Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 6, 2013 8:30pm-9:01pm PDT

8:30 pm
under the city's guidelines this site is a preference 6 locations and they're to list all the possible alternatives. in response at&t has provided 6 photographs of why they won't work, however, consistent with the cookie cutter approach with its attitude toward the residents concerns for their own safety at&t has not examined all the alternatives and has failed to meet its burdens of the cities guidelines. here's the photograph of the current at&t application. the south side of california street dribble across the street from the significant property. this photograph was taken when
8:31 pm
at&t filed their application in 2010. compare this 3 beyond a reasonable doubt photo which is this photo of page of the exhibits that the appellants provided. this is the condo from 2016 site it's completely absent from at&t photographs. this new building is significantly taller than the site and therefore, huh? hover i cared with the owner at&t has never pursued this as at&t is required to do under the guidelines. at&t is also provided no evidence it has considered a described wireless system on
8:32 pm
light poles. by failing to meet the requirements of the cities requirement guidelines and failing to demonstrate it's all possible alternatives this board can and show overturn the decision and deny this permit for 2016 california street. under the planning code on this district wireless facilities are denied in section 70.90 that prurient to another section they must be located within an imposed building in and out on a roof as at&t says. at&ts attorney says this planning code carves out a special section and i quote the
8:33 pm
city has an entire code for facilities are allowed outside and then sites a unconsistently code. what he's refer to say section of article 25 of the san francisco peculiar code which only governors codes on light and light poles. it does appear for the last 17 years the city's codes have been at odds. and it's the controlling authority from the landmark sixth court metro vs. 71 of san francisco which or gaited in those very chambers of a wireless facility which like the present case was property for
8:34 pm
the richmond district but the 9th sixth was not only in favor of the city but the district court resulted that it had demonstrated the significant gap but it failed to prove that the site was the least intrusive means and thereby handed the residents a decisive victory. it's not that that graze the basketball stamped and there's no way to treat the at&t organization any differently. for any and all the above listed conditions we ask you deny at&t permit today >> thank you, colleagues any questions to the appellant? >> seeing none, let's hear from the members of the public.
8:35 pm
the public should have up to 2 minutes >> good afternoon supervisors. the residents of the neighborhood retained architect and engineering who had 50 years of the professional experience to provide a report on the site on the at&t equipment on this building. some of the photographs that dr. carping took of the conditions on the roof are included in appellants exhibit no. 1. the building was built in 1976 and the building is substandard and can't support the equipment that at&t has on the roof. nor can it support any new loads including the 9 antennas that
8:36 pm
they're asking for. the major conclusions are the folsom 4216 california requires the retrofitting to bring it to the standards of 2010 san francisco building code and the at&t equipment on the roof as well as the proposed rooftop antennas present additional weight that will be subject to largely loads by earthquakes and can't be permit without a service upgrade system. in short the building has accrual proposed equipment is a life safety problem. the city should be instructing alter at to remove its equipment
8:37 pm
from the building not approving an additional use equipment to be placed on the roof. please deny those permits >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm also the neighborhood resident. the resident of the neighborhood retained awning architect and engine engineer. a copy of the report as well as some of the photographs that the dr. took of the current conditions are included as paeltsz exhibit no. 1 in our materials. the building was built in 1976 and it is soft it's substandard and cannot hold the equipment that at&t has nor can it contain
8:38 pm
more equipment. the major conclusion that was reached is 4216 california requires major seismic ubld and the at&t equipment currently on the roof as well as the proposed rooftop antennas present additional weight that will be subject to largely loads generated by kwaerths without an you are not talking about. in short the building with the at&ts equipment presents a life issue to the tenants and others of the public. the believes should be instructing them to remove the equipment of at&t to the building. please vote to deny the permit to this location >> next speaker
8:39 pm
>> good afternoon supervisors. my name is deborah. i'm one of the property owners located next door to the site. appellants report number 2 is a report certified by professionals. this gentleman was a u.s. environmental protection agency expert. this documents in detail the various health and safety paroles for at at to install their equipment including the acid batteries located on a building that's could be flooded. this has lead components and
8:40 pm
materials that could cause cancer and materials that react violently to heat. mr. hag man says this requires another study to address how at&t proposes to deal with those hazards. the unusual swishgz of relating to at&ts equipment in the building with the history of flooding that presents a potential flooding speaks too on the error of this project from sequa. please vote to override the planning depends determination to pass this permit for this location. thank you >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors
8:41 pm
my name is vince co- owner of the property next to the subject property we're discussing this knowledge. as was previously talked about this pipeline both at and the and the city planning department are oblivious to this project stands in an area a that's prone to flooding. until the city had the report on june 14th the letter to the planning commission at&ts attorney said in a letter the flooding areas was replaced and they said the batteries couldn't are researched reached in the
8:42 pm
basement. and a response to the attorneys june 4th letter includes a report. as the gentleman poutsz the surgery is only designed to be sufficient to be okay in a 5 year storm it's based on an assumption that this this will hold back a disagree from a one hundred year flood. it maybe flooded in any given year and that would include the batteries to be impacted. please vote to require sequa review and vote to deny a conditional permit for this location. thank you >> thanks next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors.
8:43 pm
my name is van. i'm a resident of district 8 concerned with the health and safety of the residents n in districts would be. i'd like to provided an example of why we don't have confidence that the department of building inspection doesn't have this conditional use permit that is good for you percent shortly after we got the report from the expert that an upgrading be made before at&t be put on the roof. a new complaint was filed. and a second directors meeting was on may 7, 2013. when dr.s report was referenced
8:44 pm
the office was and i quote regarding the skeptic issue the service conditions would not be effected. but we ask it be tied down in some way. after consulting with dr. carping a file was sent and a e-mail asking the hearing office to where it's writing that the building don't have to comply with current codes to receptionist codes. he never got a respond. the grand jury report that
8:45 pm
preferential treatment of the 13 yourselves. who might that be in this case? >> thank you very much sir. >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors i'm wendy. attached to mr. hagman's report is exhibit no. 2 is a copy of this san francisco planning bulletin. entitled review of project in identified areas he prone to flooding. this bulletin talks about the projects guidelines in a flood prone area. attached to this bulletin is a copy of this map that the city considers prone to flooding sfgovtv if you could please show
8:46 pm
what's on the overhead >> as you can see the block is located is one of only two blocks that that is identified as a flood area, however, the planning department never followed it's on preserves and this is completely overlooking the flood area until the drs. error. and instead of preparing this report the planning department took another approach and asked the department of public works to issue a report stating that the block is located is no longer prone to flooding. while this feet of bureaucratic domain is for the standards tenants and others are of a
8:47 pm
different opinion. sequa review is not only appropriate but is okay. and i urge you to vote accordingly please. >> next speaker >> i live right across the street from the flood zone in the building with my wife. the flood zone becomes for important because of the run off of california street. we have a lot of debris that comes down and floods the sewers. my wife and i are the only people out there cleaning up. and the acid put it in a building where there's gases without any ventilation the ventilation system is poor and the gas is lighter than the air
8:48 pm
floats in the air and burns easily. one of the other major problems there's a whole block of residential areas between california street and lake street. lake street is the sewer line for san francisco it has one sir, line. and you know the problem that i have is the lack of consideration of - a perfect storm earthquake prone, flood prone, people with burgers running around in a dental area and i live across the street with other people and people with children. and also number one the line goes right by with electrical wires constantly spashgz and repairs are made daily. that's a consideration all that
8:49 pm
other b.a. lesson of the flood zone won't flood it floods all the time. i think what at&t is could go is cost effective. screw the safety and screw the people. thank you >> thank. >> next speaker >> good afternoon. i'm dr. kenneth. i ask you to deny at&t this permit. in 2006 the first floor of 4216 california street was flooded with 18 inches of water. as we know san francisco is in a service active zone are there will be an earthquake and the sewer lines will break. the battery lines will be on the first floor of the building i
8:50 pm
urge you to vote this down >> thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon. i'm a resident of the neighborhood. on page 10 of at&t june letter arguing against sequa project he writes there's nothing about the location of the batteries that cats there's an exposure to fire such as there is any unusually impact from the hazard materials quote/unquote. doing both at&t and the planning department ignore there are dental offices located on california street. each of those offices makes uses of the insend deprives burns and bhut
8:51 pm
bhutan torches. and this building has no ventilation system yet at&t seeks to install high beat acid systems. there was one in china where 1 hundred workers were killed. they only have one area to exist and that's the front door located next to the door with at&ts infallible equipment is located. please vote to deny a permit and request sequa review and a thanks >> next speaker good afternoon. i'm here to say that the planning department
8:52 pm
approved this project on june 6th is added some imply conditions based on the flooding and fire safety and a cal osha. the new conditions have equipment identify the equipment room for potential substantially and overflow event as feasible. fire safety identify the message to construct and modify the equipment room in order to achieve the rating above fire code minimums as deemed feasible. the so-called methods to seal the equipment room in the first condition remain unidentified. if d b w doesn't seem those as feasible they don't have to be
8:53 pm
implemented. and only now the discretion to implement or ignore this condition rests with d b i. given dp w they expect dp w to roll over to at&t. the next time the building floods with the grand jury consistent application of codes and preferential treatment of certain parties we have no contest that the measures will be implemented if you choose to vote for a permit for at at therefore i ask you to deny the permit. thank you >> next speaker
8:54 pm
>> good afternoon supervisors. my name is charles baldwin. this is a copy of the documents that was found in the file for 4216 california street but were not presented to the board of supervisors. in 2002 zoning determination regarding the precise amazing amount and types of equipment that the at&t currently operates. there are photographs that was installed in 2011 without a new permit. the first, you page includes the type of message from the valve and i state it looks like the planning - the department of building inspection has been signing off on loophole permits
8:55 pm
we won't agree to. there's also notes from the planning staff stating that at&ts quote modification requires c u. that requires a conditional use permit. of course, at&t already knew this back in 2010 which is when it applied phenomenon for the permit today. so it so you get to upgrade this facility in march 2011 without first receiving the conditional use approval. in october 2012 a hearing was conducted and let them go free. vote to deny a permit for at at&t this location. thank you supervisors of the
8:56 pm
people of san francisco. >> things next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors my name is steven. i'm a 55 year resident of san francisco and i live in district 2 for the last 40 years. dr. karpz letter mentioned that 4216 california street is a soft story building constructed in 1946. this bordering and mayor lee signed election requiring that the soft buildings to be seismicly retrofitted and upgrade. this was to protect the health
8:57 pm
and sate of the public during kwaekts. while the building at 4216 is a commercial property therefore falls outside of the legislation one would hope this board would have the same concern of the dentists the staff and their patience and other members of the public who take and use this daily building that's professional. so if this building is so important to get a use permit at this location you should also add an upgrade of the building before at&t is to install their equipment. however, if you want to reinstall the people's
8:58 pm
confidence just deny at&t a permit at this location. thank you for your safety common sense for the citizens of san francisco. >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm jackson kent. i'd like to did you the 6 alternative sites in its condition application. at&t appraise the following reasons where it should be discounted. the proposal of the project is to upgrade the mick facility at the existing location where wireless telecommunication has been established. the wireless communication was established at the 4216 back in 2005 and 2006 by means of a
8:59 pm
zoning administrator letter that permitted at&t to install a two antenna system following a permit issued by d b i. it was not until 17 that the board of supervisors passed the permit. therefore no public notification of the 2005 and 2006 building permit was ever issued and therefore no resident was able to appeal this 15 day deadline. the original establishment of the at&t equipment thus took place as it were under the cloak of night and 6 years after the original permit was issued that resident have been fooshd
9:00 pm
they're first opportunity to obtain. i don't think this should carry much consideration for this unfit location. please deny this permit to at&t >> next speaker >> hello supervisors. i'm ann and i live in mr. shay's district this is a preference 6 location under the city's guidelines. as such at&t is required to list and discuss all alternatives and explain why they're not feasible. this requirement is important perhaps in a situation like this one where is involves fire

53 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on