city. the boxes are not the way to go. the boxes will basically provide dsl -- it will break up the central office into smaller cabinets, essentially closer to your house, but you will still have copper going into your house. we need to rework the entire infrastructure of how we do communications in the city. we are relying on copper lines. we need to pull those out and put in fiber-optic cables. at&t does not want to do this because it is not very cost effective. the are in business to make money. they need to capitalize on their existing infrastructure, which is all copper in the streets. there are ways to put the fiber underground that does not require cabinets. we can do micro trenching. you do not need a trench as wide as a bucket. you can dig a 1 inch wide

trench and drop fiber in the trench. it is fast. it can be done in a day. you can do 400 meters and have a closed. it is affordable. we need to set up a network that maybe the city owns and other businesses like mine can provide the internet leg and the property owners can pay for the trunk from the network in the street from their house and be given tax relief in exchange. it would be less than a thousand dollars. it costs about $700 for you to put your power -- when pg&e goes underground, it costs about $700 for the material. president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is dana smithco.

i am making a statement on behalf of sf fiber. we are advocating for better broadband auctions in san francisco. i applaud at&t's efforts to bring faster high-speed internet. we are not sure this is the best way to go over the long term. as the previous speaker was saying, the u.s. has fallen well -- san francisco has fallen well behind national averages for download speed. uverse uses dsl technology that offers a maximum of 24 megabits. the upload speeds are even smaller. people are using more videos and photos and bandwidth intensive applications. this is going to quickly become inadequate and necessitate another serious network upgrade in the near future.

there is a better option. instead of a fiber network, build a network that brings fiber -- instead of the copper network, bring fiber to the home. this has been done all of the world. it has been done in boston. it offered speeds hundreds of times faster than what is available today and would not require large sidewalk boxes. this is the sort of long-term strategy san francisco needs for better broadband. that would be upgradable in the future and could be built once and built right. thank you. >> good evening. i am the vice president of the triangle neighborhood organization. we strongly oppose at&t's plan to further encroach in the public from. one of my first act of civic involvement came soon after i moved into my house on henry street 15 years ago, when i saw

a sign on the ugly box across the street from us informing the at&t was skipping normal notice requirements due to an emergency and would enlarge the box by one-third. many people say henry is one of the most beautiful streets in the city. none of that carry any weight with at&t, nor would it under their current proposal. after an arduous fight, i was able to get at&t to help pay for friends of the urban forest to install trees to mitigate its ugliness. when i leave my house, i appreciate those trees. but the box is still there and still ugly. i am impacted by that every time i pass it. or the one on castro and 15th, or the one on castro and market. the last one, i wonder why we spend so much money getting the city to replace the ugly newspaper boxes. i cannot tell you how many times

i have called 311 to get, in the city to paint over graffiti on that one box. yes, we want technology and competition, but not at the expense of losing the beauty and accessibility of our neighborhood. i believe there are feasible solutions to the technological challenges. please require an environmental review so that at&t will be forced to find them and we will not be stuck with the first inning long line of degradations of our streetscape. thank you. >> my name is karen croney. i want to address one small item. i want to refute at&t's position that they cannot place these boxes on private property. just think of the number of apartment buildings in san francisco where longtime tenants are causing a loss of

revenue for apartment owners who can only raise their aunts -- their rents 0.5% annually. a lot of these people would jump at the chance to earn an extra $500 a month to put one of these boxes on the property. why won't at&t do that? i won't pay that kind of money. they say they can't afford it. i just wanted to read from the new york times one week ago, at&t profit rises 39%. and then hear from six months ago -- at&t uverse archives' first $1 billion revenue quarter. we are not talking about people who do not have the money to pay the private people to put the boxes on their property. thank you.

>> i am the president of corporate heights -- corbet heights neighbors. at&t uses two colors to paint their boxes -- light beige or pale green. almost all of the existing boxes in the city are painted dark green. this is because dpw uses only one color, dark green. when one of these boxes is packed, a neighborhood resident will call 311. dpw -- dpw comes up to pay them. at&t does not maintain their boxes and the cost is covered by taxpayers. to show how proactive they are, and one had a crew come out to paint to of the boxes in cravaack heights age. within 24 hours, both were attacked. he now says and 800 number will be on all the new boxes,

exerting residents to call when they see graffiti. i do not think this should be the responsibility of neighborhood residents. if at&t neglects to keep these boxes graffiti free, which at&t received a fine for any violation? on february 10, i sent an e- mail asking if there is someone on staff that inspects the boxes with any regularity, or someone who is supposed to. the reply the same day said no, we do not have a specific team dedicated to finding and removing graffiti. some field crews are equipped to remove graffiti on site. we generally contract out graffiti painting. in mr. blackman's words, the cooling fans on the new boxes in it a sound equivalent to an electric toothbrush all day long. competition is a great thing and we could use more of it. but at what cost? with all the advances in technology and considering how

innovative the bay area is, does it make sense to put these all over? >> i am representing the rebel we could neighborhood association. -- the eurkea valley neighborhood association. we want to know what the alternatives are. we don't except there are no alternatives. -- accept there are no new alternatives. we are talking about technology. it does not go away. the city should be looking at this in a broadway about how to provide the technological advances to the residents without creating like and possible hazards to pedestrians , and putting impediments in the public right of way.

maybe the eir is not even going to be sufficient to do what is necessary to prepare for the future here. but it certainly is a step. all the alternatives will be able to be looked at through the eir. by doing a categorical exemption, it simply doesn't make sense when you are talking about something that is not just one little discreet thing. not only 726 boxes, but perhaps other companies coming in and wanting to do the same thing. i think a comprehensive view needs to be taken of this. the eir seems to be the first step. it seems to be the logical thing to do. it seems to be a great detriment not to have the information

that an eir would produce. i urge you to require that there be an eir on this project. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am an officer on the board of the dubos triangle neighborhood association. i believe at&t is not being forthcoming with the fact. the talk about this project as being state of the art. it is really not. it is not fiber optic to the home. it is fiber optic to the note, or in this case fiber optic to the graffiti-covered utility box. then 100 year old copper wire to your home. the result is a digital television signal that is significantly inferior to what you get through cable, satellite, or even over the air

digital television. you get somewhat faster internet, but not nearly as fast as fiber to the home, which is what competitors are deploying in other parts of the country. at&t is trying to get into the tv programming business on the cheap. they are doing the cheapest technology and trying to get san francisco residents to subsidize the capital improvement cost by giving up our public space. i really think we need to take a look at that. at&t would have us believe that the only feasible way to underground these boxes is with a living room-sized the vault with air-conditioning and hot and cold running water. i believe there are alternatives. the only way we are going to know that is to get an independently performed eir that looks at the alternatives and does not just present the options that they want us to see. also, putting boxes on private

property has not really been adequately explored. there are a lot of ways to get around access, including lockboxes and easements. thank you. i asked you to vote to support an eir on this project. president chiu: sir, you spoke before. >> i was answering one specific question. the forfeit my -- president chiu: my apologies. you did not. >> kurt hoslinger. i hope you will support a full eir. there is not enough information. expert testimony will come forward, rather than relying on at&t, which pretty obviously in my mind, with the issue about

private property -- they simply say we cannot do it. don't give us any hurdles. it is our city too. we can do better. i hope someone will pursue this with the planning department. i have the original application. this was filed on september 30, 2010. the document is erroneous. it is incomplete. i looked in the board packet, all 100 pages on line, and could not find this document. it is called the environmental the vibration application. i want to point out part 3, question 5. -- the environmental application. would the project result in ground disturbance of 1000 square feet or more?

the box as checked sesno. if you do the math on the entire project, it greatly exceeds 5000 square feet. 726 boxes, minimum 24 square feet per box, plus the trench. the answer is incorrect on the form. finally, part 4, there is a project summary table you can see here. they ask for additional information about the project -- a gross square footage of what is existing, what is proposed, will be new, and the project totals. it says if you are not sure provide the maximum amount. they simply put not applicable on every one of these boxes. president chiu: let me call up other individuals i believe one to speak on this time -- this side of the issue. francisco florez, anthony brewster, rohaun finley, nima

hawkings, tremen larakin, pauline lookinbill. if you wish to speak on behalf of the appellant, please stepped up. >> i am david pillpell. i want to speak in support of the appellants. the question is whether further environmental review is required. i believe that for this project as i understand it there may be direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from this project. i do not believe they have been adequately assessed. i understand the city if approval discretion is limited under the communications act of 1996. as such, i believe an eir is the

best place to explore the project impacts, alternatives, and the traditions. to that end, i believe it is inappropriate to reject the cadex and require further environmental review. you would need to look at all the various aspects of street furniture and enforcement in the public realm, whether they be good bed or otherwise, whether they are bicycle racks, trees, or all kinds of things on the sidewalk. when you take these things together, the cumulative impact is an impediment, that needs to be fully explored in an eir looking at alternatives and mitigation. cadx does not do that.

i strongly encourage you to reject this cadx and order further environmental review. thank you. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> how does this work? my name is david cromey. i was the appellant the last time. i am here in a different role this time. i am not a member of the advisory board. and i am here to talk a little bit. there was no problem with the installation of this box. here is another picture. here is another box in oakland. they are all taken care of by at&t, right? there is even a phone number to

call. i have a question to ask you. do you honestly feel that san francisco would be more beautiful or less beautiful with these boxes? that is your charge. that is a question i would like to have your answer to. about competition, i know we all hate come past because they are the only game in town, but here is an example of competition. most of you have i phones, probably by at&t. i have an iphone by verizon, the new competitor with the same technology. did your rates go down when this came on the market? the want godown. -- they won't go down. they are not point to lower the rates, because they can do it together. president chiu: thank you. i would like to welcome back our

former colleague, supervisor jake mcgoldrick. >> thank you very much. i have not come back to testify in the 2.5 years since i got turned out of this important body. but this is i think a very important issue. i think you need to essentially hear the testimony, and have heard the testimony -- i was watching it on the television, and realized that this issue really does have the cumulative impact. you can segmented all you want. the issue of cumulative impact -- for a quarter of a century, this has always been an issue that has had to be fought repeatedly, over and over again, because there are certain interests that did not want to have to go to the dictionary and

look of the meaning of the word cumulative. it is pretty clear. i am back to being an english teacher now. i tried to make sure we elucidate the full meaning of lexical items and not practice of some -- practice obfuscation. it is important that the legal argument be the heart of what you need to decide today. i think there is a strong lobbying effort and political pressure that can be put on you. if you can set that aside and see what is in front of you in terms of the items that have to do with locating and class three exemptions and the language that ms. grant holly has been able to present to you -- even the items that have to do with public notification are troublesome. i think the heart of the matter is this needs to be sent back. it needs a full environmental review. the word culture is a huge word

in terms of what is happening to our city. consider that the cumulative impact on this is real and needs to be taken into consideration. let me take a moment to wish my wife a happy birthday today. [laughter] supervisor elsbernd: i know two minutes is a little tough for you, so maybe i can ask -- [laughter] maybe i can ask you a question. any good definitions of cumulative? >> my daughter is a biologist and a chemist. cumulus clouds are clubs that make other. they may not in because precipitation. but i think this hearing has caused a precipitation of thought and emotion. it will not cause us to get wet here today, but i think you should keep your powder dry and try very much to take the issue

as it comes before you, and deal with the fact that there are a lot of things on our sidewalks. i lived in paris for about 4.5 years. every time i go back to a beautiful city like paris, i see the sidewalks more and more beautiful. one thing we used to find it useful was the [ unintelligible] this needs to stop being a clustered city, as paris has become, to the detriment of that beautiful city. president chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? if so, please step up to the microphone. any other members of the public wish to speak on behalf of those who are appealing what at&t wants to do? if not, why don't we proceed to

a presentation by planning. >> good afternoon, members of the board. i am lisa gibson, a senior environmental planner with the planning department. joining me is john lewis, who prepared the categorical exemption that is the subject of today's appeal. also, we have guests from the department of public works. we sent to two appeal response memos. one of them arrived today because we were responding to an appeal letter we received late friday. if you need extra copies, we have them available for you now. after careful consideration of the issues raised in the appeal and public testimony today, the planning department continues to find the project is exempt from environmental review. the decision is whether to uphold the planning department determination that the product is exempt and deny the appeal or

to overturn the cadx and return it to the environmental planning department. in our assessment, the planning department reviewed at&t's upgrade and determined it is categorically exempt under one of the classes of the exemption that is provided by the ceqa guidelines. there are 33 clauses of projects that are exempt. these generally would not have a significant effect on the environment. we fund the project is exempt for installation of small equipment and new facilities in small structures. the department responses to the appeal addressed all the issues raised in the appeal letter and the testimony today, and we would like to focus on four main points. these explain why we correctly concluded that the project is categorically exempt under the class three exemption. the project does fall within the class one exemption.

secondly, none of the exceptions -- exceptions apply here. the project would not have a significant effect on an environment. for this reason, and eir is not required, nor is any medication -- any mitigation. regarding our first point that the project falls within the definition of class 3, we have heard some discussion on this matter. what we have is a difference of opinion about this. the planning department ascertains that the project does fall squarely within the class three exemption. there are three types of exemptions, project exempt under class 3. one of them is the installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures. the appellant maintains that because this phrase does not specify that the equipment can be in new small structures that

therefore it does not apply. we disagree. the language under this class 3 preamble is not always specific when it is an existing facility versus a new structure. we think it is a reasonable interpretation for structures of this nature that installation of these small structures and equipment in small structures would be under this class. this category does not limit the number. second point is that none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption apply. one exception is that the project would not be exempt if there is a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. we do not think any of the unusual circumstances provisions apply here. these structures would be installed within the existing urban context, which includes other similar structures,

utility structures and other types of structures such as traffic control boxes, bus shelters, newspaper racks, and kiosks. therefore the cabinet cannot be considered an unusual circumstance. for the same reason, this exception is not applicable to aesthetic and other impacts that would result from installation of these structures in the right of way. in evaluating potential aesthetic impact, we acknowledge that the proposed cabinet may be considered an attractive buy some. they may be considered to be an undesirable element in the urban environment. we acknowledge that they could be considered to be a negative effect. but under ceqa the issue is not whether there would be an effect, but whether it would be a significant effect. the fact that we are dealing with the cat the coracle exemption does not change the primary question. the exceptions to the categorical exemption state that the exception would occur if there is a significant effect.

this applies even with regard to the point raised in the exceptions for a cumulative impact. it is only if there is a significant cumulative effect. we have reviewed the materials provided and do not find there has been evidence presented that there is a significant effect. president chiu: could i ask a question about that? many of us would agree that if this were seven boxes we would not think about this as a team of the impact, or maybe even -- maybe even 72. but 726 feels like a cumulative effect. what would be, according to the planning department, the cumulative impact that would be significant enough for you not to consider this exempt>> i wiln first with regard to aesthetics. consideringhe