because no one controls -- the parking control does not control double parking trucks, buses get jammed, people make left turns, and no one wants to say we need to take some of the parking off mission street. you have not had a hearing on mission street as long as i can remember. i do not know. maybe the board of supervisors. what are they doing with crt? it has been on the books as a party for decades. there is no momentum to do it. there is momentum for everything else but mission street. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> i am mr. brown, from valencia

gardens resident council. i was here and spoke to you last week. we received a continuance on the project on 15th street, and we are very grateful for that. the issue that was of concern, and i think there was communication about that last week also, it is that maybe there was something to review or looked at again for sections 311 and 312, the notification of the neighbors for a project. with not being notified about the project on 15th street, i did receive a letter notifying me that a mobile food truck wants to use a parking space across the street from valencia gardens that had no information on the 15th street project.

i think in comparison that kind of brings to light that we have a situation. if we could go ahead and put that on the agenda. president olague: we talked about having them on the agenda for october, i believe october 21. i forget the date exactly. we also talk to some of the neighbors about having a meeting with mr. sanchez, a more quiet conversation about these things so we do not have three minute rules and the things that prevail here. we will definitely work on those. >> thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya: i did have a meeting i should have mentioned with the mayor's office. they filled me in on the activities involved with oscbmc.

my question was whether there was discussion in the mayor's office or the agreement they are trying to forge with cpmc regarding psychiatric man's, and he said there was none. i think that is a real concern and people here need to contact mr. young in the mayor's office. that would be the starting place, i think. i am just expressing my concern after having visited the general hospital psychiatric emergency facility. i think we ought to urge the mayor's office to take this into consideration while they are developing their agreement. president olague: we both went to s.f. general to take a tour of the psychiatric wards. it was a humbling experience for

me. there was a lot i did not know about the way the things work. i think this is a bigger issue than cpmc. this is something that the looking at seriously, how psychiatric care in san francisco, especially for low- income folks, but for everybody in general -- i think it is bigger than this project. i think that conversation is long overdue. to the extent that we can put pressure on the city to look at this issue overall, i think it is time. if we can use this as a place to raise it, i am happy to raise it to this project. i think it goes way beyond this project. i would be interested in understanding a little bit more about rent increases. i guess i will check in with

staff about that. i want to know the current rate and when they have received these increases, and a little more detail about that. i am not sure how it relates to the project itself. it is important to understand how they are working with st. luke's and the physicians there. i am interested in learning more about that, but i am not sure. it is not on the calendar. i am sorry, ms. avery. >> there are more like coming on. you guys should keep going. president olague: maybe we can put this on the agenda for next week. just put it as a brief item, and then we can ask and elaborate then.

maybe we will be able to do that. commissioner antonini: i was just calling to agree with putting this important issue on the agenda for next week. commissioner sugaya: i had a different comment on a non- agenda item that i will raise anyway. it is on the status of the health care master plan. if we could ask public health. >> thank you. commissioners, going back to your calendar -- [laughter] vice president miguel: two weeks. >> going back to the calendar, your regular calendar starts with item 10, an informational

presentation on mta. that is right. the -- we skippe, the consent item. you move that to the first item on the regular calendar. case no. 2,011.0557 c, 1300 26th avenue. >> before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to establish a wireless at&t telecommunications facility at the southeast corner of 26th avenue and irving st.. >> i am sorry. just a moment. >> within an nc-2 neighborhood commercial district. the building contains 28 dwelling units above a

commercial store front that is vacant. the building contains an existing wireless facility on the rooftop operated by verizon wireless. the project was to install a wireless facility consisting of six panel antennas, six of which would be facades amounted, and two of which will be roof mounted. there will be painted to match the building. the equipment cabinets will also be located on the roof. it is a preference two location per the setting guidelines because the site is considered a co-location site. there has been one phone call from a neighbor citing health concerns. the department of public health has also reviewed the rf report and has found the proposal coincides with current fcc guidelines. the department recommends approval with conditions, for the following reasons. it complies with general

planning code policies. it is a location preference, eighth to use location, which is preferred under the guidelines -- a two use location, which is preferred under the guidelines. the antennas will be minimally visible from pedestrian level. and the project will improve the comprehensive wireless telecommunications network in san francisco. this concludes our presentation and i am available for questions. thank you. president olague: project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with at&t external affairs, representing the san francisco area. i am joined by the people who conducted the radiofrequency reports in your packet. i am here today seeking your

approval to pace -- to place this facility. this is a preference two location, as adrian stated. it meets with the necessary and desirable component under section 303 of the planning code. i want to thank adrian for his and the planning department's work on this. i am available to answer questions if you have any. president olague: public comment on this item? if you would like to speak to it? >> hello, commissioners. my name is lucy. my parents live next to the building, and i am here on their behalf. my dad complaints about noise

from the existing antennas right now. he says the noises especially loud at night, even with the windows closed. his fear is that with an additional antenna, there is one to be more noise. he wants to know whether at&t or horizon, who has antennas on top right now, -- or of horizon -- or verizon, who has antennas on top right now, can address this. president olague: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden: maybe at&t can address this issue about the antennas sound. i know it is antennas that are not yours. but is there sound from your antennas? maybe you can address that. i know you offer readings for

radio frequencies. i do not know if you have sound readings. could you address those? >> i am not certain where they're building is, but i am happy to look at where it is in relation to ours. there could be air conditioning units. there could be all sorts of things on the roof. if it is coming from the veriaon zon antenna, that would not be our issue, but our equipment is not going on the roof. it is inside the building. there would not be added noise coming off the equipment. all of the noise that does or that is limited should be in compliance with city code. that might be an issue for a different -- commissioner borden: i just wanted to clarify. >> i am happy to look at what is causing that. if we can be of help, we

certainly will. commissioner borden: would sound the part of such a reading? >> part of the radiofrequency reports we do involve noise. they are accounted for both. commissioner borden: just to let the person know who spoke, there is a process by which you can contact at&t after the antennas are installed and have them come to your unit to measure radiofrequency and sound if you are concerned. the issue you have is actually an issue with horizon -- verizon. i just wanted you to know we have heard, and this is the person to talk to. >> we will make sure she has the information in case we need to go out and do a test. commissioner borden: the local preference site -- there are

already antennas and it is the only tall building in the area. i move to approve with conditions. commissioner antonini: i know this issue may come up in the future, but i was curious what kind of noise could be generated. the antennas are electronic generally. whether motors? is there anything part of their mechanism that is generating noise? >> this is the equipment that typically goes to power batteries, computer equipment, how to translate signals. those cabinets are what generate or can generate noise. the testing is part of the radiofrequency component and the report and must comply with the noise ordinance. commissioner antonini: to be compliant, it must be insulated?

>> exactly. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> the motion on the floor is for approval. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president olague: aye. >> the motion passed unanimously. now you're at item 10, mta sustainable mobility strategy and presentation. >> victoria wise, planning department's staff. i know you are interested in transportation and what the city has been doing to support sustainable mobility. this presentation is intended to give you an overview of the mta

sustainable mobility strategy. i am pleased to introduce the deputy, who will share the presentation with you. >> hold on. just give me a minute. there you go. >> good afternoon. i am the deputy for planning and policy.

we have been asked to give an overview of the sustainable mobility strategy. i am going to run through a few topic areas and try to do a snapshot of this comprehensive program we are currently working on. it touches on every mode and every issue in this city. it is important to note that the mta has been an agency that has been under a series of mergers for the last decade. the have always referred to us as a muni, but we are more than you need. we have parking and traffic. we manage paratransit. recently, we have regulatory authority of the texas commission.

we have a help with a traffic detail. we are a very broad agency that takes care of all the different transportation services in the city. every time you step outside your door in the city of san francisco, you are -- the mta has a strong role. we are building the transportation systems under the year. one thing we have been doing more and more is the last bullet, which is working closely with the planning department and the redevelopment agency and all the other agencies, reviewing land-use and development plans

to show that impacts are addressed at the beginning. one thing we have been struggling with, working closely with the planning department, is the city is undergoing significant changes. we're an aging city. some things are happening. we're having more polarization of incomes. higher prices for housing. there are changes that will be affecting our city in terms of the expected population growth, even with the revised figures and numbers. what this translates to is somewhere between 50,000 to 100,000 more people will want to move to the city, and we cannot

accommodate them. simple as that. we have to figure out a more multi-modal approach. one thing the city should be proud of is we designated these priority areas for many reasons that made sense for reasons important to the planning commission, but also because it made sense for transportation. this is where we have existing transportation services. most of our transit is already there. not that it does not make sense to grow in other areas, especially in the bay. we have been making an effort to link all of our transportation investments in areas that make sense and have the priority and policies supported by the city. this is a model we would like to share with the commission that

many other cities around the world use as a benchmark. i did not go to the movie screening last night, but i wrote it down. we talked with over six dozen cities around the world on what sustainable cities really focus on. they focus on three key areas -- strong communication systems which are data driven, strong mobility systems, and a focus on energy efficiency. when you have those three things together, and land use falls under the energy and mobility side, you have a sustainable city. what this means for us in san francisco and today is integrating our modes, practices, and policies. we have reams of data. we are not good at sharing that data. that is what we're going to be

focusing on. part of that data analysis is looking if the city is going to grow with jobs and housing at the modest scenario, what is the best mode for us to focus on? we did an analysis of the carbon dioxide per mile of our system. we look at some of the infrastructure emission, the vehicle emission, and the top three are a bicycle and, walking, and public transit. this is the most efficient way to move people around. bicycling is more efficient than walking, which does not make sense to some people. but there is little connected energy. it takes less energy to physically move the same distance by bicycle than walking. even the effect of a hill -- going down, you do not use any

energy. it is just a fraction better. you could be seeking a different food that has a different carbon density. but in terms of pure emissions, we look at these, and this is what happens. this illustrates the difference between those three modes in our transit system. driving is all the way to the right. it does not make much sense for the future. on our policy focus, the city has been a leader for many decades. the transit first policy put this plan in paradigm on its head. it has been really effective, because we've talked with other cities that do not have this policy. if you prioritize, what happens

when you have no more space and you still have to prioritize transit over walking? that will be an issue for us. we are overlaying all the different information we have. with the land use plans and the land use development proposals, what it really starts showing us is there are areas we are doing good job on areas where we need to do better. but sometimes, we have been planning transportation without taking into account land use. we need to really start integrating land-use and transportation. more players are coming into the conversation. the energy use -- utilities,

water, waste management -- all of these things combined effect how socially equitable our city is. we need to look at these things more holistic play. as we were setting our goal to absorb potential growth, basically, the number of trips made by different transport options in the city -- we have a 60% mode for auto, 20% for transit and walking, and 5% for bicycling. that is actually pretty good for the united states, but compared to our six dozen best practice cities, it is nowhere near where it could go to be more sustainable. our goal is to bring the cars down to 30%, bring transit up to

30%, and bring in walking and bicycling to 40%. that is more in line with cities abroad in europe that are the same size as us geographically and density whys. they have met these goals. it is not out of left field. it is doable. but it takes a concerted policy changes to make this happen. what is our role within the transportation system? again, we tend to be labeled as muni, with a focus on transit. you can see these other modes that really need attention to make a complete transportation network work. some corridors work better with public transit. some work as bicycle corridors. some will never use -- will never work unless we get land use tools correct. transit is not a be all, and all for the city.

in some quarters, it makes sense. others have a better value for other strategies. we are not paid enough attention to commercial vehicles. as we have better transit, more stores pop up. but they are entitled to delivery all the time. if we can get those smaller, maybe on bicycles or electric cars, it will reduce a lot of our congestion. this is something that planners like to see. we have been looking at all the various plans that are underway or in development. trying to make the mta more integrated in terms of how we do these plans, there are multiple goals we see in these various plans. we are getting out our five they strategic plan. we really draw from these larger goals that the planning

commission, board of supervisors, regional agencies, and federal agencies have set to try to make this more consistent and measurable. what is left is the regional sustainable community strategy, undergoing in the bay area. we're going to tie it to our stock performance plan, so we have accountability with these developments processes. what is the picture right now in san francisco? we have approximately 102 pounds of co2 per capita. i do not know what that means. one kind is about 2,200 miles of driving. the average driver in san francisco puts in 5000 to 7,000

miles a year. when you add the building environment, that is 3.5 tons per capita. that is really good for the u.s., but needs an improvement to meet our peers. transport is 37% of city wide emissions. you can see the mta bus and rail fleet is only 1% of city emissions. even if we made our buses completely carbon neutral, we still have a major obstacle to deal with. the issue is with our transportation fleet ourself -- in order for us to reduce our footprint, we have to do more different strategies and will be talking about in a second. what if we made all the cars screen and see what happens? you can