tv [untitled] November 5, 2013 7:30pm-8:01pm PST
i think there needs to be more awareness of how medical cannibalis is used and the neighborhoods. it's really limited. but my hope is that the committee could have time to look at this carefully, with stake hold groups raising awareness and raising awareness of medical cannibalis, and not just the health qualities of medical cannibalis. that's my concern.
and it's important to give our planning department and commission enough time. i hope that the medical cannibalis task force is involved in this as well. i think there is lumping of medical marijuana with liquors and gambling as well. and it could lead to less understanding than more, i hope that you consider this as it moves forward. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, i want to thank the supervisor and his staff and all the work in this item. and i know that all the members of the community, not just from this district, but other parts of the city. from within the cannibalis community that have opined this. i will be supporting item 23, and item 24. i do want to note that, i think there are differences between these two items.
and as important as i know item 23 is for district 11. it is item 24 that to me as a resident of a different district has the larger city-wide impact. and i want to thank supervisor avalos for his openness to discuss the more specific concern i had, along the lines of what supervisor mar indicated. that item 24 allows a platform of how we deal with medical cannibalis. i want to be sure that we do it right. that we have as inclusive a process as we can. and i understand that supervisor
avalos recognizes that and committed to making sure that happens. and that means making sure that everyone that has an opinion on this has an opportunity to weigh in. as the author of the legislation that created the task force. i can tell you that nothing is simple when it comes to the medical cannibalis community. and the most simple and basic thing has complexities behind it. and it's in light of that complexity i would like to make an amendment. and make a motion to amend item 24. by amending on page 2, line 11 of the ordinance to change the date from january 1 to may 1, 2014. with the understanding that it's possible that the work can be
completed before may 1. this is simply you know the deadline, if you will, for some reason the work is completed prior then you know that's perfectly acceptable. but this is simply to make sure that we take the time to do it right. and if it takes a little bit longer, then that's allowed. so i make that motion. >> supervisor campos has made the motion as he described, is there a second? >> if i have a discussion to the motion. >> is there a second to the motion? seconded by supervisor. >> supervisor campos, what is the significance of the change, could you repeat that? >> yes, item 24 is asking the planning commission to conduct a review of the location of the medical cannibalis dispensaries.
and the deadline is january 1, 2014, i am increasing that to may 1, 2014. so there is ample opportunity to make as much input from the various stakeholders as possible. i think we are dealing with a very diverse community that impacted not only the individual 11 districts that potentially these will be located: but we have a number of other stakeholders in a very diverse cannibalis community. and there may be other communities that have a say on this. i want to be sure that we are not limiting the amount of community input that could be needed. and so it may be that we don't
need as long as may 1. >> it's conceivable that we could get it done in march. >> it's conceivable. >> supervisor avalos, i would like to explore this and be a co-sponsor on this. i have two cca's that is submitted in planning on leland street, i am curious to see what this commission will find. thank you. >> supervisor campos has proposed an amendment and take that without objection. that's the case, and now on the underlying ordinances as amended. any other further discussion? colleagues, supervisor avalos. >> i want to clarify that the legislation before us today is item 23, the neighborhood commercial district did not have amendments before it, it's going through as it is today. for those watching, there is a
number of people in the district that have raised this as a major concern. i want to thank you them for their patience and advocacy. and for their work in the neighborhood. people have been working very, very hard to improve our commercial corridor. and it seems like at times we are going backwards with empty store fronts. and i don't equate mcd's as causing great harm. but there is a perception that people have. if we have an equation that is all store fronts and businesses on the corridor are doing well. i could see mcd's fitting in okay. but that's not the case, we are going backwards and have a huge problem of sweep stakes gaming, and people are preyed on businesses that take gambling money, on the premises. and you add mcd's to the mix and
it doesn't create an inviting community for many people and i think we have to hear the community on that and why i brought forward this legislation. >> supervisor. >> i want to thank supervisor avalos for making that clarification. the amendment i made is not related to first ordinance, 23. but with respect to item 24, with respect to this study. and of course underlying the amendment is the hope and spirit of the author. and the department to make sure that we have as robust an outreach process as possible. >> just to make this clear, let me make two motions regarding item 23. colleagues there have been no amendments made to item 23, can we take this item 23 same house, same call. without objection, ordinance is
passed on the first reading. and item 24, could we take it same house, same call that the ordinance is taken as brought forward. and that is taken on first reading as amended. with that let's go to the special order, and for those waiting, thank you for your patience and we had a lot of items. appreciate your patience, and i hope that we can move through this expeditiously, i may force the recusal of supervisor tang, and we have the appeal of the conditional use project and at this hearing the special use operation to install a wireless
special facility including nine screened and paneled antennas located on a roof top of an existing building at 725 terradel. we have up to 10 minutes for present for planning and 10 minutes for project sponsor and two minutes for the speaker opposing the appeal. and three minute rebuttal. and to all parties you can use an all of that time or portion of that time. supervisor lee. >> i am looking forward to listening to the arguments on both sides of this issue. this is one where there is much history in terms of these issues
they have to take into consideration. as i listen to these arguments. so let's -- let's move the item. >> let's go. appellates. mr. begman. someone from at&t. sorry, we are waiting for the neighborhoods. if i could ask the appellants to please step up. >> this is my carrot. >> indeed. thank you for your patience. and appellants can use the 10 minutes and divide it up as you see fit. >> mr. president and members of the board. good afternoon -- i guess i
should say good evening. this reminds me sitting back of eugene o'neill play, a long day's journey into tonight. we had mandarin and cantonese speakers who were here. i don't think they will be coming back, but mostly with business. they are opening their businesses, their restaurants. today was an election day, so they had a couple of them left to go vote. and so on one guy you may have seen the action here. one guy just got off the plane and passed out here over two hours ago. any how, i would like to present new and cogent arguments. arguments that rely on the law, the planning code and it may rely on basic science and
physics. the wireless guidelines that are so much a part of the planning report are simply that. guidelines. the controlling document here is the planning code. something you board members control and legislate on. the relevant parts of the planning code that define this entire issue i would like to read. uses permitted in neighborhood commercial districts section 703.2. whether or not a use is permitted in a specific district is set forth or summarized in article 7 of this code for each class.
so 703.2-b-1, permitted uses. shall be conducted within an enclosed building in neighborhood commercial districts unless otherwise specifically allowed in this code. exceptions for this requirement are uses located outside of a building, qualified as an outdoor activity as defined in 790.70. accessory off-street parking and loading and others listed below. but the caveat here, the reason why this cannot stand on its own, because it says, subject to other limitations of this
article 7 and other sections of the code. so what might they be? that takes us to section 711.83, public use. public use is the reference for that is section 790, the controlling for that is 790.80, and it states in 711.83, that the conditional uses are allowed by story. so staying parallel to the uses inside of the building only. it says you need a conditional use inside first story, second story, third story. the roof is not a story.
we don't necessarily say that they cannot build there, we say they have to build according to this code. which stipulates inside the building. so the controller here now gets us to section 790.80, public use. a publicly or privately owned use which provides public service to the community whether conducted within a building, or on an open lot. it continues which has operating requirements. and this states location within the district including civic instrustructures such as museum
so forth and transportation facilities and utility installations. strong part here is including internet service exchange and wireless transmission facilities. this is where wireless transmission facilities are actually mentioned in the planning code. and according to the scheme and the direction in the code, they have to be built inside in an nc-2. the planning department has accepted engineering reports that include properties in the area and blocks on terraville that are good alternatives,
gradient, signal proposition and so on. yet they say they are not zoned properly and zoned nc-2 according to the zoning map available on the planning department's own website. we are dealing with a finite system building these towers with the propagation of this signal. a very finite system as it turns out. this is somewhat underscored by the planning department's assertion that there is sufficient coverage in san francisco. the problem is capacity. this was a motion 18, 972, page 6, section 15, paragraph "a."
in the case of wireless insta installati installations, there are two kri it e -- criteria reviewed. san francisco has sufficient overall wireless coverage. and so forth. the other issue is capacity, how is capacity and capacity alternatives addressed in the planning department's report. they do have a duty to do that. capacity is not just the function of antenna amounts. it's mainly a function of cabling and software and switching mechanisms. the protocols used by the industry may not be anywhere near sustainable levels required here. simply put there are many alternatives to capacity, which provide a more sufficient backbone for their system
without building more antennas. some of these alternatives include complete end-to-end fiber optic cabling. better and mnewer routers and p-c p-co-cells. electronics attached can make blazing speeds super use of existing antennas. and there are also other reasons, and maybe reasons why some of these dropped calls are supposedly happening. the very finite system, noise interferrance works in the following way. the more antennas one puts up with their protocol, the greater the acceleration of signal cancelation for the end user.
at&t using signal to noise ratio to signal their coverage. i don't quarrel with that. but 7.25 terraville will compound at&t's noise interference problems by adding more potential sources of interference. and they fail to discuss other options available to at&t to actively manage its network in san francisco and to abade its noise interference problems. that's my signal to quit, i assume. >> thank you very much, colleagues, any questions to the appellant. all right, any members of the public to wish to speak in support of the appellant? >> hi, mr. president, members of the board, thank you very much
for your time. unlike my friends here, i am not very technical in these matters, actually. i am a guy that has been living in the neighborhood 20 years now. and i am reflecting some concerns that my elderly neighbor has. some of them have been what feels like centuries really. but we don't understand why we need this thing there. and due to linguistic as well as physical limitations. most of them are in their twilight years and they have concerns and don't know how to raise their worries actually. and even though they protested and don't know how to go about doing it actually. so i am just here to raise for them and for myself, actually. but we don't understand why this thing needs to go there.
and these multiuse building actually in recent years has turned out for what we call in the neighborhood what we call motel-no-tele. the owner bought the property and allowed commercial development to be on their properties. but it turns out that it's just other than these antenna issues, we are very concerned. we hope that the board will take that into consideration. thank you for your time. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in public comment on behalf of the appellant? seeing none at this time. why don't we go to the planning
department. >> thank you, emory rodgers, the planning department staff. you know this is a conditional use authorization, and my co-hort will go over the commission findings for necessary and desirable for this project. i want to leave you with three thoughts today. first an accurate description of the project, it's nine panels on the walls of elevator and pent-house space. it's in this building as you heard, and it's six antennas facing terrellstreet and six to the south. this is behind r-f transparent walls. the appellant gave a valiant effort to read the planning code, that is a very complicated document. and this is the first time that he raised a specific planning code argument, and we could have
raised earlier. but in section 2 it allows for anten antennas. and second in this building it's preferred site and we have limited preference sites and this site. this site required no alternative analysis to look for better siting locations. however in this case the project sponsor did conduct a site an analysis that we felt was comprehensive. and they will be able to explain why the other sites don't satisfy their coverage gap. and third, this was a remarkably uncontroversial project prior to this appeal before the board. the carrier did the outreach within 500 feet, 12 people attended that meeting.
and only one spoke in opposition at the planning commission hearing. further the planning commission voted unanimously to authorize cu and i turn over for necessary and desirable. >> let's move on to the conditional use authorization, and the determination whether the project is necessary or desirable or compatible with the neighborhood. first necessity, at&t had a report site of that could not manage for the area. this is based on a number of factors, including population growth and increased business activity and the users of the light rail line. at&t proposed to replace a nearby microsite with a
macro-facility. micro-site has far limited range. macro-site, which is proposed at this location is three to 16 panels and provide greater range and data capacity as compared to micro-sites. this was limited to nine panel antenn antennas, and for another carrier it would require a new approval proposition. and compatibility that is related to the design and panels and the support features. this facility as proposed would
not those detailed construction plans will be reviewed to determine the conformance of the codes and including fire-fighter clearances that was a concern raised by the appellant. if those plans are approved, field inspection could have to be conducted. and while the department of planning and if the site is activated and they should submit rules for submission. residents can ask for their fields to be tested. today's hearing is for the existing law and guidelines were properly administered for the use and application. in this case the planning commission found that it meets all the criteria in the