Transcripts For SFGTV 20140927 : comparemela.com

Transcripts For SFGTV 20140927

They intend on meeting over the next month and provide specific recommendations how the department and the commissions can implement some of the recommendations in the San Francisco Architectural Heritage white paper on cultural assets. We are happy to relay the information to this commission if the commission does want to participate in that committee. The hearing started with a meeting of the architectural review committee. They reviewed the design for the van ness brt, thats going to run in front of city hall and the portion located within the civic Center Landmark district. As you are probably aware the Historic Preservation commission as well as the Civic Design Review Committee of the Arts Commission reviewed the designs for the improvements and platforms proposed by sbrt. There is still Design Review meetings to take place before either committee or either commission make a final recommendation. Well keep you posted on those results. Ultimately, the commissioner, the Design Review committee was in support of the project. They did request some more information in particular around replacement trees, minimizing some of the details of the platforms. They had some questions about the canopy structures and the wind screens. We will be preparing a memo of the architectural review committees and recommendations. If you are interested we can forward you a copy. The commission went on to approval for several certificates. They were all approved as recommended by staff. Finally preservation staff gave an overview of all planning code related to preservation. It was more of an informational presentation to set the stage for the review of supervisor cohens legislation regarding pdr conversion to office in landmark properties. Ultimately, during the discussion of the proposed legislation, the hpc continued the item until its october 2nd hearing. In the interim they are interested in providing a letter to this commission so you know some of the thoughts going on in their heads about how they believe the legislation could be more effective. Some of the questions they still have and staff is working on a response right now. They want to be as useful and possible to the Zoning Administrator as part of staff to this commission as the final deciders on whether or not this pdr should be converted to office. They do have some questions about process. They do want to have a better idea of whats expected to them and they discuss how they could provide some criteria so they are able to discuss the merits of proposals for buildings and how these buildings could be rehabilitated provided the pdr is converted to office. Like we said well be providing a letter on october the 2nd and they will have discussion for more robust discussions so they can be more productive in that process. Finally, to let you know, at the beginning of the summer we presented and overview of the draft element as part of the general plan. The hpc spent time reviewing the draft element and we had the open house at the old mint last week. There was a great turnout, about 50 participants, a lot of folks providing great recommendations on how to make that part of the general plan and effective document. We had various organizations, neighborhood organizations, spur, the National Trust and press acid i Presidio Trust and we are still continuing to receive comments. Well bring that to you for adoption. We believe in early 2015. That concludes my comments to you and im happy to entertain any questions. Thank you. Vicepresident cindy wu thank you. Lets keep in touch through the Commission Secretary and the director about the subcommittee. Commissioner moore . Commissioner Kathrin Moore is it possible do you ever prepare a summary of which buildings were added to the Historic District that you mentioned. It would be interesting to know which ones they are . Im not sure . Which Historic District . You said jackson square,alamo square. They are for existing designated properties. We werent adding properties. We would like to see what they are because there is so much on the margin of all of that. It would be great for us to see. Happy to provide that information. City clerk commissioners if there is nothing further we can address the Public Comment period. Public comment at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. Each member of the public may address the board for up to 3 minutes. If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the president may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting. Public comment at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. Each member of the public may address the board for up to 3 minutes. If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the president may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting. 1241234 i did receive two speaker cards. Patricia, neighborhood merchant. I have a case coming up and a few years ago dr. Faye and his wife had a Historical Building and they needed to put a canopy over the front because they were rained on as they walked in and they were denied because it was a registered Historical Building. Now we have another applicant that wants to tear down the majority of the building says it was moved and it doesnt follow the numbers and its not a Historical Building. And i dont understand why we are having this conflict on this building. I am just interested in more than anything because i remember the case. But how can an identified landmark all of a sudden not be on the list. No. 2, how can, why would they deny something so minor and now they are trying to demolish or basically rebuild the building. Im not saying pro or conon this but there are some things about this case i would like to straighten out and would like to work with tim frye if possible on this case because of his wealth of knowledge. Thats what im asking and would love to hear back from the department. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, commissioners. Todd welg of the group. Im here to share with you the results of the Second Research poll that tall go as conducted this summer. A is survey of voters in the city about some important issues of development and future of this city. I want to note in particular an as astounding matter that 91 percent of those really believe its important to protect Small Businesses and artist from displacement by development and 78 percent want the flower mart specifically. The number is an as astounding figure and obviously its an issue of the highest possible priority for the city. We asked two questions about the proposition manual limit and the rational behind it which is the balanced growth with the citys capacity and housing and entrance itd to support it. Its clear a good solid majority 62 percent supported and majority 53 percent for proposition m. The topic i really wanted to bring to your attention is the top. The Approval Rating of the planning department, on the issues of the impact on development and current boom and planning for the future and having the best for economic growth. The rating is low. Its a 36 percent is not a good Approval Rating. 46 percent disApproval Rating is not good either. Now, i know that the public, the voters poll are not aware of the hundreds of hours of testimony that you have heard about these problems. I know they are not aware of the work that the department is doing on many of those issues trying to address them and respond to them. I appreciate that and i also know it takes so very long for the department to come up with the complicated solutions that it takes. The central soma plan is 1 year 1 2 now in process and almost a year yet to go before actual results will be adopted finally by the city and implemented. But i think its clear that the department does need to communicate that it hears these issues and express how it is going to tackle them or has tackled them. Its something you need to work on. Instead the public just sees a shiny new arena or a high rise. Thats not what they are looking for. They are looking for solutions that they care about and impact their lives and the lives of their neighbors and the people they care about. I this i that needs to get out there. The departments, the staff has been very accessible working with everybody. Thats not the problem. Its a communication matter. Thank you. Vicepresident cindy wu thank you, next speaker . The proceeding represents one conversation amongst many and the succeeding represents one opinion amongst many on specific points of interest. The conversation begins with an opportunity to discuss thats been performed in Northern European stez cities and now progressed to many of them and its focused and relevant and provides an opportunity for feedback as well as consideration for what we could accomplish. As the presenter states a cultural shift to address larger policy and to accomplish the reduction of pedestrian industries. To make no mistake, many forms of policy are derived from a catabolic standpoint no matter how they appear with time pressure and fear based advocates and specific results orientation. We shall remain no stranger to catabolic and reason and commentary, what schneider and others pointed out is that we could not control what comes across our desk, however we can control our individual and presumably collective response. When faced with catabolism, how does an organization respond. Does a room fill with feelings of victimization and finger pointing. We are entirely to justify to point out one of many items to sublet out, law less carcass law less pedestrians, Aggressive Police officers, times of day, weather, lack of police training, slow pedestrians, fast pedestrians, foreign pedestrians, bikes without license plates, improper fund, lack of funding, too large for government dollars, road rage. We are correct and perhaps every municipality has led to casualties. The answer to the first question an appears to be Nicole Schneider that the most important points of this departments influence is the engineering and design of our streets. The answer to the second question remains. Thank you. Q. 9 is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commsioner richards did you have a comment . I have a question for the woman who spoke im sorry, commissioner richards i think we have restrictions on it. Sorry. Im knew new to this. City clerk commissioners if there is nothing further we can move on to your regular calendar. Both consent items were taken off. Well take item 5. Item 5 2012. 0059c o. Masry; 4155 57591166 431 balboa street along the south side of balboa street, between 5th and 6th avenues, lot 047 in assessors block 1639 request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 711. 83 and 303 to allow a macro Wireless Telecommunications services wtss facility operated by at t mobility. The proposed macro wts facility would feature nine 99 Panel Antennas screened by a combination of faux elements vent pipes, rooftop mechanical screens, and a faux decorative parapet extensionn, on the roof of an existing threestory mixeduse building. Related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in a ground floor room. The facility is proposed on a location preference 5 site mixeduse building in a highdensity districtt within a nc2 neighborhood commercial, smallscalee zoning district, and 40x height and bulk district. This action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31. 044hh of the San Francisco administrative code. Preliminary recommendation approve with sf 512341234 good afternoon, chair wu, members of the Planning Commission and department staff. The item before you is a request by at t mobility at 431 balboa street. It consist of nine Panel Antennas at the top of the building. The building was a commercial space and redeveloped in the 90s to add two dwellings above. The project site is zoned neighborhood commercial small scale and given the land use is considered a preferred location by the wireless guidelines. This would be composed of three primarily elements on the rooftop. First three Panel Antennas would be placed in the front end of the building or screened by replacement ter pit and three additional antennas located in vent pipes and three antennas near the rear of the building and screened intended to mimic wood lattice screening. Additional electronic equipment in the ground floor area underneath the stairs. The community was presented with the information and on ppositions on project over concern of radio wave emissions. The facility would comply with the fcc standards. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Project sponsor. Good afternoon commissioners, director of houma uman fares for at t. The krup will allow at t to place up to nine antennas on the roof and downstairs in a storage area. Approval of this cup will enable the Commission Two omni outdated antennas on balboa street. At t has worked with staff and the community to develop an appropriate and least intrusive means in the vicinity of the proposed facility. In this context it is important to appreciate that the commission is tasked with reviewing the application based on applicable laws and regulations including city code, applicable state and federal law. It is in incumbent upon a wireless provider to demonstrate that it has first a significant gap in Service Coverage and it propose to close the gap. Its a two prong test. In our application, at t has shown that it has a significant gap in Service Coverage in the vicinity of balboa street and statement that demonstrates the existence of its coverage gap. This statement explains that at t has a gap and 4 g lte serves in the area and the proposed facility will close the gap. The city requires a radio electric frequency engineer. At t has conducted the analysis. In this year, edison conducted the report that at t has in fact a significant gap in the Service Coverage in the vicinity of 431 balboa street and at ts proposal will close the gap. Bill hamate with edison is here to answer questions that you may have as it relates to this report. At ts application also demonstrates that it aims to close the gap by this means. What qualifies as least intrusive means is based on the citys code. The question that is raised is whether the proposed facility is consistent with the values expressed in the governments code. The application includes an analysis of evaluation of available locations from which at t can propagate a signal to the gap. At t evaluated 67 alternate sites in the area. One was a school, four preference four locations, 8 preference 5 locations and 87 preference four locations. There were no preference to location sites and preference 3 locations available from the range. On the bases of an analysis alt if i have at t selected 431 balboa. There is no other location where at t can close the gap by the least intrusive means. Some members of raised concern about the wireless communication facilities about how effects of radio and frequency emissions is contributed continue addicted by the evidence ats is not substantial evidence to support the denial. Federal law the impact of making decisions to the extent such facilities comply with the fcc regulations concerning such anne emission. Here it will operate well below applicable federal fcc limits. As mentioned prior rf engineering analysis for the proposed facility was proposed by edison, the report confirmation the proposed facility will perform well within and below the applicable public occupational and exposure limits. This report was also reviewed and signed off by the Citys Department of public health. This shows there is a gap in the area that causes significant coverage in Wireless Service and demonstrated in its application in the analysis the proposed facility is the least intrusive means to close this gap. At t is trying to upgrade its network to meet with the telecommunications demand in San Francisco and is prudent in c

© 2025 Vimarsana