country.
And a volunteer collective
modern times bookstore, offering community space with
literature and events, for several decades.
And despite the demise of many
other collectives, for about 20
years they have been right at
19th street in the mission,
sponsoring many local authors that appreciated the support for
the local artists and authors,
with the radical and progressive artists and activists from all over the country.
I look forward to the ongoing
future partnership that this
will continue to provide, with
the intellectual and community space progressive community.
I know that the landlords have
said that they have to be out by
April 30, and there is a big party on April 23.
and the bookstore is having a lot of great discounts through the end of the month but there are other events as well.
I would like to say that you can keep in touch with the
collective by joining the page
on facebook and also supporting them as an independent
collective, the independent bookstore and a dying breed in the country.
let me say to all of the
collective members, thank you for 30 years of my life and 40
years for the people of san francisco and is great to give
you this commendation today.
thank you.
>> thank you so much, supervisor.
We are so proud of you and grateful to you, or serving the city the way that you do.
Thank you, so much.
i also want to thank the rest of
the board for this commendation, and this is an
honor to receive this, when we are having to move because of the rising rent, basically.
We cannot afford to keep paying debts.
I also want to talk about the people -- this is the collective at the moment.
There have been many people and I want to talk about michael
rosenthal, who is here and he
was a collective member for 35 years.
He really helped to get the
store started, it was an all- volunteer collective and he was part of that.
For all of those years, he kept
the store going, and I feel like the commendation is really for michael.
There have been over 150 -- 160
or even more people who actually have been working at the store.
This is in the last 40 years.
We received this in their honor as well.
Plus, all of the amazing
writers, poets and political people who have come through the
store, writing these things that
we can sell to people and the community, that they want to purchase and read.
But also to have made this a community space, for all of
those people, and the incredible bay area community that kept us
alive, we have the most loyal customer base.
The customer base has a kind of welty to us. We' re just grateful that this
community has seen fit to make
us a community space, and people keep coming there and being
there, making this a wonderful exchange of ideas, and art.
Thank you all, very much.
[Applause]
>> thank you.
and if we can now go to item #3.
>> this is an ordinance to
update the controls and regulates the agricultural usage in various zoning districts.
>> we can take a roll-call vote on the item.
[Calling role]
Mirkarimi, aye.
Wiener, aye. Avalos, aye.
Campos, aye. Chu, aye. Chiu, aye.
Cohen, aye.
elsbernd, aye.
There are 11 ayes.
>> the ordinance has passed. Next item?
>> this is for a settlement
agreement, related to a lease
agreement with the san francisco forty-niners. >> can we take this with the same call?
this ordinance has been passed.
>> item 5 is from the budget and
finance committee, to extend the admission fees to the botanical
gardens until June 30, 2011.
approximating $400,000 from the
general fund, to reduce the botanical garden fee revenue, which will be rescinded on the effective date of the ordinance.
>> supervisor?
>> thank you, supervisor.
>> I rise in support of item
six, the supplemental
appropriations -- this would be
$143,000 of the general fund
revenue to replace the non- residency at the botanical gardens.
This is not just any general fund.
this comes from proceeds from
the real estate transfer tax, this was on the ballot last year.
This will raise about $35
billion a year, and last year,
when I voted to approve the non-
residency, I did this with the
condition that there be an amendment that said that if we
were able to bring revenue to
the ballot, we would use this to replace the fee and that is
essentially the appropriation for the item.
and other amendments were put on the non-resident fee legislation last year.
This was to have the fee expire
by the end of this fiscal year,
as well as that have the parks department have an analysis of how we use these records and the revenue that was generated.
we have serious concerns at the budget committee last year, and
the board that we voted on, that the fee would not bring in what
was estimated, as the revenue for the botanical gardens.
We have said that this has actually played out, if you look at the support.
the fees are well below what was expected.
A couple of months ago, I was able to go there with my
children, and I went in, I was asked for my id and I showed my id.
i noticed the next person who
came after me, she was very agitated when she got to the gate.
And then she said the f word very loud and began to walk away.
I asked her what was going on.
And she said she was here every
day, and asked for her id, and she had to go back to her house and get this.
Some of the responses are that
she should have had this, but this is unfortunate.
Some people leave their house without their identification.
i had to go back to my house -- and this is something that happens for many people.
I went into the garden, with my children, and I managed to talk to the gardener.
I asked about the attendance and with this had been like for the
past year, at the botanical gardens.
he said that the attendance has been down for the last year.
But there was an increase around the holidays. But this was going down again.
He said, what he really noticed is that the people who come here to visit to the temple gardens
come here for the mission of the botanical gardens. what does this mean?
Everyone who comes in does not
fall in line with the mission of the botanical gardens?
I was wondering what this was all about.
My children had a good time, and they love going to the botanical gardens.
on the way out, I lingered by
the gate again, and I noticed a
few tourists coming up.
They went to the gate, and then they were walking away from the gate.
They did not go in because they did not want to pay the fee.
There was a couple about 60 years old, riding bicycles.
They came up to the gate, and they were there a moment then they went away from the gate.
They said, we cannot go in
because we do not have the identification.
this has diminished the enjoyment of the part in what
this has been like for the decades.
This is something that should be open for all.
Unfortunately, we have a budget deficit and we make the rationale that we have to find revenue wherever we can.
can adjust the one feel that we' re not going to impose on
people in san francisco?
I not think that this is asking too much.
Last year, we
passed prop m with many opponents of the botanical garden feet. There was the amendment that was
made, that said that we would use the new revenue to replace the fee. This legislation is consistent with that amendment, and the
work that people put in, the time and effort to bring new money to san francisco.
we can utilize this in dealing with the budget deficit.
A tiny fraction of this new revenue to replace the fee.
This is from east bay or other parts of the country, they have to pay as well.
they chose not to do this
because this is prohibitive. We have several family members coming to the gardens.
We can reject the fee, approving the supplemental today, rejecting the non-resident fee in the future.
we have the ability -- we have this in the month of June.
Merely has done a good job.
We can put the money in the budget.
We can make this allocation,
with all of these things we do with health and human services.
This supports everyone in san francisco.
I have been fighting for communities across san francisco.
This is all part of the overall budget picture.
can we have one fee that we will
not impose on people in the bay
area, and the families who have relatives who want to come visit the beautiful garden?
This is in golden gate park.
i have had conversations with several of you and I believe
that we can do better to open up
the parks for greater participation.
I also wonder if we can approve
this -- maybe we make the japanese tea garden consistent
with the botanical gardens?
and we have this with the japanese tea garden.
I have not been there since the residency on there.
This is something that is open to consideration.
Thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, supervisor.
President Chu?
president chu: thank you.
This has been a difficult issue for all of us and I want to
thank supervisor avalos for your
leadership on budget issues and on behalf of the parks.
I want to thank those of the community who has been opposed
to the non-residency for the botanical garden. This has been an amazing asset for the city, and there is nobody here who does not think
that in a perfect world, we should not have to charge anybody to enjoy the beauty of the gardens.
We do not live in a perfect world.
we just received a joint report.
We have to balance the budget,
and next year, $480 million.
we have $642 million.
We have the leadership on passing the proposition last year.
This brought in 10 or 15% of the gap this year.
there has been a lot of discussion about the overtones of what this debate will be about.
This is a step towards privatisation.
I completely oppose the privatizing of the parks.
this issue is about the incredible difficult challenges that we have.
One of the top things I hear from my constituents every
week, there are cuts to staffing
-- we have this in chinatown.
We have to take care of the children and families.
They spoke about stories of people who are very frustrated.
we have heard the incredible frustrations outside of every parks and recreation facility in the city.
People were upset about the center is being closed, because it did not have the programs that their families need to have.
I do have a difference in perspective.
i very much respected this perspective.
And I like to offer a couple of amendments to the legislation that the mayor has offered.
The first is rather than extending the fees, and
definitely, I would like to
propose that we extend the fee
for a couple of years, in order to be able to reassess at the
end of that time frame, but this fee has done. If the economy improves
dramatically, I think that we should have the opportunity to reconsider this at the board.
The second thing I would like to include on the record in the legislation is language that says that the board of supervisors does not support a
residency now, or ever, in the botanical garden. I know that there are some opponents of the non-resident
fee that worry that there is a
residency -- at the end of the
day, there is -- asking people who are not from sentences go to
pay their fair share, this is fiscally responsible to do.
I was proud to support local hiring.
This is something we did to make certain that our residents are taken care of.
we are getting a little bit of revenue from the non-residents who want to enjoy the parks.
This is a way to make certain that they are being taken care of. I would like ask for your support.
>> we have a motion to amend item #5.
This is seconded by supervisor kim.
can we take this without objection?
>> we will proceed --
>> supervisor avalos: this is
the third year we' ve discussed
the non-resident fee.
with all the staff time that is involved, this has taken hundreds of hours.
If we have this in a couple of
years, we will see this discussion coming up again.
I would rather not have to do this. I would rather have a stone on
this, and we can bring this back
later, and I will be ok with the language on the sunset in a couple of years.
But this is the wrong way to go.
We have spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to do this over and over again.
they are making a home here at
city hall because he is here to defend the feet.
We will have to deal with this discussion a couple of years from now.
The idea about not having
language -- that we will never
have a resident fee, this does not make a lot of sense. We' re making a policy statement in the middle of an ordnance. And all that we need is another ordinance.
This is nothing with any meat to this, and no substance.
This is an empty statement.
We could make that statement possible by rejecting this altogether.
>> does anyone else want to speak on the amendment?
[Reading roll]
Mar, aye.
Mirkarimi, aye. Weiner, aye. Avalos, no. Campos, no. Chu, aye. Chiu, aye.
cohen, aye.
Elsbernd, aye.
9 ayes and two nos.
>> the amendment passes.
Supervisor mar?
Supervisor mar;
: thank you,
president campos.
I disagree with President Chu' s
statement this is f iscally responsible.
This fosters the believe that the non-residency' s do not pay for themselves.
The rejection shows that for the
future revenue, this is a 52% increase that is highly optimistic.
I love how this is open to
everyone, not just of the residents but also, this should
be free to the non-residence as well.
When the board of supervisors passed legislation allowing this
last year, I was up -- I was in opposition to that.
They approved a city-wide tax
increase in November, when the real-estate trust was raised.
The non residency, is a slippery slope towards privatisation.
And keeping this freak -- to educate me on the process.
I am a member of the botanical garden society.
i support Mr. Mackenzie and the
staff, and the workers there but
this non-resident fee is unwise.
You only have to look at parks
and recreation -- there was an
editorial that said that the botanical garden fee should apply to the residence, to know that this is a slippery slope and this was always the issue that was before us.
This was a slippery slope to the residency as well.
One of the peaceful places in
this city is the red -- the writ -- the grove, but I also liked
the southeast asian cloud forest as well.
I think that this should be open to young people like my
daughter, to go here, but also
for many of the seniors who are
there every day, we all support the community efforts to keep this open and free to everyone.
I do not support the botanical
gardens that are limited to the elite. This should be open for everyone.
I will support item #6 and
reject the mayor' s proposal for the non-resident feet.
>> thank you.
When this was first implemented, I was not in support of this. I shared the concerns about what
this means to charge a fee to enter a public space.
I am very sensitive to this.
i am also more sensitive than
ever, to the budget situation,
and we have all seen the devastating impact of some of the cuts that have been
happening, and will continue to
happen, and at this time, I am not prepared to take that money away from the department.
I understand the supervisor and
his comments about how we want to give them more money and we can do this in the budget
process, but the budget is now a zero-sum game.
If we give this to the budget
process, we are taking this from someone -- someone else.
If this is a public health
clinic or public safety, or whatever this May be.
I will be reluctantly supporting the continuation.
I also want to thank the
supervisor for his amendment, in making this a two-year extension.
I commented on this in the budget committee and I will
repeat this comment, that when you hear the two sides talking
about the numbers, the
attendance, and money, this is like a couple of ships passing in the night.
and then,
Mr. Rose spoke about this during the budget committee
hearing, we do not have all whole lot of information.
This is about eight months'
worth, and we do not have a good comparison data from before.
in terms of actually assessing a
fee is working, were generating
enough revenue, eight months is not enough and having a few more
years to actually have the good information about whether we should keep this is a good thing. I will be supporting the measure.
>> thank you.
like many of you, I have struggled with how we should
vote on this, and this piece of legislation.
I was also wanted to thank the members of the public who took time to speak to me and educate
me on the merits for and against this piece of
legislation and I want to thank the san franciscans that took
time to give a tour of the botanical gardens.
This experience, as the articulated earlier -- this has
helped to shape my support of
the amendment, that has been introduced today.
And the reluctant support -- I will stand before you to cast my vote.
I am talking about the amendment
to extend the non-resident fee, and this is somewhat of an elegant compromise.
Two acknowledged the fact that
there is little information to substantiate if this is hitting the mark were missing the mark.
In a perfect world we would not
need to have this conversation and I wish that all the museums
and public spaces to be free of charge.
but we live in a very ugly
budget climate, and the economic conditions simply did not allow
for us to turn a blind eye and not pay attention to how this
potential fee to have an impact on the budget.
I also want to let you know that
i opposed the privatization of
public spaces, but I am also not
convinced at this time that the fee is reaching the objective that this was set up to achieve.
Given the delayed start in the
implementation and the slower
than expected attendance, we not have the information to evaluate the success of the program.
This is why I will be supporting
the amendment to better assess these fees. Thank you. >> supervisor?
>> thank you for your comments, and the supervisor was speaking and talking about the need to
increase the budget of the parks and recreation department.
I could see that Mr. Ginsburg was very pleased with this
comment, and we do want have the parks and recreation department have the resources that they need to do their job.
I think if there was one thing
that we can all agree upon, it is this objective.
This is a question of how we get there.
For me, this is an issue I have struggled with.
The last time that this item
came before the board, I was one
of the people who was open to
trying this, and I supported at
the time because of the dire financial situation we were facing.
I also believe that you have to
be flexible, especially in these
tough times in terms of what you
are willing to try, when the services are being cut across the board.
We have tried this, and I know that there is the argument that has been made that we need more time.
Time was given to the parks and recreation department, to see how the fee would be working.
I was voting for this to happen.
this has not worked the way that this was described in terms of
the amount of money, that they have brought to this department.
This is exactly what is shown in
the report from the budget analysts office. And I feel that having tried
something that has not worked
out exactly how it was presented
to us, I think that we have the obligation to move on.
It also willing to try new
things and this has not worked
the way that it was expected.
In my view, given that, given
that there is the inconvenience that is implicated when you ask
people for identification, given
that this is a divisive issue, I would hope that instead of
having to reconsider this
issue, time and time again, that we to think outside the box and
figure out a different way to bring more revenue into this department.
That is my hope, that instead
of having a recurring discussion
about the issue that this can be a divisive issue.
That we find creative ways to collectively pursue the same
goal and the same objective of injecting more revenue into this department.
I will be voting with supervisor avalos.
I was willing to give this a
chance, this just has not worked the way that this was described.
I think that the facts speak for themselves, and at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding.
Let' s move forward and think of
another way to inject revenue, thank you.
Supervisor kim:
I want to thank parks and recreation and their
initiative to be a team player, figuring out how to creatively
be a part of closing the budget
gap, instead of just advocating
for the needs that they have,
and as a district supervisor I am sensitive to how the parks
and recreation centers are
handed -- handled, and the basis where people can take dance
class is, where you can come in after school, and just in
general, there is the quality of life.
This is an important part of the development.
You have the open space and the parks in this city.
that being said, I want to
recognize that this is a small, budgetary item.
There is a tremendous amount of
support and opposition on both ends.
Because this is such a small
amount of the budget, I think
that the cost of administering this has been very high.
In terms of how the residents
are allowed to come in and when
this closes, and all of that, I will be voting against the proposal today.
I actually went to visit the garden this past weekend and i
got the opportunity to walk through and see how the admission was working and how people come in and out of the garden. This is a beautiful space.
I appreciate the endeavor to see
how we can raise revenue for the
parks, in a way that is less of
a burden to other areas.
However, I am not certain if
this is worth what we bring in, in terms of the outcome.
The reduction in attendance and
the questionable issues of where
we are -- there are a lot of questions there.
We have looked into how long that they can stay.
How open at the garden will be.
I also wanted to add that I wanted the legislation to be
there in June, and I will also
be voting against the appropriation.
This has pushed me over to voting against the non-resident
fee, this is recognizing the proponents of this. They have spent a great amount of time working on the revenue
efforts, and I really want to thank you for this.
It is important to educate the residents on the importance of
generating revenue, for the budget as well.
i want to thank those with the
other measures, and I want to thank you for this for today.
This is an issue that came up.
The one thing I was struck by, was the lack of diversity.
I really hope that those two who were against the non-resident
fee, that they provide outreach
to the variety of neighborhoods
and I encourage them to also enjoy the botanical garden. Thank you.
>> supervisor mirkarimi?
supervisor mirkarimi: I have been against these fees ever since the inception.
I appreciate the perspective of all sides.
The bottom line is that I find
this strange, that people can park their cars for free all day
in the city parks, but we charge them to look at the plants. This is madness.
This is creeping privatisation, and we should look at it from this perspective.
Our back is against the wall because of the budget deficits
that will not be reconciled, the
pressure on the staff, to have
to find whatever solutions that they are being compelled to find. That is what is before us.
This is a sinkhole of other strategies, and this is a mistake.
>> are there any additional discussions? The supervisor has requested
that we vote on item number 64 item #5.
If you can call the roll on item number six, this is the proposal from-
>> no. Kim, no. Mar, aye.
mirkarimi, aye. Weiner, no. Avalos, aye.
Campos aye. Chu, no.
Chiu, no.
Cohen, no.
Supervisor elsbernd.
four ayes and seven nos.
>> the ordinance fails.
Item 5 as ammended.
Ferrel, aye. Kim, no. Mar, no.
Mirkarimi, no.
Wiener, aye.
Avalos, no.
campos, no.
Chu, aye.
Chiu, aye.
Cohen, aye.
Supervisor elsbernd.
Six ayes and 5 nos.
>> the ordinance is passed as ammended. item seven.
>> ordinaze for -- ordnance for the treasurer and tax collector
for the amount of 240,000 for
the financial empowerment during the deposit program, amending
the annual salary ordnance, for
the grant-funded position of the office of financial empowerment.
>> farrel, aye. Kim, aye.
Mar, aye.
Mirkarimi, aye.
Weiner, aye.
Avalos, aye.
Campos, aye. chu, aye. Chiu, aye.
Cohen, aye.
Elsbernd, aye. 11 ayes.
>> the ordinance is passed.
>> ordinance waiving the street
encroachment fees for the
unaccepted stairway between
balboa and --
>> this passed on the first reading.
>> organization for the annual
support to the city, approving
and recieving the annual reports.
This includes the district' s proposed budget.
>> same house, same call. Adopted.
>> the resolution for the mayor' s office of housing for
stabilization funds, for grants
for non-profit organization.
>> the resolution is adopted.
Amending the general plan, to adopt the mission' s street-scape plan.
>> this ordinance is passed. Let'
s move to the 4:00 special orders.
Items 12 and 15.
>> a public hearing of persons
interested in the February 10,
2011 of a final environmental impact report.
the motion affirming the
certification for the mission
street project.
14 reverses the certification,
the preparation of findings of the certification.
>> colleagues, hopefully qe we don' t lose quorum.
We have the appeal of the final impact report.
For the hearing, we consider the
adequacy and the
accuracy of the final E.I.R.
we have the grounds of appeal.
Each speaker will have to w
o minutes.
We have the certification for
the final E.I.R.
we will hear from persons
speaking on the behalf of the
real party of interest.
The appealants -- appelants will
have time for rebuttal.
Supervisor kim? Let'
s proceed to the hearing.
let me ask for a representative,
if you can step up to the microphone.
You and anyone else have 10 minutes.
>> good afternoon.
I am alex goode, with jeffer,
mangles, butler, and mitchell,
representing the appelant.
This is on 50 beale street,
adjacent to the 350 mission street project.
I (
Appreciate the time.
i will try to be brief and clear as possible.
If you have seen the submissions and the attorney and
developer, you have had a lot
thrown at you with almost 20
court cases that were cited, the statutes from the public resources code, and the guidelines.
This gets complex very quickly.
But really, there are only a
couple of issues in place here,
and only a few reasons we think that was certified by the
planning commission is not sufficient.
i wanted to talk about a couple of general issues, first.
If you read the submissions for
the project developer, they seem
to be suggesting that this is
improper, and these issues have
the planning code exceptions, that were granted by the
planning commission before the board of appeals and we should not even be here.
This is true, we have the appeal pending on the planning code issues. We' re here to talk about these extensive issues.
I do not think the council should suggest that we have to pick and choose and can only
appeal -- we have to somehow
forgo the rights for these issues. Another issue that has been
raised is that somehow this only
concerns the impact to the
property and its impact -- these can be ignored.
If you read the submission, and I will walk you through this
very clearly, we are talking about the impact to the general
public that was not properly
studied, and again, I do not think the council for the
developer needs to suggest that
by virtue of the fact that the building happens to be next
door -- that we somehow forgo the rights to talk about the
general impact.
Any member of the public could
appeal the certification, next door or a mile away and I will address this year.
I want to walk you through one
of the basic components of the analysis.
Any proposed project -- you have
to study the project alternatives. you have to present alternatives
to the project to study the potential impact of those
alternatives, to arrive at the conclusion if there are alternatives out there that
reduce the impact that will be caused by the project.
If these alternatives are
reasonable, they May be a superior project.
It is important to have the
alternative analysis, to study a reasonable range of alternatives
because decision-makers need to
have all the facts, and they have to know that the developer has a project.
but I have to understand
whether there is an alternative that will reduce the impact of
the project, with the main objectives of the project to end
up with a better plan for the public.
The project leaders have this brought to them and you need to have this analysis presented to you.
this did not properly study a feasible project alternative.
And you could say that you can
always come up with the project alternative. How many of these do you want?
The alternative that we think
they should have studied is a code-conforming project.
they did not analyze this project.
You have the codes and they are the result of a long public
process, with input from the planning department and the
public, and decision-makers and you put the code in place for a
reason, because you want certain limitations on development in certain areas.
This does not mean that exceptions are not granted.
We find this a little bit
puzzling, that the compliant alternative was not studied.
But why is this?
This was not studied because this is not the project
developers are wanting to build.
He did exceptions to the planning code and they did not
want to study the code because
they did not want this building to have for decision making.
The response seems to be that this does not matter.
We have studied a few other alternatives and we do not believe that this would have done anything better or reduced
any impact for the building as proposed.
There is a potential impact that
this May alleviate, and we just do not know.
I will give you one example.
this is one area that you have to study.
There is no quantification of the noise generated by this project.
There is a proposed 21- story mechanical element, that will be
protruding and this is basically the system for the entire building. There is not one sentence in the
eir about the noise generated by this protrusion.
There is a generator on the roof and there is not one
sentence that will quantify with the noise will be.
And you say, why do we have to study the code compliance.
If you built this building, he would have to comply with the
property line.
the other thing that you would have to do, if you wanted to
keep all the square footage in
the building, you would have to
set the building back by 300 feet. This is proposed to be about 300 feet.
You could easily maintain the square footage for the building, and if you comply with the code and use at the building
back above 300 feet, the building would just be taller.
This would be 550 feet and this building is way below that.
This is 375.
If you make the building taller, this would not be taller than a number of buildings in the surrounding area.
What would happen if he complied with the code and set the
building back, the generator on the rooftop would be much
higher, and would be much
further removed from all the surrounding properties, including a public plaza.
we not know if this would lessen the impact.
They did not quantify any of the noise impact.
this is required in the
guidelines, that they have to discuss whether a proposed
project is conforming with the
general plan of the city, the
specific plan of the city, but are operative for an area.
This is an area where it is policy to do something that we
fretfully -- have asserted and this is not in line with this.
You have to discuss this.
The general public at large, decision makers have to
understand if the project is in compliance with the general plan.
If there is a special overlay.
Whenever you have to talk about with that particular plan.
we do not talk about that here.
We talked about this in the staff report we released a few days before the planning commission.
This is not what they require.
If this is my client or any
member of the public, they have
to see if the project composed is in compliance with the law.
The planning department shrugged
and said, this is our policy and
this is a significant area
where this is deficient.
I want to make it clear.
I am not before you and my client is not trying to stop this project.
they do not do this to office buildings.
They are perfectly fine with the
project right next door to them, down the block. It does not matter where this
is, as long as this complies
with all law, and this explains what the project is, and the
potential impact -- and the environmental impact of the project.
>> thank you.
Is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on behalf of the appellant?
Each member of the public will have up to two minutes to speak.
>> good afternoon.
I am a portfolio manager with broadway partners.
I have seen the benefits and the exciting things that have
happened for the redevelopment throughout the city.
We are excited about this
project, looking forward on
numerous levels, with the trans bay terminal plan.
What we are concerned about is
the lack of viable alternatives, and we think that
this is a deficient thing, having done the development of
the city, where there is no real
look at the code-conforming alternatives that were studied, to allow for the session.
That is where we have the exception.
We show that we are for the
project, and we think that they had some issues that should be addressed. And that is all that we are asking.
>> and is there any other member of the public that wishes to speak?
Can you step up to the microphone.
>> carry on your city -- won' t
you make it turn out good.
>> any othe r members of
the public wishing to speak?
we go to planning for your decision.
>> good afternoon.
President Chu, members of the board.
I am the eir coordinator.
joining me is sarah jones.
The senior environmental
planner, the subject of today' s appeal.
The neighborhood planner, with
the planning code -- for the authorization.
two memos were sent responding to two letters.
Another letter from April 6,
2011, was submitted on behalf of
the owners of another adjacent
building, who are not a part of
the current appeal.
after careful consideration of
the concerns raised, we find the
project eir was adequate,
accurate, and pursuied
ed the
guidelines of the administrative code.
it is to uphold the planning commission'
s decision, to
overturn the decision to return
the project to the staff for
additional review.
this would cause an effect with
the air quality and the
cumulative transportation impacts.
And mitigation for the impact
with the potential conflict
between pedestrians and the
buses, for the vehicles in the loading dock.
With respect to the oversized
trucks using the loading dock.
Other issues were less than
signifigant, with asthetics,
cultural resources, shadow,
wind, traffic, and parking, and
operation air quality and housing.
With mitigation measures
identified in this eir.
The department'
s response to
the concerns, and a letter
boiled down to five points.
the first has setbacks, bulk and
encroachment, exceptions granted to the project.
And the state of the eir does
not address these impacts with
set-back exceptions.
This does not mention -- the
e.R. Does not give a resonable
r -- reasonable range of alternatives.
The mechanical impact would effect beale street.
Air quality, the emmissions from
projects and the objectives
that they follow the project developer.
The encroachment exception,
sequa requires the environmenta,l
l effects of the project.
Compliance with zoning is
discussed, and the
the evaluation focused on this significant defects.
The palette has provided no
evidence to Mr. In the project
will result in a significant impact directly resulting from
the granting of exceptions for the proposed project. The project was analyzed as
proposed and aspects for which exceptions were required are not found to be significant.
it requires that these are
evaluated which would avoid it the effect of the project that
would easily contained
the limit.
However, the code compliance
alternative which were the same height as the proposed project.
This would be considered in
feasible due to the existing
building floor plan, the size
of a lot, and what the project is proposed that now.
Because the focus is intended to
be on avoiding or reducing
significant impact of the
proposed project, further
analysis is not required for the
project impacts which are less than significant.
The third appellant point has to deal with noise.
The potential noise and
vibrations associated with the building' s mechanical element
not being -- or any other adjacent building.
This would be required to meet
all codes which control noise levels.
The department of public health investigated complaints
regarding fix mechanical source
noises such as a ventilation
systems, air-conditioning, motors and compressors.
The district inspectors will
take measurements to see if they stand to allowable levels.
They will require the property owners to make sure that they are compliant.
this might include times when the machinery is allowed to be
turned on, relocating
equipment, nor is compression
measures, or other measures. The project is subject to the
noise ordinance which regulates operational noise for all buildings in the city.
the fourth point is air quality.
This --
the operational air quality was considered less than significant.
The proposed project
would pose
potential health risk, particulate diesel matter that
is emitted during construction.
The mission would not exceed the air quality management district significant threshold.
The operation air quality impacts were analyzed and h --
on page 84.
This concluded that the building corporations would not violate
standards are expose the receptors to it substantial
pollutants concentration.
there is no evidence to support
-- no evidence presented to support a conclusion that the office system would result in a substantial impact on neighboring office buildings.
The next point has to do with
the objectives of the developer.
an
eir shall describe a range of
reasonable alternatives which
would obtain the reasonable objectives of the project but would avoid are substantially
lessen the effect of the
project.
The range of alternatives would
be those that could avoid or substantially lessen the effect.
Among the factors that might be used to eliminate all alternatives from consideration
are failure to meet most of the
basic project objectives, a
feasibility, and ability to
avoid significant environmental impact.
These do not preclude adoption without exceptions.
The appellate has not raise any
new issues relevant to review that or not previously addressed
in the eir or the comments and responses documents or any
substantial evidence to refute
the conclusions of the department retrospect to the fiscal environmental effect of the department.
The department conducted a thorough analysis of the project.
For the reasons stated, the department finds the project could be issued cullis
certification complies with the department.
>>.
Thank you, any questions?
Ok, at this time let' s go to the project sponsor.
>> I wish I could make this more exciting.
Afternoon I have been
representing the ownership and project sponsors since 2006 on this project which has provided
us a pretty significant adequate opportunity to review the details.
The proposal is the city' s first private lead platinum office building. The planning department has
already required an eir which is
the highest level of review for the project.
the initial study accurately
describe the project, the proposed project and comprehensively address is the impact with more than 250 pages of analysis.
The appellate has dressed up in the objections as seacliff
issues, this is not about
sequel -- has stressed that the objections
as ceqa issues, this is not
about ceqa.
They even confessed to as much in a letter.
"this was dismissed as merely stating that the potential
impact of the adjacent impact did not rise to a significant level of traffic impact and thus
requires no further analysis."
this commission' s mandate is to shape development that is not
necessarily impact major properties or communities.
He is claiming that there is an impact on his client' s property
but not necessarily a ceqa impact.
The real objections are not to
the adequacy to the eir as an
informational document but to
the mechanical room located to the side of 350 mission.
the design approvals have been appealed to the board of appeals.
With that said, this appeal is
before you and therefore we have to go through some of those objections for our records.
It is contended that this is defective because it did not
properly analyze the significant
impact with the exceptions that were granted.
Exceptions such as these are
routinely granted, in this case
with a 7-0 vote.
This applies to the upper tower where reductions and for size
would result in some standard
floor plates which would make building this building on
economic and unable to be rented.
The tower exception consists of
a 50 foot setback and then gradually increases at the lower floors.
the mechanical projection, which
is used to help us get to the lead. Standard brings in natural air at each level of the building.
This is about 7 feet from the property line.
All of these setbacks exceed those on --
the appellate claims that it is deficient for failing to claim these exceptions, these were
actually considered in detail and they would not have a significant impact.
I listened with a little surprise that the presentation
made because this is the document if anyone would like to read it.
there is a section which says
that code compliant alternative, that is an analysis
of the buildings at 350 mission street.
The only non code compliant
aspect is parking and remove this from mission street where the mta would never allow us to have this.
We needed an exception for that. That is the only exception.
The rest of this analysis is
completely code compliant.
So, this is in the eir.
the analysis was sufficient
because it would have a massive blank wall against the side it
elevation and would affect the value and quality.
Even if true, these are not significant impacts.
these are events that allow us
to do fresh air on every single floor.
The fans are low velocity and would not produce audible noise
or vibration inside of the location.
This would impact people at 350
mission than those at 350 deal.
Private views from the side
elevation are not protected by
ceqa or the general plan. general public views are protected by private or not.
This might not be a desirable change but this is not a
significant impact, therefore it did not need to address it as such.
This is also not a significant
impact and is no different than the dents downtown core.
in fact, this is a corner
building and opened elevations
on the northeast and south.
They have criticized the eir
for considering a range of alternatives.
it would be impossible to analyze and responsibilities.
It is directed that a reasonable range of alternatives be considered.
The purpose is to identify the alternatives that reduce significant impact.
That analysis has been more than adequately completed.
It is claimed that it requires the analysis of an outside
alternative but ceqa does not say that.
The transit center is the ideal place to put a new office building.
it complains that this did not
contain a meaningful adoption of the regulatory plans. This is also correct.
There are 13 pages of
discussion of at least 10 plants including the planning code.
These are thousands of pages long. The summary is all that is required in the eir.
the competing alternatives and approving the project, there is
no question that they had all of the questions that they needed
and that is what the eir is
supposed to do under ceqa.
We urge you to allow the appellants design objections to
be heard next week at the board of appeals where they belong. Thank you.
>> thank you.
Are there any members of the public which wish to speak on
behalf of the real party in
interest, the project sponsor?
Ok, I will ask the public if you
could step up for 8 or bottle --
step up for a rebuttal.
>> and almost 20 minutes we heard from the planning department and Mr. Rubin, I did
not hear any where that noise is quantified, it noise steady or anything about noise.
I point you to the planning department' s response that they issued a couple of days ago and they addressed the noise issue
and they say, "it the following information was obtained from the project sponsor team.
It will not make any noise."
there is no sentence that quantifies anything.
The generator on the roof is not discussed.
Mr. Rubin said that a code compliant alternative was studied. It was not.
What was studied was something that significantly reduced the square footage that has been proposed for this project.
It did not go any higher.
They say because they don' t want to build that project but that
is not the determination that is
a post to be made or put before decision makers.
The city is supposed to exercise
its steady at about the region a range of alternatives.
You cannot just except what the developer comes in the door
with. That is what happened here.
Again, I need to push back on
this idea because we have to have simple issues.
This was not sufficient for the
reasons that I outlined it and I don' t think that anything from the planning department or Mr.
Rubin changes the assertions that I made earlier. Thank you.
>> are there any final questions?
At this time, this hearing has been held and closed.
These items are in the hands of the board.
>> in reading both the appellate
brief and also the brief for a
350 mission, one of the major contentions of the appellant is
whether the eir properly
evaluated project alternatives as has been discussed for the
last 30 minutes or so or whether
it adequately analyzed the building.
I agree that the bulk has been
evaluated and does not have any reductions in environmental impact.
There is reductions and
parking, reductions in noise.
any potential transit or conflict.
This is still another office building.
The environmental impact will be the same regardless.
That being said, whether all of the reasonable alternatives have been approached by designers and engineers in terms of how this will impact the neighborhood or
the neighboring office building.
i think this is an issue that is
more properly dealt with by the board of appeals. There is a hearing in the next
week or the next two weeks.
I hope that our office buildings
are able to work out this dispute. I don'
t think that the eir is the appropriate place for this discussion.
I would like to move forward
item 13 and table items 14 and 15.
>> supervisor motion has made a
motion to the firm the eir and table items 14 and 15. Is there a second?
Can we take a vote on that item -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye.
>> aye
absent.
>> please call the next four clocked special item.
>> 16 is a public hearing a persons interested in the
decision of the planning
department dated June 3rd,
2010, this is for a project at 1653 grant ave is exempt from
environmental review under categorical exemption.
Item 17 is a motion a firm determination of the project
located at the grant street
address which is exempt from environmental review.
Item 18 reverses the determination of the plan department that the project is exempt.
19 is a motion directing the findings reversing the exemption.
>> we have in front of lost the appeal of the environmental exemption of the proposed
project.
For this hearing, we will
consider the adequacy, sufficiency, completeness of the planning department' s determination that this is
categorically exempt from review. We will first hear from the
appellants first and then we will take public comments.
Each speaker will have up to two minutes to present.
following planning presentation,
we will hear from the real party of interest.
Then we will hear from persons
speaking on behalf of the real party of interest. Then the appellants will have up to three minutes before a rebuttal.
unless there any objections, we don' t we proceed to a presentation from the palate?
-- from the
appellants?
>> thank you for hearing our appeal.
team mobil proposed new sites in a two-block radius in north beach.
One of these is the subject of the appeal before you.
Let me show you why this should not be categorically exempted.
Mr. President, members of the board, first I will give you a
visual to complicate as I speak
about industrial installations.
Imagine a forest that is managed
by a timber company who was applying to cut down one tree at a time.
There is no one analyzing
whether they are damaging the forest. the defect in the planning department' s approach is that
the analyze each and every installation in san francisco individually and apply
categorical exemption
individually to each antenna and they fail to look at the entire forest.
The wireless communication guidelines utilize by the planning department indicate
that this address is a
preference 7 site, the least
desirable site for locating a cellular antenna.
the guidelines require that
such sites only are approved in rare circumstances.
The city has claimed a
categorical exemption under class three of the guidelines
based only on whether a single
cellular antenna would impact the character of the building.
In this process, the planning department has ignored the
potential impact of the proposal including potential
cumulative impact from frequency
radiation, levels resulting
from a high concentration of telecommunications sites in the
area.
Supervisors, up to seven wireless providers locate and 10
that in san francisco proper.
not only are there 550 existing
antenna reported but they
propose an additional 308 in the same area.
more have been prevented cents a barrel first.
This was a new one that just came in the mail.
In addition to the volume
propose, there is an additional 1225 antenna with in the same
mile radius and 73 tower structures.
Depending on the time of day, it tells you what is out there.
If you will refer to page 80, we
can expect to include 20,000
smart meters which will be bringing the total into every household.
There will be 13,000 individual
meters and the corresponding transceivers. This is a map of the transceivers.
over 3 unaffordable wireless
antenna are proposed for the right of way in san francisco
since 2008 alone and this was noted by jeff cooper in his appeal.
There are more and 10 at in this
mile radius of north beach then in downtown los angeles.
-- there are more antennas at
this mile radius .
The meters might create a levels exceeding the fcc exposure which
would propose a potential
cumulative impact under ceqa.
There is no existing federal law that pre-empts public
notification of radiation levels
in any publicly acceptable -- accessible area in the city.
it is incumbent of this city to look at all of these cumulatively and not just one by one.
Supervisors, it is income but to
reject this review because they
refuse to include the entirety both public and disclosed.
>> I have supplemental exhibits
here to submit.
I am the second applicant on the appeal and I would like to
present additional documentation.
please note that based on the
maps provided, the total number
of antennas within 1 mile
is 858.
That is 858 within 1 mile radius.
This does not count the nine
additional antennas just recently proposed by at&t.
According to the coverage check
performed on the service , the voice and data coverage for
north beach is stated as excellent.
since at&t will very likely to inherit the intent after the purchase of the mobile.
In the coverage in north beach
is stated as best .
supervisors, either they are
making misrepresentations or
the -- to the planning department or the consumers regarding the strength of their voice and data coverage in north beach.
Which is it? If they' re making misrepresentations regarding
coverage, what guarantees are there that they are not
misrepresenting the measurements?
In July of 2010, a group of concerned residents met with
representatives from t mobil to
discuss the plan to install the three and 10 at in north beach within 8 to block radius.
We learned a key significant facts.
first, cell phone companies measure the signals of their
cell phone antenna on frequencies specific to their
company and not cumulative .
Additionally, the signal is essentially directed towards the horizon.
Since they are often installed
on roof tops, because of the characteristic of the city of
san francisco and in particular
in north beach, these
installations are often end up emitting radio frequency directly.
yet, the radiation is measured
at st. Levels, and public right
of ways where the levels are decrease. In many cases, they' re not even
measured but calculated only.
If the primary purpose is to meet the health department' s
code, in order to avoid health
risks, you can clearly see the
inconsistency in the system.
The second fact that we learned
is that the cell phone antennas
tend to override each other depending on their proximity to each other and directional
wavelengths.
this affect contributes to put cellphone reception and the number of drop calls.
And other words, as far as
connectivity is concerned, and selling more antenna is not necessarily in the best interest of the consumer depending on which company is the carrier.
The current rush to install as
many antenna as possible can
best be described as a wild west style land grab an order to achieve market dominance.
Eventually, the bigger company
with most money will buy out the competition and eliminate the diversity of business and
service options for the consumer. Supervisors, in order to make
sure that the cell phone
companies are in fact measuring
cumulative a facts and levels,
especially in consideration of a
new an increasing number of rf-
emitting devices, it is the responsibility of our government to take a second look at the technology. The industry' s business
practices, the planning scheme and the rf measuring practices in a more comprehensive manner.
For these reasons, I suggest
that a categorical exemption is
applied and should be rejected. >> thank you.
I have one question 40.
-- for you .
Hot
you are not primarily issues in the impact of the radio frequency emissions, is that correct?
>> this is based on the current emissions. >> there is a statement about
what federal law May or May not apply.
I know that under the federal telecommunications act, it says
that they might waive a permit as long as the decision is not
made on the basis of the
environmental impact and radio frequency emissions.
Can you explain why what you' re asking us to do does not conflict with federal law?
the federal law which was
established in 1996, is that what you are referring to? >> correct.
>> this does not take into consideration the new technologies and it does not
take into consideration the
increased radiation emitting
antenna . And the federal communications
commission as prohibitions on
consider rating how this is not comply with the city' s obligation.
The obligations for environmental review is not pre-
empted by the federal
telecommunications act of 1996.
>> to second be clear, penn to the federal law says that we can deny an application for these types of permits as long as this is not based on the
environmental impact of the missions and I feel that this is what this is based on.
>> ceqa
overrides that in california. The amount of radiation cannot go over the fcc limits.
We are interested in knowing what the levels are out there
that have possibly exceeded
those limitations and the federal government says that you cannot exceed those radiation
levels that they have written
about or made charges.
>> I appreciate that, that is
what I would like to ask both
planning and t mobil. Thank you.
>> are there any other questions or should we proceed?
Let'
s go to the planning department. >> let'
s go -- good afternoon, vice President Chiu.
i am joined today with -- to is the subject of the appeal before you.
This appeal is about the termination for a wireless
antenna.
The appellants have argued that
the department is not considered a potential cumulative impact of the installation. The question before you is did
we adequately considered the
potential environmental impact
that is required?
The department did consider
significant impact and found on June 3, 2010 that the subject
permit would not have an adverse effect on the environment.
This was exempt under class 3
exemptions for new construction
of a minor stroke small structures. The decision is whether to uphold the department' s action
to issue or to deny the action and overturn that so the project
is returned to us for additional environmental review. First, let' s talk about the basis of our determination.
This is specifically applied to
utility installations.
the palace did not raise this
issue, these are material submitted to the board which
shows that this issue would
either be invisible warm and only visible from the display and therefore did not have an impact.
What are the potential camilla' s impacts?
The primary concern is that there is a potential cumulative effect.
disestablish limits on our view of the facility.
The city of san francisco goes to great lengths to regulatory
it -- to regulate review within
emphasis on exploring potential
cumulative impact of the radio
frequencies or rf radiation. We do this to ensure compliance with federal law.
The city has no further authority to regulate rf levels.
The processes of the plan
department found that the city
and public are well aware of the plans for antennas.
Here is the processes so we can help understand the cumulative effect.
we have six steps up for review of the proposed wireless facilities.
This must be updated so we will know about all future proposed
installations. Second, the submission of the -- report.
we understand the outputs in this area.
Third, approval by the department of public health.
Fourth, is that it review of the
site including the resourced review.
6, specification about the
antenna and the streets where they will be installed.
After our view, these are referred to the planning commission -- planning
commission.
These can be approved with an
excess reuse with required notification. After we told neighbors about
the wireless internet, a discretionary review request was filed.
The commission did not take D.R. But instead approved the project.
In addition to the procedures by
the planning department, the department reviews the antennas.
they are reviewing this for
compliance with the fcc regulations.
First, prior to installation, a report is record that shows that
the rf levels as well as the cumulative levels in the
neighborhood notice that this is
inclusive of all rf commissions
in the area including personal routers and smart meters.
The ph will go out and insure that the projected levels are
actually consistent there are
periodic safety measurements.
After installation, there are reading is required for this ongoing monitoring.
The city has a very good
understanding of the key lots of levels.
and preparation, the staff took the measurements.
The highest reading was next to
an existing at&t and 10 up.
Even there, it was 0.2%.
This is similar to the expected operation of the antenna
location which has been expected at 0.28%. What do these numbers mean?
Rf is a highly steady topic.
The who estimates that over
25,000 studies have been done to
monitor the biological effect on humans. This has been studied more than most known carcinogens.
the prevailing opinion continues to be that the only known
impact is due to tissue heating.
This is set at the level of 1-50 that would cause the reading.
In this case, the maximum
exposure level would be 0.0028
milliwatts per centimeter or 0.28% at grovel.
This is less than 1% of the fcc standard.
the energy dissipates with distance.
It follows the inverse square law.
The proposed types, once a person is standing more than 6
feet away, you can stand there all day and on lead and never
received enough exposure to seat the guidelines.
the proposed antenna here is set
back 7 feet from the edge of the building and is elevated.
This non publicly accessible rooftop means that no public member would be exposed to
levels that would exceed the fcc standards. Let'
s go to our second concern. There'
s potential unique circumstances. Let' s take the readings that this antenna will produce which
is 0.28% and must take another
number.
They say there are 300 a proposed antenna and a 1 mile radius.
Of course, 1 mile is too large
to realistically consider because it dissipates over the space and ground. Let'
s say that we have 308 antennas.
We will concentrate all of them at this one site.
To keep things simple, we will
assume that all 308 are exactly like the one you are considering today.
Even in the hypothetical, 308
times 0.028 results in a reading
which is 14% below fcc standards.
again, the standard is 1/50 the amount of radiation known to cause an el affecting humans.
We would not have much of a cumulative effect in the ground level at all.
In truth, this is a low power
antenna that disburses quickly.
In conclusion, neither the
potential cumulative impact nor
any unusual circumstances could create a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment.
Reasonableness is your market today. On friday, the appellate
submitted additional materials.
the department has found that
the grant avenue antenna does not have a significant
environment, therefore our work
is exempt from further review.
>> thank you, I had a couple of questions. It is my understanding that
there was a number of sites that were proposed in the north beach
area and one of those was
withdrawn, one was continued, and one was actually heard and that is the one we' re talking about today, right? >> yes, you' re talking about a hearing date where it was heard by the commission?
>> you have laid out for some of the environmental studies you
have done, could you tell us the
history of appeals to this body of microbicides? My understanding is has been rare, if at all.
Tell us what the history of this body is.
>> that is a good question that I would have needed to research
before coming here today. I'
m not sure if there is
appeals of micro cell.
Can you talk about typical
wireless sites verses this micro site? >> are you asking for the
definition, the difference between a might recite and a larger antenna? >> correct.
>> I will turn that over to the planning department. >> good evening, supervisors.
These have been prepared for each carrier.
Typically, as far as an antenna
goes, this is either a 5 foot
tall and tena
-- 5 foot tall
antenna.
Any site that would be larger than what I'
ve just described as
our conditional use in a residential or mixed use district.
>> can you answer the question
that I propose about the federal telecommunications act?
>> this is where state law compares with the federal law which is probably better
answered by the city attorney.
>> >> we are pre-empted under
federal law from considering the
health effect of the emissions as long as the city has
determined that these comply with federal regulation.
without getting into too much
detail where the federal
analysis, we would not be able to consider those things as long as we have determined that these
are within federal regulatory limits.
>> if I can ask these questions, are these in compliance with federal regulations?
>> I will turn that back over to the department.
>> yes, these are well below 1% sold of the threshold.
>> thank you.
>> any additional questions to
the city staff?
Are there members of the public
that wish to speak in support of
the appellants? Can you please step up to the microphone?
>> hello, my name is victoria
robinson and I live at 1653 grant ave. I am in favor of an appeal.
i have a lot of things I want to
say but after here -- but after
hearing everyone talked, san
francisco has a history of going against the federal government and making rules that fit us.
Looking at the environment, this is something we need to do.
this is not 1995, this is 2011.
People are more concerned about radioactive waste, radiation.
The influx that the amount of satellites that we have and the
city which is stupendous.
This is absolutely unbelievable.
I think we need to look at the effect today by today' s standards and not what was
written in 1996.
I just think that if we really want to go ahead and support
health, we need to take a look at this.
San francisco would like to beat the number 1 city to compost and recycle.
when we go to restaurants, we
have to pay a healthy feet so that everyone can have health insurance.
The fact that you will not look
at rf radiation rates over my head is funny.
I asked you take another look and approve an appeal. Thank you. >> thank you.
question evening, board members.
I am President Of the telegraph hill dwellers.
We are organization founded in
1950 for preservation of the local districts.
We are 750 members strong.
when they appear before this body, this is a serious issue.
It looks like the people on this
side have been before many times and the folks in this side are new.
I know we have a lot of lawyers on this board as well.
Let me address the issue, this is not just about health the
fact or the fcc pre- empting, there are others that might be considered today. Let me go to that.
Under the planning department' s
own guidelines, there is an
entire section called disfavored sides talking
specifically about where sal antennas are favorite or not.
If an antenna is proposed in a
disfavored site, there are four
criteria that must be met that
are outlined and one of the key
ones that has not been met that stands out to me specifically is that team mobil must
demonstrate that this is essential to meet demands and the area.
-- is that t-
mobile must
demonstrate this is essential. This is essential to meet
demands, I see nothing in the records that supports this.
You will be looking at the record that they have met the standard which is outlined in the guidelines of the planning department.
By virtue of the failure to show this particular element is alone grounds for appeal.
we' re talking about your
obligations.
This is one issue you must consider. >> thank you.
>> I live in north beach , three or four blocks from the projected and 10 up.
Let me say that federal law
never stops san francisco and it has awarded and cited by a
previous speaker, particularly
the marijuana law, the feds have
been trying to enact their ideas and this has not stopped most of the counties in
california from carrying out the voters' wishes.
I have been to several public meetings about these and 10 up.
The first one, t-
mobile said they were doing this because they had many complaints about dropped calls.
They were asked .
It was stated that their privacy
would be violated.
There are members that are protesting and they are trying
to find people that had tea-
mobile. We have been completely unsuccessful.
san francisco has a reputation for being progressive.
I am asking you today to go back to that tradition.
this is somewhat being eroded
because the business community including developers have been
feeling threatened .
>> are these antennas essential to meet demand?
When we looked at each, we basically take the word of the
cell phone company that this is essential.
The cell phone company does not
talk about the fact that they are in fact blocking each other out.
Therefore, more will not lead to better service.
no one opposes the need for self on technology.
What is needed is a
comprehensive plan so that the
cumulative impact is considered
and so the time and energy at the board of supervisors is not
spent on a case by case analysis.
A clear plan would be helpful in doing that.
we see a merger of
t-mobile and verizon coming into existence.
This has not been addressed at all.
I think that given that they
block each other out, more is
not equal better service.
The necessity of each one should be carefully examined and there
should be a plan that cites them so there is good coverage everywhere but not excessive numbers of antenna. Thank you. >> thank you.
>> I just hope that you don' t
get your [Singing] Radiation
fill on grant street hill.
I hope it is not a big bill.
and the moon has pulled
still and board, I hope that you will
make it safe and I hope you will.
>> next speaker, please.
>> of supervisors, my name is shirley. I' m a registered nurse.
I would like to consider
seriously about cellphone service, especially in chinatown.
Last week, I have a patient that needs to see a doctor.
however, she is about 1 mile from the doctor' s office. She could not get any help.
Her husband tried to call.
i hope everyone drops or selfish feelings and ideas.
Think about this serious safety needs.
There are many seniors that live in that area.
You know, I have friends and
relatives over there and I tried
to reach them and I was face to
face with them, maybe two or 3 feet.
I cannot call them and they cannot talk to us.
Also, my friend has been
changing to different companies and none of the phone has been working in the chinatown area.
Please, consider the safety
which is very important to our
increasing health needs,
population in china and north beach. You know, all of the other
cities, they' re using cell phones. They have antenna.
Can we research on the other city, let' s see what happens?
Only, san francisco has life-
threatening situations because of the antenna. Please come to consider
seriously we need the service right away. >> thank you.
>> I' m speaking in favor of the balance.
There is a concern about safety.
we note the malibu fires were
caused by putting the equipment on polls.
These devices, they claim to add to safety but they don' t work very things like earthquakes and regular land mines are much more reliable.
I would like to talk about the aspect of the eir.
there is a question about
whether an environmental review should take place.
A lot people know about what the possible impact is which could
include radiation issues and that is not have anything to do
with the telecommunications act.
this talks about whether if you
disapprove, if there are reasons
that you disapprove and make a list of what the reasons are.
If this is outside of radiofrequency limits, and that is a valid reason to deny a permit.
what I say is that the grounds
are here, so the study should be made.
I cannot see any conflict with the telecommunications act.
I have not seen any court cases
that struck down ceqa as far as telecommunications are concerned. >> thank you. next speaker.
>> my name is zach stewart.
San francisco is this big.
The number of people who want to
put stuff in it is zast.
speaking of cumulative impact, it seems that we have to have a broad view.
I will give you a couple of examples.
1000 sheep in the high sierra was just fine.
When there were 1 million, they had to call of the cauvery to
keep the foles from being eaten alive.
When we were faced with having thousands of buildings on the
hill in the bay, that is not ok because we will not have a bay.
There is one really high rise building on the waterfront.
Somehow, we stopped the whole community -- cumulative impact of a bunch of high rise buildings.
I would suggest that that alone
is worth billions of dollars to our city.
Making it attractive for other developers to come.
In this case, I think you have
an of cell phone companies to
have enough cell phone towers to cover the whole city and there would not be enough room for people. >> thank you. Next speaker.
>> good evening, I am speaking
on behalf of the san francisco green party.
Our position on cell phone
towers is that unless the project sponsors can show a
dramatic, compelling lack of service and need for the
antenna, then we should take precedence.
There is no way you can show the
compelling need for another antenna.
Then you have the precautionary principle.
It does not just apply to health dangers.
We are talking about potential dangers to wildlife.
We are talking about potential visual blight in the city.
Thousands of these antennas
start to blanket rooftops and other sites.
There are potential synergistic
effects between different tower sites and my career center sites.
30 or 40 years ago, with
chemicals, even environmentalists and the not
grasp the interaction of chemicals between each other
that will create health dangers
that will exceed federal guidelines and standards.
There is nothing wrong with you as supervisors adopting the
position that the precautionary principle should prevail. Wherever it is not really
necessary, there is no reason to
put that in because the potential impact on the broad scale of the issues.
You can say that under the precautionary principle, there is not a compelling reason to
put another one in.
To avoid the potential cumulative impacts by not
overdoing it with an antenna sites.
You do not have to worry about the health standard of the federal government.
A lot of us understand that that is not an
good enough standard.
>> hello.
I am edmund juicy.
I came over here to talk about karaoke at the club.
i have not had t- mobile.
I realized on August 5 that nobody was calling me.
T-mobile
company, I had six phones in two years.
I figured that was not my problem.
I am going to school at the international hotel.
That is a very dense population.
When I pass the park, you really do have to have the right kind of communication.
We have explosives right near the market. Something blows up. Boom.
We do not know what is going on.
They do test the area.
I looked up at the telephone poles. I see there is something that
monitors the air for us.
These are things that most citizens May not be aware of.
I was working for the telephone company in the 1980' s.
We had good benefits. That was the breakdown of the
bell and it took 25 years to come back.
You really need to know that the telephone companies do not have good communication work.
I think you really need to make
sure that wireless and t- moblile
does not give us more cell
phones and chemicals. Remember japan.
>> thank you, next speaker.
>>
however she put it, but it
was clear in the legislation that she talked about that it
was clear that it needed to be essential.
That was in black and white.
I have seen this happen a couple of times.
if you are going to vote in
favor of the antenna, I am not challenging you guys. Why would you say yes?
Do you feel like it is essential?
If you are going to vote no on
the appeal, say something about it.
i have seen it happen with central subway.
Everybody loves central subway, but nobody knows why.
I am using this to try to understand more about the process.
Why would you overlook what we
have talked about it and vote against the appeal?
do it if you can.
>> thank you. Next speaker.
>> I actually lived in north beach.
I leave my house from north beach sometimes, too.
All you have to do it is crossed into chinatown.
Like the lady said earlier, your call will drop.
You will find dead zones within chinatown. We are talking about a
continuous signal, a cohesive
signal between cell towers.
We are not going to go out and
throw away our cell phones because somebody wants to go
back to drums and sending carrier pigeons.
They are demanding environmental impact reports.
The city is in a financial crisis. To do eir'
s on projects like this is irresponsible.
we have america' s cup 2012 coming up.
Where is it going to take place?
Along fisherman' s wharf, along north beach.
You are going to have the upper class tourists coming.
If they are here trying to use their cell phone and they' re
smart phone and their laptop and we get system busy, are they
going to recommend that their
friends come to san francisco and bring us tourist business? I do not think so. We all know what happened when
we had the giants celebration downtown.
We had dead zones.
People could not call people.
What we are talking about here
is a very low impact environmentally and architecturally.
It is not creating a huge hea lth
hazard.
it is less than the powers that pg&e is putting out.
We need a cohesive signal so that we can show the world that we have an infrastructure to
support major events.
I say deny the appeal
and let the structures go on.
>> thank you. Next speaker.
>> I live in north beach.
I live at exactly 80 feet from where the new tower is going to be installed.
Thank you for letting me speak tonight, supervisors.
i live at 80 feet from the cell tower.
My neighbor has never had a
problem with her cell coverage.
I am here tonight because we all
need this tool for our work, for our pleasure. We all need it.
I asked you to please have this.
We all know that at&t and t-
mobile are merging.
in less than a year, they will be together.
We have to figure route how they
are going to care for this community. It should be a shared responsibility. >> thank you.
Are there any other members of the public who would wish to
speak on behalf of the appellants?
i would like to ask the project sponsor if you could step up and do your presentation.
>> I am the outside counsel for
t-mol bile.
I would like to refocus this to where we were.
the issues regarding need or demand or exceptional circumstances.
These are not really relevant to your review this evening.
We are talking about whether a categorical exemption is
applicable to the planning commission provided to this project.
Cumulative emf, that is an issue.
This covers the ceqa exemptions.
The planning commission took the words right out of my mouth.
the s
fcc standard includes cumulative radio emissions.
This concludes that your
obligation is to ensure that our operations and the operations of
wireless companies in san francisco are compliant with those standards.
What you have confirmed that we
are in compliance with the fcc standards, it takes it out of your hands and you are done.
This is the most progressive in the country in terms of
confirming that we are compliant both individually and cumulatively.
Before we are able to file for a
permit, we must show a study of
the existing emf levels.
We must provide calculations of
the worst case scenarios of the antenna firing at maximum capacity.
That is assuming the worst case scenario.
The real-life measurements are
thousands of times below that.
10 days after it is built, we
have to be out there again with
meters, showing that it in fact complies. That is not it either.
We have to be out there two years later doing the same thing.
That is not just us.
Every cell carrier in san francisco house to provide these reports every two years.
it is thousands of tests a year in san francisco confirming that
the emf levels are within this.
There is a nice map that shows
you that anywhere in north beach
that the highest level is 800 times below the federal standard.
The concept that this is ignored
or has not been reviewed, there
needs to be an eir to investigate this is erroneous.
One thing that would not be considered in an eir.
it has already been addressed by your department.
Let me jump to ceqa.
Ceqa says that under the
exemption, small structures
include three residential
homes, 2500 square feet, four commercial buildings, the environmental impacts that are much greater than the very simple facility.
This is 7 feet back from the
edge of the roof line.
Micro cells
are allowed if we go through the process.
This is provided by the planning director.
This particular micro cell runs
on two-what radios.
-- two-watt
radios.
This is less than 300 watts.
It is a very low ---- a very low wattage facility.
It is no frequency.
A small facility and two
antennas instead of nine or 12.
berkeley, oakland, san jose are trying to push towards this.
San francisco has been doing this for the last 15 years.
The appellants are saying that
because of cumulative a fax, you should not grant this exemption. I am saying that you should look
at all of the antennas that will ever be installed.
There were three that were at one time at the planning commission. One of them went through and one of them was continued.
This is not a piece meal of one project work every piece is integral to the project.
Ceqa requires a review of all of the projects.
This has a unique coverage area.
We need it weather the other sites get the night or not.
I am going to turn to the telegraph hill neighbors themselves.
We submitted over 600
signatures, letters, and e-mails
in support of this facility to provide better service to the
community and a couple of our speakers spoke out of turn here.
It includes the north beach neighborhood association in support of this facility.
This gets support from the jackson square historic association.
The tide, I believe, is beginning to turn.
These are life-saving devices and are incredibly important.
These are integral to our life and our safety.
We would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
i would like to ask bill, if he is here.
He wrote the look on emf and cumulative emf.
He would answer any questions you have about this. Please support the very knowledgeable report by the
staff and denied the appeal. All of the issues that you heard
about, they will be allowed to
appeal that to the board of appeals.
There is no lack of process in
terms of people being able to speak.
>> good evening,
President, and supervisors. I am a registered professional engineer from the state of california.
I want to say that
the fcc
regulations cover cumulative exposure. That is not one particular
frequency, that is the entire frequency band.
broadbent needs to be below the
limits that are set by the fcc.
San francisco has taken a strong stance on this. A strong stance on enforcement.
Every application is reviewed by
the department of public health. a firm like mine will come out and take measurements of the
cumulative levels existing before the facility was built.
We calculate what the ad of level would be and add those together.
Their concern is the cumulative impact.
carriers, when they go out and do their own measurements 40
site will measure their own
signal to make sure that there signal is adequate.
For compliance purposes, it is altogether that are measured.
That all goes to the department of public health and is based on that.
Measurements are done 10 days
after a site goes on air.
We have done thousands of measurements of cumulative levels of in san francisco.
You saw the back page of the staff report.
The measurements are done by the department of health staff.
Every place in san francisco,
the cumulative levels are very, very low.
The easily comply with federal safety standards.
The issue is cumulative exposure. Thank you.
>> I want to answer one question.
Has there been a ceqa appeal in san francisco? There is partly a reason for that.
The noticing was not required
until the revision in 2007.
It has been in the code the last four years.
For better or worse, we have been working on the senate
leader -- cellulare
installation 25 years ago. It is not a new site.
>> there are a number of questions that folks have.
I will start off with one.
they laid out the standard that
if you have a disfavored site,
that you or your client needs to
demonstrate that it is essential
that you be able to be in that particular place.
Can you go through that analysis?
>> absolutely.
She is talking about section 8.1 of the guidelines which was
written back in 1996.
The excess reuse process, those
guidelines are generally dealing
with the macro sites that were
anticipated in 1996.
we did not anticipate this use process, the low wattage come
micro cell sight.
-- site.
What we have to show is that we have a gap in service.
In residential areas, where you do not have commercial
locations, we end up in residential areas.
We submitted a comprehensive alternative analysis which is
required to show all of the six
sites that were not available.
That was all part of the planning commission review.
This was not part of your review in relation to the ceqa analysis. There would not be any
additional environmental study
regarding the ceqa exemption that would address that issue.
We have addressed that issue.
There are maps and drive tests.
This is intrusive means for providing service in that area.
>> we only have an appeal in regards to that one sight.
>> we do not propose a
site unless there is a need for it.
In most cases, the companies are
looking for in building services.
We provided that for all three sites.
This is the old site that is going forward at this time.
They are expensive and it takes a long time.
This application was from June, 2009.
We are two years into this process. The carriers are suffering.
>> the last question I have, the appellants have laid out the
maps they have shown of the city and there are a huge
proliferation of these micro sites.
Has there been a discussion of a wave for you and your competitors to design these
sites in a way that is a little
bit less intrusive and disruptive?
>> I hesitate to say that that
is what we have been doing for the last 20 years.
The guidelines are very robust
in terms of establishing design processes.
As far as establishing sites that are invisible or close to invisible.
That is very true in san francisco.
You see very large facilities
with top hats and communication structures on top of office buildings and regular buildings.
These have worked very well with the industry to try to do that.
the first thing that any carrier
looks for is to try to co- locate.
The guidelines were set up to direct us to these sites.
To the residential zones at the bottom of the list.
after 25 years, those are the areas where we can provide service.
You are seeing more applications in those areas.
In every case, they are looking
for other ways to try to provide service that has less
impact on the community, but provides the services we are trying to provide.
This places facility is trying to find the right of way.
We had to
work with the facility
that puts it on utility poles.
the short answer is that the
companies are always looking for
them the best and fastest way to install facilities.
That is to go through the least review that is possible. That involves having sites that
are co- located.
the carriers, the information is listed on your web pages.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. I wanted to thank the planning
department and staff for wiping
the legalities and also what is before us.
I did want to ask you a question. What I'
m grappling with is the appellant' s argument that there
is a air argument that even the small micro antenna that is
being proposed, even smaller wattage than your general bigger
antennas, a that cumulatively
with the 550 existing cell
phone and 10 s and the 350
proposed, why do you need so many antennas?
I love the new android phone that I am becoming more dependent on.
Why do you need so many?
I know that at&t has nine proposed.
If your service is so good so
far, why do you need some money antennas for the future?
it May have a significant environmental impact.
>> I apologize for having spent
in this business for 25 years.
I was young and did not know any better.
>> I am young and I am trying to
learn more about this and I am concerned about the environmental impacts.
>> they thought they could build
the area out with 28 cell sites.
You could get a mobile phone.
There was one site in san francisco. It served 80 phones. You' ve had to be one of those 80
people that deserve a mobile phone.
They could use the same frequency hopping over different cells.
They could take the real-estate and use it over and over again so that more people could have cell phones.
We went from those 28 sites up
to 900 sites.
Instead of covering a few miles, it became a few blocks.
the power of the antenna can way down.
The of our mental impact is theoretically less.
You probably remember the old phones.
My first one was a briefcase with a handle.
The effect of having smaller
cell sites with lesser output and phones that have a lesser
output by factor of six, you are lessening the impact of the potential results from the ifr.
There is probably wifi in this room.
this is probably beyond the
original macro cells.
This
tower has been turned off and taken down.
>> the one-mile radius past
telegraph hill, there is that
same number of 562 wireless
sites in los angeles.
why do we need so much? I know that it is silly.
They seem to mix up cell sites
and antennas.
We have tens of thousands of mantegna' s.
The number of antennas is a funny concept.
All that I can say is that each
individual site, aunt' does make a difference.
It all comes back to the fcc standard and the fact that we are so far below that standard.
I think it is 500 and sites in L.A.
they are all tall sites
that are broadcasting.
You could still have lower rf the missions in that situation
then you have with less antennas.
there is no direct correlation
between the number of antennas and radio frequency emissions.
The fact that I have all of
these antennas in my pocket it does not mean that I am
getting zapped by my phone.
Each cell site
talks to the next site.
We have to down tilt the
antennas so that each cell site
has a coverage area networks within the network.
The advantage is reducing the
size, reducing the output,
reducing the footprint or the
rfr from these.
>> I want better service for my cell phone.
It seems like a huge concentration in one small area of the city.
If there is one area of that will have a significant impact.
i am leaning towards that there is that impact.
>> I have got to say one more
time, you said this in your planning department well.
Here is your cumulative impact.
from every cell carrier that is
currently operating in the telegraph hill area.
The highest is adjacent to an
att site and is 500 times below the standard.
Every time one of these goes in, you are re-evaluated again.
If you approach the federal standard, you will not be able to succeed.
You have every right to deny that next site.
I do not know how to better
explain that after 25 years, if you believe their number, you
are still in the highest area,
you are still 800 times below the federal standard on the street.
It is angels dancing on the head of a pin.
I understand the public concern.
People do not understand it.
people feel like this will not affect their lives.
>> I know that t-
moblile -- t -
mobile is not the only ones supporting this.
>> I think the planning department 5-year plan goes to the industry that way.
>> if I could just follow up the plan, you are saying that
because of data at that the department of public health had
gathered, it really is not fair from your standard?
There is not a fair argument from your perspective?
That is your position? >> that is right.
There is not a fair argument
that there is a cumulative impact from the impairment colfax.
it should not be included in your analysis.
The federal law does trump ceqa.
It is to provide you with information and facts to make your decision.
There have not been any faxed provided by the appellants to suggest that there is a fair
argument that has not been
considered when granting this categorical exemption.
>> thank you.
>> the gentleman who was up here
earlier who you introduced with regard to this study that was
done was that study paid for by your company?
>> was it paid for by our company? Yes.
They are required by the
department and I should let him describe this.
>> it is an interesting study. >> it is a measurement study
that the city requires that the carriers a met.
They hire us to do the study.
We submit it to the department of public health.
>> separately, the department has done their own studies. Is that correct?
>> you reference federal government.
The federal government has
evolves over periods of time,
whether through fda or issues
related to those that might condone certain uses?
In this particular period of
time, it seems that maybe this
is not a great area, but this is the first time we have seen the
conversion of federal thinking catching up with standard of local thinking.
articulate concerns of public
health, we have seen this over
the last 25 years quite rapidly.
I am just wondering why this insistence that because of the
fcc standard that this is the golden standard. They' re literally is no room for that challenge?
>> the federal standard began -- radio waves have been around for a long time.
That was reviewed in 1996.
it was reviewed in 2007.
There are continuing and ongoing studies regarding the radio emissions.
This
is referred to in your planning and staff reports.
This is not an area of the people are ignoring.
There is a lot of concern and interest.
There continue to be studies and reviews. The standard remains the same.
This is an effective today.
It is comparable to european standards.
It is not as though they came up
with a study in 1986, put it in a box and decided that would
forever be the standard for radio emission frequencies.
It is an ongoing review area for various federal government departments that are looking at it. Is the gold standard?
I did not say that.
it is the standard that the federal government determines is safe.
They continue to review that standard on a regular basis.
>> I had just one follow-up to
the supervisor of' s question.
your study was paid for by t-mo bile.
I assume you would stand behind that study.
>> the issue here is the measurements.
My metred does not know who is
paying me and telling me to take the measurements.
We sent notices to anybody that
lives within 25 feet of an antenna and offered to take measurements.
I put the meter together and I hand it to the resident.
They go wherever they want in their house.
That meter is a calibrated meter.
we report that the existing levels are x.
That is independent of who is paying for that.
The department of public health
has a similarly calibrated meter.
Our results are similar to theirs.
>> the reason I ask the question
is that supervisor mar referred
to a discussion that the city had been having about a master plan.
From my perspective, I think
that we could probably move this
forward if we were able to get
some funding that the city could use.
It was not necessarily an industry sponsored set of studies. Something that we as a city could move west.
As a representative of t-mobile, what would your thoughts be on moving forward with something like that?
>> all of the carriers are struggling.
anything that would constitute a working relationship between the city and the industry to try to
come up with solutions of how we could better serve the community
with least in packs would be favored by the industry.
You would suggest that there sponsored or funded by the industry as well.
Each carrier has different frequencies and different
network build out and requirements. I just want to say that there is
federal law that says that a community cannot dictate the kind of technology that is used
by an entity to provide coverage to its customers.
that being said, I know that
paulo also will be having
workshops on providing service
in palo alto.
That is something that the industry favors.
They provide service for these
wonderful services that changed our lives.
They are not in the business of scaring people about radiation.
This is something that the industry is in favor of.
In the past, we have tried to
sponsor assistance in the planning department.
This would not be a new request. >> thank you.
In order to alleviate some of
these figures f -- rears, it
would be important to have the
these including studies by t- mobile.
Thank you very much.
Why do we not go to members of the public who support the project sponsor?
If you could please line up?
step up to the center aisle.
We will hear from the first speaker, please. Please step up.
Please step up.
>> good evening, supervisors.
this is important to me.
In the north beach area, they
have a high school and middle school involved.
this is very important.
I will support in the north beach area. Thank you.
>> good evening, supervisors.
I
am in the chinatown, long beach area.
I am a cell phone user.
I spend a lot of time in long beach and chinatown.
Sometimes they do not work good
in the area, especially at my restaurant.
The signal is even cut off.
It affects our community.
honorable supervisors kamala please do something about this.
-- honorable supervisors, please do something about this.
In the case of emergencies.
so many seniors are in the chinatown area.
On the hill, people do not have
to look at antennas. Please, no more delays.
Thank you for your consideration.
>> good evening, supervisors.
we have a specialty general contractor.
We are located on third street.
We are the telecommunication workers that make yourself ands
-- cell phones work.
we employ roughly 120 employees.
We are a union contractor.
We love these jobs.
In the 16 years, we have never
had health damage from
rf exposures.
For the general public, there is roughly zero risk.
The cordless phone provides 150 times as much radiofrequency
exposure as do these micro antennas.
Baby monitors provide as much as 10 times more exposure.
The last keynote is that the construction industry has very huge unemployment. We need jobs.
That is all I have got to say.
>> good evening, supervisors.
I am the district four residents.
I am a due
paying electrician.
i have a local business started 30 years ago.
Not only do these projects employ the telecommunications
workers, but also a very important part of our business model.
We appreciate the jobs and the chance for our businesses to succeed.
>> hello.
I am the resident of san francisco.
It should be evident
that the planning commission shows what
rf planning commission does.
I am a san francisco geek.
No matter what cell phone
service I have, it is not as good as people across the nation or across the pond.
I hope that we can build the tower so that we can get the fastest speeds.
when we have travellers coming
in in 2012, they should get the best service possible.
It is not just about making phone calls. It is texting.
Many people have their iphones ready to use.
Hopefully, everybody get five bars.
>> I am a native san francisco in.
-- san franciscan.
I am not an expert on wireless utilities.
i do know about the planning code.
I urge you to reject the appeal.
It is absurd to require others
to seek an antenna that that is only 30 inches in size.
I would like to provide for an
exemption for the construction of these small structures.
these are realistic commercial buildings of 10,000 square feet or more.
The guidelines specifically exempt utilities.
There are no unusual circumstances here.
There are buildings all over town.
They have approved many similar antennas.
we need better wireless
infrastructure.
The signal capacity is rapidly used up.
Many people my age do not use
land lines.
Please support the planning department. Thank you very much.
>> good evening, supervisors.
I lived in district 3, but not
in telegraph hill or in north beach.
I publish a newsletter for
people that used water or facebook. They went to the planning
commission meeting a couple of months back.
I came here tonight to ask you to deny the appeal.
I was looking very carefully at all of the arguments.
i feel like I have learned a lot.
I do not see where the argument is for the appeal.
In terms of the cumulative
effect, we learned that there is a lot being done.
It seems to me that t-mobile
followed the rules you layed out.
You say, officer, I stopped at the light.
He said, that is the law come
.
Nobody could argue against
greater analysis or a city-wide plan. You do not have one yet.
Stop denying micro sites while you try to find the funding for a citywide plan.
What a massive failure you are admitting to.
They cannot provide mobile connectivity for a year or so.
I heard the argument that the
opposite of cumulative, this power is not essential.
I do not understand how that could be a suitable guidelines in this area.
I would urge you to deny the appeal.
san francisco is not the leader
in cities for this type of business. It is an urban legend.
In new york city, they put these on the building appeals.
>> next
speaker.
>> my name is james bishop.
I am san francisco native born and raised. I come here on a daily basis.
People come to my store saying
how much they love t-moblile service.
we do not have service in my house.
We are working on it and we are trying to provide service.
I ask you guys to reject this.
>> my name in asregina.
I live over in north beach. not too far away from where this
dummy antenna is.
You can barely see it from the street.
T-mobile
is a great company.
We need the jobs.
we need them to bring in the business in this community.
They are complying with federal regulations.
They take into consideration
that in 2013, the america' s cup
is coming to san francisco.
you will be inundated with so
many people throughout the world that can connect with other people throughout the world.
They are going to need a good reception.
They are going to need to be able to connect with other
people that are watching the america' s cup.
it is extremely important to have good coverage throughout the city.
T-mobile
has always been in compliance with the city.
The supervisors and the county
of san francisco gave t-mobile
certification honoring t-mobile
on their commitment to the community.
That is for after-school
programs to keep kids out of
gangs.
They will be able to have some
sort of objective so that they could have some sort of direction.
>> thank you. Next speaker.
>> I am here speaking on behalf
of the vice-chair person of the united residents.
Members of the san francisco
board of supervisors, you are --
we oppose the antenna project ,
also known as 1653 grant.
the united residence of pok
lk is
a registered neighborhood association in san francisco.
We write in opposition of the
micro cell proposed.
we believed it is unreasonable to require an environmental
impact report of a tiny antenna out that this just 30 inches tall.
This will be enclosed in a
rooftop that is just 5 feet in
height and obscured from view by casual observers.
reluctant the latest set a dangerous precedent that could
harm all neighborhoods and
businesses and property owners that are seeking to build or expand with minor improvements.
We believe this will be a waste
of the city resources as well and not reasonable at these times in the bad economy.
We support t-mobile
site because it expands the wireless network.
>> thank you very much. Next speaker.
>> good evening, board of supervisors. My name is smith. I live here in the city.
I think we deserve quality wireless service.
it is hard for some people to be
here this afternoon to come to city hall.
I would like to read the
following letter from someone who was unable to be here today.
I am a homeowner in north beach . i am surgeon on the emergency
call to sf hospitals and real-
life ont-mobile telephone service and to respond to life- threatening emergencies.
>>signs are not permitted here in the chamber.
It is a list of names of folks
that support t-mobile
here. >> I request that you facilitate the improvement in the network so
that I might provide for my patients. The think that I might Miss A
life or death call the city
bureaucracy hinders the network is unacceptable to me. Thank you.
>> and next speaker.
>> good evening, supervisors.
We support the
micro cell antenna proposal. We urge you to deny the appeal.
This appeal was sent in for the neighborhood and citywide.
We need the cell phone and tend not to do business.
San francisco should not handicap itself by getting
behind on communication technology.
There is no evidence of environmental impacts.
The planning commission has
already approved the antenna.
Please deny the appeal. think you very much for your time.
-- thank you very much for your time.
>> good evening, board of supervisors.
My name is steve ike.
my company does aerospace engineering work for nasa.
My understanding is that t- mobile has met all the requirements.
I heard the testimony from the planning commission earlier that
supports some of their plans, which includes making sure that
this meets the health standards.
the talk about the rf
commissions, etc. It is common knowledge that the
S.E.C. -- the fcc will not approve any of these intense as
if there is anything health-was wrong with it.
It is not harmful to humans.
that is what science proves to us.
It is also not harmful to the
wildlife, as someone quoted earlier.
I think it is about quality of life.
We' ll have cell phones.
We have pdas.
Most of what we do today, we
rely on these phones.
we also rely on the pga -- the
pda device is to reach our information. It has become part of our lives.
I think it is no longer a luxury.
In third world countries, most
of them do not have direct calls.
it is the same in some areas of san francisco. I think this project will
improve the quality of life of
san franciscans, especially
those that use pda devices and cell phones. I urge the board to support the implementation of this project.
It makes good business sense and is also the right thing to do. Thank you.
President Chiu: thank you. Next speaker.
>> good evening, supervisors.
It has been a long day. I appreciate all of you staying here to listen to all of us.
My name is ron lee.
i worked for at&t for 30 years.
I worked around these cell sites, radio towers up in the san bruno mountains.
I used to stand next to them all day long. I am living proof. I am not sick.
I do not have cancer. None of the bad stuff people talk about has happened to me.
my co-workers -- I do not know any of them that ever got sick
from being on a cell site or radio tower.
I just want to point that out. I am living proof.
It has never affected me or any of my co-workers.
I hope that you will deny this
appeal and let everybody in the
neighborhood have full-service so we have reliable cell phone
service throughout the whole north beach area. Thank you very much.
President Chiu: thank you. Next speaker.
>> my name is mike lee.
I have been a resident for 10 years.
i am also a retail business
owner very close to the site.
A lot of my customers are now
starting to use technology to
incorporate wi-fi purchasing processes. I hope you guys do not stand in the way of that future technology.
i am concerned about this
issue, and personally collected
120 signatures of my fellow merchants.
I got this approval with their signatures.
It says as merchants working and
living in the north beach area, we do not oppose this.
I urge you on the high court --
on behalf of this project to deny this appeal and carry forward the project progress.
>> good evening, supervisors. my name is marsha garland.
I am a 35-year resident of north beach and a business owner for the same time.
I am probably the first person in my generation to eliminate her land line.
When I first did that four or
five months ago, everybody was very concerned for me.
actually, I totally rely on my cellphone. We have had enough studies done.
The engineers and the department
of health agreed there is not a safety problem.
Each antenna site is monitored,
as you have heard, every two years to ensure they meet
federal safety guidelines.
If the cumulative radio frequencies were to increase a lot, they would have to change the antenna.
That is not a problem, because they are low-powered antennas anyway.
If we are going to study these,
we might as well start studying
microwave ovens, electric blankets, and cell phones, which most people seem to be attached to.
There has been enough study.
There should not be any more delays.
Delays cost us money and we are in a budget crunch.
I think we should just get along with this.
I hope you will approve and uphold the planning commission decision back in February. Thank you.
>> good evening, supervisors.
My name is stefano.
I spent about 20 years doing community civic work in the north beach area.
I am a member of north beach --
north beach neighbors and north beach merchants.
I went door to door to try to do the out reach that was required.
One thing that I did discover
was that this decision,
although it is for grant avenue
, has a significant impact on the whole city.
That is why it is before you today.
In the short time, we were able
to get letters asking to deny
the appeal from the alliance for
a better district 6, which is jane kim'
s district, the mission
district business improvement
association, the jackson historic district association,
the inner sunset group, the
terrible park -- the taravel
park merchant association.
the city did an excellent job in
the study and showed that the project sponsor met all the
requirements the city has asked.
There is also federal requirements that were met.
This is something that is not done overnight.
It takes about three years in san francisco.
i urge you to deny the appeal.
Support the planning commission.
This is a thorough and comprehensive thing. Thank you.
>> I am dave cruz.
I am a resident of district 2.
Well this is not in my backyard,
i wanted to speak on behalf of public safety. I am a public safety professional. I do wireless for a living.
I do not typically take sides and am not taking a side for this project.
I think somebody really needed to answer your question,
supervisor mar, about why so many antennas.
unfortunately, t-mobile did not do a good job of answering.
It is because these received.
The big powers are not transferring as much as they are receiving.
To be able to listen to you when
you say, "can you hear me now,"
when you are in a closet,
calling 911 -- that tiny signal
coming from your phone is trying
to get across town to that site.
The closer it is to you, the more likely it is you will be able to make that call. There is nothing more
frustrating to a public safety is better than wireless phone call. They are afraid the call will drop. The typically do not get your
number or where you are calling from. The cannot provide you help. It is very frustrating.
There are tons of sites that are going up.
The power levels are so low because radios keep getting smaller. The amount of power coming out of them keeps getting less and less.
the planning department did an excellent job of explaining the
volume of how much emf comes out of those things.
From the public safety side,
more and more people are using
911 on cell phones and not land lines. That is just the way things are going. Think about that when you get all of these applications. Somebody handed this to me to give to the board, so here it is.
[Applause]
President Chiu: I think he spoke on the other side on this.
and unfortunately the rules are we can only allow you to speak once.
But I think now everyone knows you have changed your mind on this, so thank you.
Thank you very much.
[Applause]
Next speaker, please.
>> my name is rebecca shapiro.
I think we have already
submitted a letter stating we
are in support of the t-mobile
tower and we do oppose the
appeal that has come before the board of supervisors. I will just read briefly from the letter.
North beach neighbors supports approving the installations of
micro cell antennas at these locations.
We believe they will provide a
necessary improvement on cellular service in the neighborhood and that the country has minimize any negative impact.
It is our understanding that the
proposed installation means necessary safety standards.
T-mobile has worked to make sure the antennas will not normally
be visible from the street.
I wanted to come here this evening and the state the position of the north beach neighbors and separate from
that, I will state that I do own and manage my own business in north beach.
I also live here in san francisco.
I actually still do have a land line. I do not actually know the number to it even though I have been there for five years.
And never give up the number.
but I have to call out on that number when I am at home.
Otherwise, on my cell phone, it drops immediately, randomly at any time.
And I find it very embarrassing
that in san francisco, the backyard of silicon valley, we are still coming across these challenges.
we should be at the forefront of technology and should not have
problems with having our cell phones drop on a regular basis. Thank you.
President Chiu: thank you. Next speaker.
>> my name is jose ricardo. I have a collection of 500
letters from various
organizations, from the san francisco mission business improvement association, the after sunset merchant
association, and north beach neighbors.
that is from local residents and merchants.
>> I just want to say one thing.
President Chiu: I am sorry, but you have already spoken. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
are there any other members of
the public that wish to speak on behalf of t-mobile?
Seeing none, let us hear from the appellants for orbital.
-- for rebuttal.
>> this morning, david chiu, your office for did me an e-mail from hammond and edison. I have a rebuttal for that e-
mail that arrived at david chiu' s office.
i want to point out that the letter is contradictory. They make a blanket assertion
that there are no rf levels in excess of the public exposure
limit in san francisco but it
knowledge that they are exceeded in a certain perimeter of each in tennis facility.
The testimony asserts that no
member of the public could ever access an area within the perimeter that would result in
exposures above this limit, but
this is false in many situations where members of the public have
access to roofs, where antennas
are located, which is the case
at 1653 grant. they can go on the roof and party anytime they like. The way such situations is typically dealt with is by
installing signs that warn of rf levels in excess of limits.
But installing a sign that limits might be exceeded is not
the same as asserting they are
not exceeded anywhere in san francisco.
I also want to point out that hammond and edison has in the
past given testimony that is not credible. Consider the documents I am
submitting, which detailed an instance when they measured
cumulative rf levels above fcc
levels at lookout mountain colorado.
But then the testimony -- and they testified to the local government debt delimits did not
exceed fcc levles.
-- levels.
>> we are a small group of local north beach residents who
live within 25 to 50 feet of the proposed antenna.
We do not have the funds to hire a lawyer.
We do not have the funds to hire a professional. but our concern is very real.
I just wanted to remind you that ceqa says the environmental
document that is approved is appealable to an elected body.
We respectfully submit that in this individual site in a
residential area, it cannot be valley waited alone, and therefore is not exempt from ceqa.
We are not necessarily saying
that it requires the I r -- eir.
But evidence indicates there
are 550 reported in tennis by
the cellular industry, 308
proposed on their plan, and
additional antennas not on their
plan, according to --
President Chiu: thank you.
That concludes the appellative for a bottle.
That includes oral argument on items 17 through 19.
first of all, I have quick questions for staff.
The first is to Ms. Rogers from the planning staff.
There was a question around why
it was that this is a dis-
favored site but the appellate
did not have to prove this is essential. I understand we have an answer for that. Could you explain that?
>> as you have described, this
is a micro cell site.
It is small enough to meet that criteria.
As such, it is not required to go to a hearing before the planning commission. It is small enough to be considered excess reuse.
The commission is not required
to make any findings for the
sight or hearing about for
either the smaller accessory use incidents or places where a larger antennas are permitted as a right.
only wireless antennas require a
conditional use for macro cell
sites in residential districts.
President Chiu: the planning department could decide to
change its guidelines, right? >> yes.
the procedures we have in place are procedures that are not legislated and could be changed.
President Chiu: thank you.
One final question to the city attorney' s office.
We had a discussion around the federal telecommunications act. I would like your opinion on the impact.
if we were to uphold the appeal, it is it your opinion that we
would be open to a lawsuit?
How clear is lot in this area?
>> the pre-emption question is
quite clear with regard to the city' s ability to deny the
project based on its radio frequency emissions. If that were the sole basis for the board to overturn the
appeal -- overturning planning department determination and uphold the appeal, I think we would be quite vulnerable.
President Chiu: thank you.
colleagues and ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience in listening to this hearing as we grapple with this difficult issue.
I want to also thank the
neighbors in the northeast neighborhoods I represent for your patience and all the work you have done. I know there are a lot of neighbors on both sides of this.
every single one of us relies on a cell phone.
We are often frustrated by coverage but understand the concerns of neighbors who worry about environmental effects.
We are trying to grapple with how we balance those needs.
I think the fact that the 1966
tillich commission caissons act
-- telecommunications act, although it was passed a long
time ago -- it is the law.
Rarely does the city attorney of pine as clearly as she just did
today -- does the city attorney
opinie as clearly -- opine as clearly as she did today that we
do not have the authority, given federal law here.
I would ask that we affirm the
cadex which is item 17, and table items 18 and 19. That being said, this is an
issue we have to tackle.
we will have subsequent conversations about this with the planning department.
The do think our city needs a master plan. We need to move forward with that.
We need to set up a master plan.
we need to figure out where and
how frequently we should be
siting these around the city.
I would like the planning department to give us guidance.
Consider requiring these micro
sites to meet the same standards
as the macro sites as far as
being able to prove they are the essential when it comes to where they go in the neighborhood.
I want the planning department to move forward on that, if that is possible. These are separate requests I am making to the planning department.
i would like to make a motion to
a firm. -- to a firm.
Supervisor campos: the hearing has been held and closed.
Now we have a motion to approve
item 17 and table items 18 and 19. Can we have a roll call?
Supervisor farrell: aye.
Supervisor kim: aye.
Supervisor mar: no.
Supervisor mirkarimi: no.
Supervisor weiner: aye.
supervisor avalos: aye.
Supervisor campos: aye.
President Chiu: aye.
Supervisor chu: aye.
Supervisor cohen: aye.
Supervisor elsbernd: aye.
>> there are 9 ayes and 2 nos.
president chiu: the categorical exemption is affirmed.
If we could call item 20.
>> item 20 was considered by the land use committee at a regular
meeting on monday, April 11, 2011.
it is a resolution opposing the golden gate national recreation area' s propose alternatives for dog management.
Supervisor weiner: thank you.
Yesterday, we had a hearing on
this issue, the proposal to
restrict off-leash access.
It was a very productive hearing.
We had a ton of people come out
from the public to testify, a lot of people who had never been to city hall before.
i also want to acknowledge gg
came out as well.
We had good feedback from animal control as well.
In addition, since we called for
this hearing and introduced --
took up this resolution, there
has been more interaction
between the city and ggnra,
including meetings with city departments. I am pleased with that. I have very serious concerns
about this plan in terms of the
impact it will have on dogs and
their owners in san francisco,
as well as the impact on our city parks.
For that reason, I cannot
support what ggnra is doing, and they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a different plan. The mayor is requesting we continue this for two weeks.
he would like the opportunity to
engage directly with ggnra on this issue to see if there is
any way to make that a productive process. I want to respect that.
In addition, having the mayor communicate directly, in my view, can be a powerful thing.
at the mayor' s request, and in
the hopes of moving the ball
here, I am going to move that we continue this for two weeks. I want to say one thing.
It is very consistent for this
board to come out against the
ggnra plan, but for the city to continue to talk to and
negotiate with ggnra to move us in the right direction. I do not know if this will impact the final result, but I want to give the mayor the space he needs to have this conversation. That is my motion.
president chiu: that is seconded by supervisor avalos.
>> two weeks is April 26.
President Chiu: without objection, this item will be continued to that date.
We now go to roll call.
supervisor kim: sumit.
-- submit.
Supervisor weiner: I have one thing.
It is a good thing.
As my colleagues will remember,
we had a little bit of a
disagreement about the metropolitan transportation commission appointment.
I am happy to announce that we
have a resolution to that controversy.
It is a resolution that I believe will result in
supervisor capmos and I serving
on the mtc together.
the mayor has appointed me to
that seat and so I know it will be coming up at the rules
committee soon and supervisor
campos has my full support for appointment by the board.
I think the mayor for reaching out to the board to resolve what
was proving to be an impasse.
I think it speaks volumes to the mayor' s leadership and desire to work productively with the board. I just wanted to announce that.
President
Chiu: in reaction to
what supervisor weiner just
said, I am glad we were able to
avoid that potential dogfight.
I look forward to our commissioners representing us.
I know their leadership will be greatly appreciated in the coming years.
I do have one in memoriam, for a 16-year-old sophomore from thurgood marshall high school.
He was brutally taken away from his family. He was someone who was much
loved by his friends and by his teachers.
Today, students at thurgood
marshall high school are signing an 8 foot banner memorializing him.
The banner reads, "rest in peace. we will Miss You."
there are not many details about
this case, which is under investigation. The debt has been ruled a homicide.
Supervisor campos: let me begin
by thanking supervisor weiner
for his comments about the mpc,
and reiterating his comments
about merely -- about major --
about mayor lee and his role in finding a resolution that makes
sure the entire city and county of san francisco is properly represented.
Again, thank you to the mayor
for his role in continuing to
promote dialogue and cooperation here at city hall.
I have an item that I am
introducing which is a hearing
to review and discuss the
comprehensive report on family violence in san francisco.
This report is the second annual report released by the family
violence council, which is a
multi-agency advisory body that addresses the interconnections
between child abuse, domestic violence, and elder abuse.
this is something we think needs
to be discussed at an open hearing.
Lastly, I want to take an
opportunity to thank the members of the fire department.
We have a fire, unfortunately, in my district a few days back.
it was a fire that happened in
the evening, late in the
afternoon, under very when the conflict -- windy conditions.
The fire department and their personnel were very proud to respond.
They were able to contain the fire under very difficult circumstances.
Our hearts go out to the residents who were displaced.
About 60 individuals were displaced by the fire.
I am very proud to note that the
entire community in my district,
in the burn all heights -- the
bernal heights-mission area
came together to help those who were displaced.
I want to thank the firefighters, beginning with the chief. Those of you who have been able
to see the chief in action -- you can see why she is in the position she is in.
She has a unique ability to interact with the public.
Her presence was really appreciated.
I especially want to think one
of the firefighters who
unfortunately was injured,
although from what we understand he is recovering.
that is stanley lee.
Our thanks to him and his entire
family, and to all the firefighters who risked their
lives to save lives in san francisco.
Supervisor
avalos: colleagues, today I am introducing
legislation enabling this year' s small business week sidewalk sale.
This year, the small business
week will be held from May 14 to May 21.
A key
event is the sidewalk sale.
this legislation seeks a waiver
so that we can encourage stores
to participate and bring entire corridors together.
This is the seventh year of sidewalk sales.
Each year, there is strong participation with many of our merchant organizations across the city.
these sidewalk sales help drive
attention to our commercial
corridors and bring much-needed revenue to our small businesses.
But his pitting areas include
the -- current areas include
bernal heights, north beach,
marina, castro, valencia, and
ocean avenue, where we are collaborating to combine it with our annual art walk.
The city is also partnering with
sf-made to get items in local stores on consignment.
This is an opportunity to
promote local products and local businesses. I hope I will have all your support and am sure I will.
Supervisor
mirkarimi: this is an
in memoriam.
Willieam loenberg died
peacefully in his home at age 84.
He was born on August 14, 1926, in germany.
he was an observant jew who lost most of his family in the holocaust.
After surviving seven concentration camps, he was
liberated in dacko in 1945 and
emigrated to the U.S. -- in
dachau in 1945 and emigrated to the U.S. he served in the korean war.
He has two children, david and susan.
His love and family -- his love for family and community work shown. He was a leader in the jewish
community in the U.S. And san francisco.
he was appointed to the U.S.
Holocaust memorial consulting service and helped oversee the
building of the holocaust
memorial in washington, D.C. He
was President Of the san
francisco jewish community federation. He was very proud of the san
francisco community and gave back on the board of the san
francisco opera, the commission
of agency -- the commission on aging, and the university.
People were asked to send
donations to the holocaust
center and the jewish family children services of san francisco.
Up next, I am submitting a
resolution in support of a resolution introduced by state assemblywoman nancy skinner.
It would remove a major barrier
to a successful reentry for incarcerated individuals. it would increase the
opportunity and public safety by
insuring more people are able to drive.
It would allow people who have
only non-felony vehicle code
violations to drive after being released to county jails.
The realignment is likely to redistribute tens of thousands
of inmates from state to county jails throughout california. This law would create uniformity
in the rules for formerly incarcerated individuals.
we strongly support this bill
and it is requested that the board of supervisors support an advocate for the passage of such a bill.
This thursday is the wonderful
art walked in -- art walk in
divisadero.
thousands of people come out for it. It is very fun.
Come and check it out.
It is thursday from 6 to 9.
It is nice to see some any other art walks proliferating throughout the city.
supervisor mar: an important day is coming up this coming saturday.
We have with us here today susan
terence from california schools.
Thank you for staying so long to do this.
I do not know if you love poetry
like I do, but from reading
allen ginsberg, rumi,
langston hughes -- I love
reading it to my kids into schools.
The san francisco state poetry
center, founded 46 years ago, a
as an important project
throughout the country.
I want to acknowledge this important date is coming up.
I think Ms. -- I thank Ms.
Terrence for being here so long.
>> that concludes roll call.
president chiu: why don' t we go to general public comment? >> the public May address the
board for two minutes on item one, the mayoral appearance before the board, and other
matters before the subject jurisdiction of the board,
including the adoption without committee reference calendar, and excluding items which have
been before a board committee. Speakers using translation will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify.
If you would like a document to be displayed on the overhead
projector, please state such.
Remove the document, and the screen will return to live coverage of the meeting.
>> [Unintelligible]
[Speaking a foreign language]
finally, san francisco has a mayor with courage.
I see my mayor today.
not only that.
I talk with him when he goes outside. I had a chance.
I talked with him, man to man.
I asked him to support my district, district 6.
He promised to do so.
he walked in market street with
his team to show that he has courage to change everything.
More than that, he gave me his
promise to support our young.
Supervisor jane
kim -- I showed
him your picture he thought you were a movie star.
I want you to promise to support her. Guess what? He did.
he signed it here on her picture.
That means he promises he is
going to support district 6.
I believe he is going to do so.
He cannot do it by himself.
This young lady -- I tell her
before not to give up.
he liked to hear that.
Finally, two of our supervisors took my advice last week.
They decided to eat fruit and vegetables like I tell them. Thank you.
president chiu: thank you.
>> stop the corporate rate of the public library.
Do not give money to the foundation. If you have listened to my
presentation even a little bit, you never they fall into three categories.
The first is the lack of library service the results from privatization and making fund- raising the highest priority.
the second is a lack of
accountability in the privatisation, which allows
bidders to put their benefit before the public welfare. The third is what makes the
other to work, the violation of
open government and democratic principles. As long as money is more
important than honesty, thieves and liars will always be in charge. The library commission has
become the most egregious
sunshine violator in the city because suppression of accountability and democracy does not give them anything for their money.
When the President Of the library of violated the right to
the public comment, the sunshine task force found it so
egregious it was a violation of the sunshine ordinance.
After being referred to the
ethics position, -- ethics
commission, it was fun to fall
below the standard of decency required of all public officials.
a victim of this treatment was
not me, but it is typical of how many people have been treated.
The case is still pending before the ethics commission.
Letters supporting sunshine violations should reference
complete 100115.
contempt for democracy and accountability has become part
of library culture because raising millions from the corporate elite is its own reward.
The damage to our society is a measurable.
That is why the lies cost more than the money.
president chiu: thank you. Next speaker.
Just lay it down, and sfgtv will do the rest. >> your time is ticking.
>> it is not working. there is.
I am glad to have this
opportunity to speak to all men, especially those of the household of faith. You see what a large letter I have written to you in my own
hand, from look and zechariah.
you know that palm sunday is coming up this sunday.
It says the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a
loud voice, saying blessed be the king met, in the name of the lord.
The paris is said to rebuke the disciples.
jesus said that if they should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cried out. Why did he say that?
It says it was a loud voice.
The 400-year-old prophesy said it rejoiced greatly.
shout, o daughter of jerusalem.
When God commits himself in writing to do something, it is going to happen. It is only a matter of time.
God has said that someday he is going to raise the dead. God has said that.
jesus said when you see the
abomination and desolation
spoken to you, that is the son
of my coming and the end of the world.
Daniel said the abomination of
desolation would happen in 1290 days.
It is my firm contention you can
interpret this.
9/11 was the abomination and desecration.
When they interviewed jesse
ventura last night --
President Chiu: thank you. Next speaker.
>> I am susan terrence.
I wanted to think the board of supervisors for letting me speak.
Thank you for introducing our proclamation.
April 16, california poets in
schools day, we are sponsoring
nine free events in the city for the national poetry month in April.
The book to proclaim April 16 as california poets in school stay in san francisco. You' re celebrating many voices
in the city, especially voices
of five to 18-year-olds.
i would like to read a poem written by a third grader.
Inside the universe our books.
In such books are words.
Inside words are meaningless -- are meanings.
Here is another.
I and the daughter of bright orange california poppies.
my voice is calm and sweet. You can hear it when it blows
softly through your ears. I am the grass, the hills.
We thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
President Chiu: thank you.
If I could just mentioned, it in the board chambers unfortunately
we do not permit applause or an expression of opposition.
If I could ask you to please curb your enthusiasm, that would be appreciated.
>> I am also with the california poets.
This is a wonderful afternoon. I have not sat through at a meeting in a long time.
i am happy to be here.
In the packet, we send it out to 1200 friends.
I just wanted to read the poem
that is written by a 12th
grader, roberta taurus -- roberto torres.
When I put my hands around my
eyes and looked up, and it see
only blue sky and clouds passing by. My eyes grew blue.
My memory printed on you.
Blue sky, when we ate in the
backyard under the tree.
blue sky, I see it reflected.
It is like a diary of everything that happened to you is written there. You are my only witness.
Happy spring. Have the blue skies. Happy poetry month. Thank you.
>> happy spring indeed.
i moved here in spring 1989.
My name is eric foster early --
osberly.
I represent the lgbt community.
It tough to navigate six sex and
sexual health with premise and honesty.
it is a true symbol of my personal liberation and identity.
To lgbt youth coming of age in
the midwest or middle east, the eagle says hang on to your dreams and your identity. Someday you will join us.
this important gathering space says to us regardless of our
gender or sexual orientation,
you are beautiful, a whole, weird, and creative like us.
Welcome to san francisco. Welcome home.
>> I am a south of market President, district 6.
I think the supervisors who stepped forward to help us in
our efforts to keep the eagle open. The eagle is a very old and venerable institution.
It is the anchor for the community in soma.
It is an anchor of the folsom street fair.
This event brings millions of dollars to san francisco.
If the eagles were to close, it would dampen the turnout for these events and the revenue flowing into the city.
the city itself has an interest in doing what it can to keep the
eagles open, keep a day, and
keep it welcoming to the alternative communities of san francisco. Thank you.
>> I am anaconda.
I am also a resident of district 6.
i also have over 75 letters that were hand written last night.
Within a day, we were able to
get 200 people out to the bar.
We were also able to move a hundred of them over to the
skylark to express how we could not lose the eagle.
In 30 years, it has raised over
$3 million for nonprofits just on sundays.
I have been positive for 22 years.
My anniversary was yesterday.
11 years ago, when I was in the hospital and would not be able
to pay my rent, the eagle is the
reason I was able to stay in san francisco.
It is that kind of help and community effort that the eagle represents here in san francisco and to the crew community.
There are creatures who want to keep it open and working in the manner that it has been.
if there is anything the board
can do to smooth out the relations between the new owner
who inherited the property, and help him understand that here in
san francisco the clear community needs places like this
-- when I left pennsylvania,
driven out by my family, and arrived here in san francisco,
it is places like the eagle that kept me alive. Thank you very much.
>> dee lightner.
District 6 resident.
I have been going to the eagles since I moved to san francisco five years ago.
it is one of the few gay bars where I felt completely welcome
as a career woman -- as a queer woman.
At this point, we appreciate all the support we have already
received from the board of supervisors.
Perhaps we can move forward
with historic preservation of the site of the eagle.
I am not sure exactly where we need to go at this point.
All I know is that it is very
important to me personally and to the community at large to keep the eagles open. Thank you.
>> my name is brian morris. I am not sure which district.
I wanted to speak out on behalf
of the eagle.
I did used to work there 14 years ago.
It has been a rally point for our community.
it supports all these charities. I heard you talking about whether or not to have a theme for the botanical gardens because that would bring in more
money for recreation -- a fee
for the community garden because it would bring in money for
recreation and activity centers.
Help us keep our community center.
it brings in all sorts of things and community rallying points. Please do anything you can within your power to get it declared a historic landmark
somehow and to let us keep our community center there. Thank you.
>>
my name is peter keane.
the epidemic of closures underscores the point that even
in a city where lgbt people have made greater strides than
perhaps any other, our institutions require vigilance and protection.
The life in the castro is vanishing because acceptance of
gay people makes a bookstore' s less necessary.
In essence, the success of the gay-rights movement imperil its own accomplices and history.
It is paradoxical that communities can thrive and be in jeopardy at the same time.
As much as we love san
francisco, it is an expensive place to live.
if the eagle disappears, the tragedy would mostly be because
it is one of the last places to be a widow.
-- a weirdo.
It has been there as long as I have been alive.
What if city lights bookstore lost its lease?
what if the castro theater decided to go condo?
With the city allow these institutions to fall to the market? I know you would not.
It is more than pure sentiment.
They are to imagine what san francisco is.
If nothing else, I hope to come
away with the grasp of the index
credibility with the eagle and the lgbt community, and therefore the city itself.
If you are not convinced, I invite you to come on sunday.
This sunday, it is good to be a party.
>> I want to bring two points to
the board of supervisors' s attention. One is the fund-raising that
allows some members of the gay community to continue getting support from the aids emergency
fund or the aids housing alliance, which helped me and my husband be able to get better
housing and move out of the place we were stuck for six years.
The other item speaks to san francisco at large.
it is the issue of diversity and
having enough public places that are not only gay, but tolerate all kinds of people.
Whether you are gay, straight,
male, female, or transgender, it would be sad if this institution
closed and no longer offer the
diversity that I think exemplifies san francisco. Thank you very much for this.
>> my name is wayne ice.
I want to continue on a theme in support of saving the eagle.
It is not just a bar.
it is important to our community.
I have lived most of my life without the communities to support me as a gay man.
I served 14 years in the marine corps.
I have now been flying for a major airline for almost 14 years.
I have always been one of one in most of my social life.
I came here to san francisco and I am so joyful to live in a
place that supports me and my community as a gay man.
The eagle is a place where we
gather to rejoice and celebrate,
where we gathered to mourn and he' ll, where we gather to support each other.
There have been countless fund-
raisers not just for charities, but to support individuals who have been victims of accidents or medical emergencies.
It is a community center for us.
It is more than just a for- profit enterprise. It is more than a bar.
It cannot be replicated. it is a unique space.
There is a sense of history and heritage we have there.
As a san franciscan, I ask for your support.
Please help us save the eagle. Thank you.
>>
I am edmund larry.
i would like to show you this. I will read to you.
This weekend, we had the
national trends gender it was great.
Just to show you a few of the
faces out here -- aren' t they beautiful?
These are called the angels of
change.
They are fighting against prejudice. It is great that I am here today. The eagle is a great place I could go with my pink wig on or what ever.
You of not been seeing me is
because I have been doing my
karaoke at the cat club.
But I wore a pink wig and they
told me I could not come back. You know what?
It is wrong I had come there for a whole year.
We need places like the eagle,
who raise money for breast cancer. They do a lot.
a lot of people think I am janet jackson.
You thought I was janet jackson.
She is coming here on the 19th
and the 22nd.
Supervisor chiu, your rhythm and blues.
Supervisor kim, we want you to give genentech' s and a proclamation.
This is something we can do her first time in san francisco.
We will be having a little smoke
out there at 4:24 patience who cannot get too golden -- for
patients who cannot get to
golden gate park and berkeley.
If you are a victim of residing
all black, brown, or poor ,
residing in your sro --
President Chiu: thank you on behalf of all of the
supervisors from rhytm
hm nation.
General public is closed.
Could you read the adoption without committee reference calendar, please?
Madam Court has just reminded us we have not yet filed item one,
given that we have finished general public comment, including individuals who wanted to comment on questions asked during question time.
I would like to file. Without objection.
Now, if we could go back to adoption without committee reference.
>> items 22 through 27 are being considered for immediate in unanimous adoption. These will be acted on by a
single roll call vote unless a member requests otherwise.
President Chiu: would anyone like to sever any items?
Supervisor avalos: item 22.
President Chiu: please call the
roll on items 23 through 27.
supervisor farrell: aye,
supervisor kim: aye.
Supervisor weiner: aye.
Supervisor avalos: aye.
Supervisor campos: aye.
President Chiu: aye.
Supervisor chu: aye.
Supervisor cohen: aye.
Supervisor elsbernd: aye.
>> there are 10 ayes.
President Chiu: item 22.
>> resolution supporting the
california assembly bill, domestic worker bill of rights.
Supervisor avalos: colleagues, I hope you can support this
resolution, sponsored by our own
assembly member, tom amiano.
California has an estimated
200,000 domestic workers, comprised of housekeepers, nannies, and care givers for
children, care givers for the elderly and disabled.
the work in private households to care for the health and
safety and well-being of many families and homes.
Domestic workers have historically been excluded from basic labor laws which serve to protect workers.
The fair labor standards act of
1938, which congress enacted to ensure a fair day' s pay for a
fair day paperwork excluded domestic workers from its protection. Domestic workers are the backbone of california' s economy.
They do hard work that makes all our work possible and are entitled to the same basic protections as other members of the workforce.
Domestic workers work alone,
behind closed doors, and out of
the public eye, leaving them vulnerable to abuse and
exploitation and unable to abdicate collectively for better working conditions. Domestic workers often labor under harsh conditions for long
hours and low wages, without benefits of job security, and face termination without notice or severance pay, leaving many suddenly without jobs or a home.
The vast majority of domestic
workers are women of color, who
because of discrimination and fear of deportation are particularly vulnerable to
unlawful employment practices and abuses.
most domestic worker support children and family of their own. More than half our primary income earners.
Two-thirds earn wages below the poverty line.
The passage of this bill to protect this valuable work
force and to provide equilibrium -- equal labor rights is essential and would make sure that we can provide quality care
to the individuals and homes to which they are interested. I hope you can join me in
supporting this assembly bill. Thank you.
President Chiu: some house and call?
Without objection.
please read the in memoriams.
>> andy zang.
Bill lowenburg.
President Chiu: do we have any more business in front of this body? We are adjourned.