relations. thank you for your attention to this matter today. one of the things the you are hearing repeatedly is the lack of notice and the lack of community involvement before approval. that is one of the larger issues here. projection, please? this is examples of some of the equipment that is out there that received no static evaluation. -- no aesthetic evaluation. by leaving these installations out of the ordinance, there's nothing to protect the citizens from coming home and finding it pg&e antenna and box on the poll as well as a new transformer for some of the larger cable and other broadband internet boxes. i understand that the wireless equipment has been targeted for specific discriminatory treatment, and that is what we are asking to stop. because that goes against state and federal law governing this, and even the current case law in the ninth circuit is not

specific to wireless, but rather all communications, wireline and wireless, that's it throughout the city. we are asking for broader inclusion. unlike the legislation that was heard before this item, there were no stakeholders consulted in the drafting of the legislation. if we were able to go back and actually write down a piece of legislation that would address the valid concerns of the residents -- i talk to them every day and explain these things, but if they knew what was and that it was not something speered before it went up, i think it would be a better solution than only having the after the fact notice that they receive under the ordinance now. lastly, regarding the proliferation -- projection, please -- there is a photo of the new york site that was done on streetlights. as far as proliferation, this is the way --

[buildings] supervisor mar: what is your organization? who do you represent again? >> we build small antenna installations throughout the city, and the smaller they are, the more we need them. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. san francisco neighborhood and ctenophore union. we are a citywide grass-roots coalition that focuses on wireless impacts. i want to again echo other comments. we are supportive. we do encourage you to pass out of committee today with the recommendation to pass it at the full board. with that said, as other people have mentioned, there is a very crucial need, as soon as the new board gets seated, in january to

work on additional legislation dealing specifically with public rights of way. that is the safety hazards we have heard talk about. when this item before you was unanimously passed before the planning commission in october, a number of commissioners, including commission president miguel, strongly supported additional safety legislation aimed at all types of equipment placed on utility poles, but that is not what this legislation does appear this one, for very specific legal reasons, which the deputy city attorney can more adequately explain to you, is carved out and focused the way it is, so i will give you the strongest possible legal representation that the city can have on your specific -- under specific current state and legal restrictions. i want to briefly comment. the wts guidelines are simply guidelines. they deal with private and public party antenna

installations. there are legal reasons why this is carved out as a specific piece of legislation. finally, the person who testified about the emergency importance of cell phones during earthquakes and other natural disasters should read the city's own extensive the emergency planning documents, which first on the list says cell phones are not reliable. rely on the following -- and it has an extensive list of other networks in place to provide emergency background. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, again, supervisors. eric brooks, san francisco green party. san francisco's green party -- the green party pose a position on this is that this legislation is excellent and every opportunity should be made to minimize the amount of these things that are out there -- the green party's position. based on whether or not there is sufficient coverage, especially.

so many times, we have seen the planning commission approved and 10 a placement, and then it is appealed to the board. the corporations will get up and argue that their coverage is not good enough, but then it will be made clear through the appeals process that the coverage is actually good enough and the appeal is of help. this happens over and over again. so that is the standard. also, it does not just apply to cell phones. it applies to broadband access. you need to make sure there is not already sufficient coverage for an easy way to get there, and the direction we really need to head, especially in light of the fcc's recent decision to unfortunately make the internet a two-tiered system is to have a major buildup of underground fiber-optic lines in the city. if we did that, fiber would allow us, to the extent that we

do need wireless devices, to operate on very small antennas the size of cigarette packs or smaller, that are hooked into the broad fiber-optic system, and would also allow us to set up so that multiple corporations do not have to have their own antennas. they could look into the public fiber network and all ride without having the proliferation of antennas all over the place. supervisor chiu, you are probably interested in that direction. i would love to see you work with advocates that are working with broadband to get that in motion so that we do not need all these ridiculous antennas all over the place. thanks. supervisor maxwell: next speaker please. >> i want to thank supervisors avalos campos, and mar for

sponsoring this legislation, which i support. i think it is important to ensure the protection of city residents from all possible hazards. i ask that the supervisors begin drafting additional legislation to ensure public safety, particularly in those residential districts -- that is neighborhood, commercial, and residential zones. housing wireless facilities on utility poles poses obvious hazards, such as whole overloading, fire hazards, and chemical hazards due to the battery -- the back up batteries that are components of these facilities, which are easily combustible and the explosive. so thank you for your efforts so far, and please consider further legislation to ensure the safety of city residents. i will just add that i live in

an apartment building where there is a radio base station in the basement and antennas house on the roof, and we did have a fire alarm go off last friday, and the first thing i reported from my land mine, as i reported the fire, was that we have antennas on the roof and a radio station in the basement. to be considered. thank you. >> i find -- i want to thank the supervisors for this legislation. it is very important first step. the important thing is it provides a notice to neighbors. the carriers, despite their claim that they think there should be more notice, they could not provide -- they could provide notice if they wanted to. they could just put little

posters up on their telephone poles. i do not believe them that they want to provide notice. this is very important. they have been having an aggressive campaign to put up these devices before this legislation goes into effect. they are not providing notice, even though they have known about this. supervisor avalos' office had contacted them. whoever said there were no stakeholder meetings -- that is a complete lie. i was at the meetings. there were representatives from all kinds of carriers. let me show you what they have been doing lately. [inaudible] the overhead? in 2008 -- this is only the last two months of 2008. and in 2009, and then this is the number of facilities that they applied for in 2010 after the legislation was put on calendar. basically, they are trying to circumvent this legislation, and

these guys are all saying, " let's come up with another plan. let's go back to the drawing board." and they will just put more of these things up without notifying residents. i also want to point out about the batteries. these batteries have hazardous materials in them. they have led, lead oxide, and sulfuric acid. from one of these data sheets, they have here, from one of the batteries they typically use, this is what i read from that data sheet, what you posted with the battery. these are hazardous, should not be on poles. >> good afternoon, supervisors. san francisco chamber of commerce of here again. i recently read a really interesting book by dave eggers. it was a fantastic book about a

family in new orleans during katrina. and the consequence of what happened when we lost our communication infrastructure and what that did to the society and to the community in trying to help people get out and get information and get equipment, both from a public safety side, but just on a community side as well. it was devastating. we are going to be in a situation in san francisco where we are a very tech savvy community. many people have moved off of landlines and now relies solely on the data or cellular technology for wireless technology. when there is an earthquake, we will need to have equipment for people to communicate, and it is not just police to police and fire to fire. it is the citizens to police, citizens to citizens. our emergency networks, our community-based programs will need to be communicating with each other.

those battery back ups are important. what we have heard today is very little discussion about actual aesthetics. this is about how we can stop this in two years, whenever this comes into play, when we have to go back for new permits. that will undermine our communications infrastructure in this community. it will make us less safe. i think it is very important that we look at ways to involve the community and the neighborhoods in conversations about where things go up and how they look. this is not the legislation to do it. we have other guidelines we have used on private and public lands that should be incorporated. please do not move this legislation as it exists forward because we do believe it will undermine our communications infrastructure in san francisco. thank you. [applause] >> i'm the director of environmental justice advocacy. if you go to any civilized nation, you will not see electric poles and such nasty

equipment as you saw the last time again and again and again. what the service providers do is they invest millions of dollars in washington, d.c., as lobbyists and come over here, do the same in sacramento, and come over here on the local level and try to bully us. what perturbs me is dpw, and i know there are some people here from dpw that know me pretty well. if somebody comes and puts a little graffiti thing, they will find you about $300. and you have these nasty, dirty looking things on our electric poles. they are disgusting. lowering the property value. they do nothing. we need to find out what is the relationship between the service providers and dpw? and secondly, who gives them the right to go inside somebody's house, even though it is public

right of way, and put these nasty things on these electric poles that in the first place, such things should never be put. these are huge boxes -- not all of them, but most of them. you have heard here from eric brooks and others that we can do this underground. we can use fiber optics. the city lost eight years ago when we allow comcast to do the underground, and we did not do it ourselves like other states. our city does not have the foresight. now that we have allowed these rascals to come into our neighborhoods and destroy the aesthetics, now, we are planning what to do. it is a bit too late, but not too late. i'm in favor of this legislation. supervisors, be very strict with this. [applause]

>> my name is jeff cooper. i'm a resident of the richmond and as of last week, proud landlord of a new wireless facility right outside my house. last week, we had a crew come out and install a wireless thing on top of our light pole, which sits right outside my bedroom window. i was able to finally find a copy of the permit that was pulled, and it is actually at my address. i was pretty shocked to find out that you can hold a permit of somebody's address without notifying the residents that a permit has been told of their address. i have three primary grievances. i strongly support the legislation, but the first is just notification. we need to notify residents, especially when it is right in front of their house. second is the overall quality. these claims of public safety and in the aftermath of a hurricane or earthquake. if you come outside in front of

my house and look what they have put up there, there is no way that thing is going to survive a hurricane or earthquake. it is going to fall over and start a fire, so i have strong concerns about the insulation quality, and i want to make sure that the committees or whoever is in charge, there is a permitting process and that these permits are reviewed and the quality of the work product that is done is reviewed. when i remodeled my kitchen, i had a city inspector come out weakly to make sure i did everything right, and i hope that is happening here as well. my final grievance with the current system is just the overall lack of information. whenever i feel like there is -- whenever there's no transparency, i get worried. i have no idea what they put up in front of my house. i have no idea who call or how find out. what is it for? what does it do? just providing citizens with a little bit of information about what is actually being installed.

this happens to be 20 feet from my bedroom window. [applause] supervisor maxwell: i have to ask you not to clap. that is one of the rules of the house. no clapping. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you. i'm here in support of the legislation. i'm in support -- i'm also a resident of the richmond district. there's a anonymous on our block who have for the last 10 days watched a serious amount of activity after-hours. on mark trucks, installation of heavy-duty equipment and wires on power poles on our block that are already significantly loaded -- unmarked trucks. we live in a corridor where least 12 blocks have had their wires buried underground in the last 15 years.

i of lived in my home for the last 18 years, and we are told that for the last 15 years, the project has been on the books for our block as well. it got as far as 25th ave. we got as far as 26 ave. 26 and 27th avenue happen to be blocks in this district where the veirs overhead, and it appears to was that as a result, our wires are double loaded. there is so much equipment going on, and now that they have come in, honestly, under the cover of darkness. it has been a very strange experience to listen to these trucks in the rain at 10:00 at night installing the equipment. it just does not smell right. let alone the safety concerns -- everything that has been addressed today by those here in support of the legislation. i echo that, and i also think that the way this project has been handled has increased our

sense that something is going on, trying to bypass citizens' concerns over the safety and the aesthetic quality is very significant issue as well. so thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is windy robinson. for anyone who is not aware of this, what the equipment is that we are talking about, here is an overhead from the projector. this is 8 feet from my house. this is the view from my front door. [inaudible] that is what i get to look at every morning. if you take a step forward, there is a side view of how big this equipment is.

there are these huge boxes that buzz and crackle all the time. there is a thing on the side that you cannot see from this view that essentially doubles the size of the poll. there is about twice as many wires coming out of the poll because of the equipment, and on top of the poll, there is about a five-feet extension. basically, the square footage taken up beforehand by the poll has easily triple with the square footage of this equipment. t-mobile has admitted in my case that they do not need to place in here. just like everyone has been talking about. it was put here in the dead of night with no notice at all whatsoever. t-mobile has admitted in my case that they do not need to have it in this exact place. there is many other places they could have put it, but they do not care. that has been their position. they do not care that it is 8 feet in front of my place.

they do not care that, as many realtors have told me, this has reduced the value of my property 30% to 40%, which is what is happening to anyone with this is in front of their place, which is obviously going to impact city revenue greatly and lead to more layoffs of people and reduced salaries. for anyone here who has spoken in favor of the status quo, please quot-mobile your address -- please give t-mobile your address. if you work for them, please make sure that they have these boxes installed in front of your place before you come up here and testify for the status quo. thank you. supervisor maxwell: thank you for that restraint. i appreciate it. [laughter] did not want you to think it was not noticed. any other public speakers on this item? seeing none, the public comment is closed. supervisor mar: i would like to

thank everyone for speaking from the industry to the many residents, not just from my district, but for many others around the city. my office is going to work closely with mr. sanders and others in the city attorney's office to look at potential next steps, and i also wanted to say that from what supervisor avalos' office has expressed to us, there have been good conversations with the industry. the voters that people put up today and last week are horrifying to me. the lack of public notice and lack of community input into the process is outrageous, and i do feel that the public was the right of way is a place that the federal government and state government have some say in, but we need stronger protections, not only raise issue of safety, but also esthetics and whether these boxes on utility poles are necessary and desirable, but it

is a process that should be a community one from the local level in my opinion, but i know we have to be careful and legally defensible in what we propose, but the legislation before us is reasonable, and i do think the two-year appeals process makes a lot of sense to me. i wish it could be a shorter appeal, and i do think the industry's concerns have been listened to. on the claim of discriminatory treatment, i think that is totally ridiculous. that was made by one of the industry representatives. i will just say that from so many residents in my district that have raised concerns over a long time, i hope there is much more we can do at the local level to protect the right of people to create more livable communities, and i do think that the proliferation of the antennas has been fast and furious, and it is really shocking at how they are being done, and i hope this legislation is a small step forward, as others said, to really protect our neighborhoods

rights to have a say in beautifying our neighborhoods and to prevent ugly and dangerous boxes from being put up all over the place. thank you. supervisor chiu: i just want to express my thanks for all the stakeholders that have been working on this issue. obviously, i think there are some larger pictures that we have got to deal with. i know, certainly in my district, there are similar issues that my neighbors have been concerned about. i want to express my support for this legislation, and i'm happy to at myself as a co-sponsor to it. supervisor maxwell: to the industry, i think you have heard a lot today, and you are always saying that you are pushed by the needs of the consumers and what consumers needs art -- and the consumer's needs are very important to you. i think you have heard today what consumers need and what they want and san francisco is not alone. i think all of our california

people are concerned. if anything, this should push you to help come up with a device that does the same thing, but is smaller, and that you need to do all of the research and everything necessary to make sure that people are comfortable with it. i personally do not feel that we will be compromised in a disaster or earthquake. as somebody mentioned, one of the things they tell you not to do is to rely on your cell phone in those times, so i think we will probably be ok if we get a better understanding of what to do in case of the emergency. with that, colleagues, why don't we approve this legislation without objection? so moved. all right. next item is item four, and this one will be sent out as a committee report. 3, wireless?

>> yes, 3 needs to be sent out as a committee report. item four, resolution authorizing the planning department to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $83,529 from the national park service. supervisor maxwell: is someone here from planning just to talk about this? thank you. excuse me, if you could leave quietly, we are going on with our business. thank you. >> chief administrative officer for the planning department. this resolution would allow the planning department to accept and expend the grants for $83,000 to designate historic properties and districts to the national register of historic places and california register of historical resources and city landmarks under the san francisco planning code. this would happen within the market/octavia area plant in partnership with property owners, neighborhood associations, preservation organizations, citigroup, and city commissions.

there is a thick% max requirement, which would come from the general fund appropriated to the planning department that is currently being used on market octavia historic survey designation work, and we are available for any questions you may have. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, any questions on this item? public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection, we will move this forward. hearing item 5. >> item 5, hearing on the status of the academy of art university's noncompliance standing with the city's institutional master plan requirement. supervisor maxwell: there is someone here from planning that will present on this item. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. the director apologizes. he was not able to stay for this item. i'm staff with the planning department.

when we last appeared before your committee, there was a great deal of interest in the academy of art's property, specifically the residential property. in anticipation of the questions we might get on the properties and the property list of the academy of art, including your acquisition of properties and specifically residential properties and how that might affect the city's housing stock, i e-mailed a list of questions to the academy of art. the academy of art responded, and that is your first attachment. the attachments after the staff report is a response to the list of questions in terms of their property holdings. the academy of art, since its inception in 1929, has grown from a single facility to a 2010 fall enrollment of almost 18,000 students.

specifically 17,711 total students. 11,182 students are on site students. 3207 are hybrid students that take both online and on-site class is. the remaining 6529 students are online only students. the fall 2010 enrollment is almost double the 2005 enrollment of 8715 students. the 2005 enrollment of 5257 on site is contract with the 11,182 on site in 2010. the enrollment is more than double. 112%. 2010 enrollment as well is a 12.15% increase from 2009. there is an enrollment table, and if you choose to take a look at that,t