direction for the city to be sure we are good stewards of the environment, to protect endangered species. this legislation does not call for the immediate conversion of sharp park. rather, it is a road map to look at how we can make the conversion a reality with good partnership with the national park service. this ordinance will be under the 30 day rule. i have reached out to a lot of the parties involved in san mateo county. i will follow through with that in pacifica as well, where sharp park currently exists. and look forward to engage in with you as well. -- supervisor avalos: supervisor mirkarimi: i also want to acknowledge eric asada. i met him in 1990, recently out

of chico state. we worked directly in immigrant rights work at the time. i also remember eric. although he was 25 years old, he had tremendous maturity to bring different organizations together and to build new -- build mutual respect and trust between different communities. he had a tremendous motivational impact on young people, whether it was coaching them in soccer or motivating them to become revolutionaries or activists their whole life -- i know his children must miss their daddy so much. he touched our life in many ways. a true internationalist in many campaigns he worked on. i know he loved cuba. he had the ability to build organizations with regular people in democratic ways, and to link it with a national or global movement.

the work he did with the mission district really empower residents to take environmental justice into their own hands and to fight for a better life and better world. with economic justice, i was working with the asia-pacific environmental not work. he had a way of bringing indigenous environmental activists together with chicanos in other states. a tremendous coalition builder in the best spirit of that. his work to fight for the soul of mission housing and you have organizations that are nonprofits to be maintained by activists in the community was valiant and courageous. i look up to care for the work he did with nonprofit organizations, making sure there

were connected to our social movement and not pulled in other directions. one of my staffers worked closely in the mission anti- displacement coalition. there were efforts to build a vision of what the community should be. a number of great commentaries about his life have come about. i just want to acknowledge the great comments about the tremendous outpouring of support for eric on his last days, when he came back from troubles. i want to read a small passage from the bay guardian august 30 posting. jason was his roommate for many years and a great giants lover. loraine a, whose supervisor a -- who supervisor avalos

mentioned, said his commitment did not stop in public. it was deep in how he thought about life. as a friend and a lover, eric told her he did not want to burn her with his cancer. she responded, "you have no right to stop your life. you cannot close the door to life." after that, they were never apart. they fell in love immediately. a few years later, on the arrival of their beautiful daughter, she reminded him you cannot put your personal life on hold. all always be a crisis in the world. there will always -- there will always be the crisis in the world. i miss my friend.

i have another in a marja em -- in memoriam for william chef. he died on august 10, days from what would have been his 84th birthday. he was a fixture on the bow street for decades. he was well-liked by customers. he worked on tugboats in san francisco bay. he was going in illinois in 1927. he is survived by his wife evelyn and three children. his sons greg and joe took over and expect to keep the store opened. there are few businesses that have had such a long success in the community. they flipped through the book is

a handwritten snapshot of the richmond district as well, with condolences from his friends and customers. i just wanted to quickly acknowledge that i have a new stuff for joining my office. many of you have already started working with him. he comes out of being the coordinator of the anti- displacement coalition. i wanted to thank my past staffers, a great community housing activist. i also want to thank my stuff for the tremendous work with the rec and park community. there is a great planning

visionary who will be spending time fought in toronto. i have learned a great deal from them. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. i also wanted to add my words recognizing the life and work of eric for the city of san francisco. i want to thank my colleagues for recognizing him. due to a lot of the parallel work he was doing in the mission for decades, we interactive a lot. just to ed, the impact eric had it on the committee i am part of -- he was an important mentor and role model for so many people i work with. his voice has been really important in the city of san francisco. it is not just that he fought

gentrification. he always asked who this benefits and how it benefits the people who live there and what it means for the community. even in our work, that question is important for us to continue asking. he has been important in building upon the work we try to continue today. we recognize the community he is part of and his amazing family. there were a lot of different public issues for our school system. it is important to continue to not to recognize but to honor his work here in city hall. i wanted to add as my words of recognition how important he was to many members of the family that i consider myself to be part of. supervisor cohen: good

afternoon. i have an in memoriam for a woman named ms. imelda jarvis. she lost her battle to multiple sclerosis. she spent 22 years s.e.c., most of it in laguna honda hospital. -- sick, most of it in laguna honda hospital. supervisor elsbernd: a few things today. first, and look forward to the discussion on sharp park very much. among other things, and look forward to discussing the potential transfer to the recreation area and whether we will defer to their thoughts on off-leash dogs, and whether or not we are going to impose our thoughts on off-leash dog down

there. i wonder if they might be a little more danger to those in danger of species than a golf ball. -- endangered species than a golf ball. this is the 74th anniversary at sterling grove. i look forward to the big anniversary next year. i have two in memoriams. margaret tissier passed away after a long illness. if we could adjourn the meeting in memory of her, i would appreciate it. on behalf of the whole board, san francisco lost a true san

franciscan in don casper. he was emblematic of a great conditioner. -- commissioner. he put more work and time into his service, took great pride in his service. i heard from one of his law partners that as there were going to his office they found staff briefings for every civil service commission he sat in for almost 10 years, with annotated notes down to footnote 3 on page 14. he was a great san franciscan. he loved his city, loved his neighborhood. st. peter and paul parish. was the honorary grand marshal of the columbus parade for the last 10 years at least. he was a great man and will be missed by and large community in this city.

supervisor mirkarimi: quickly, i just want to say thank you to all of the new who really helped provide love the reflections on eric. the word of valiant was used. i cannot think of a better description. i have known eric forman years. i know he will continue to inspire others, especially through his family. i know supervisor tells burned asked for recognition by the full board -- elsbernd asked for recognition by the full board. supervisor avalos: on short part, currently there are two twin boxes.

are they part of the canine family? we already have some version of canines at sharp park. i could be wrong about foxes. we will see. the goal is to ensure broader recreational uses. >> that concludes roll-call for introduction. president chiu: could you please call items 14 through 17? >> items 14 through 17 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the planning department that the project located at 70 goldmine drive is exempt from environmental review. it affirms or reverses the planning department's decision.

>> as i think you have already been apprised, the application for the project has been returned. at this point, these items are tabled by operation law. if we could go to items 18 and 21. supervisor weiner: in regards to the 70 goldmine drive, i want to make a comment on that project and on the tabling. for those who have not seen 70 goldmine drive, i suggest if you are ever up in diamond heights, walking by it are driving by it, it is an absolutely dilapidated building. that is the only way to describe it. a small, dilapidated building on a very large lot. this project would propose adding housing on to that

property in a neighborhood that needs housing and a city that needs housing. unfortunately, this got caught up in historic preservation. there was a submission i think folks saw. now it is going back to the drawing board. it is going to potentially result in an eurm adding a -- eir, adding a quarter million dollars to a project in a city where it is already expensive to build. the result here is really yet another example of the imbalance in our land use system, to the point where we are discouraging the creation of new housing and allowing the dilapidated housing to continue to exist because it happens to be of a certain age. i just wanted to make those

comments. thank you for listening. president chiu: i want to move to the second 2:30 special order, items 18 through 21. >> the public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the department of public works, approving a tentative parcel map for a subdivision at 1171 sansome street. president chiu: a ceqa appeal has been filed. we need to continue these items to october 4. let me ask if there are members of the public that wish to comment with regard to the potential continuance.

motion by supervisor can, seconded by supervisor -- kim, seconded by supervisor farrell. with regards to our third special order, items 22 through 25. >> this compresses the public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the department of public works dated july 6, 2011, approving a tentative parcel map for a commercial condominium subdivision at 1621 montgomery st.. we can approve, disapprove, and direct preparation of findings.

president chiu: the appeal in this matter has been withdrawn. if there is any member of the public that wishes to speak in favor or against this project, now would be the time. seeing none, why don't we close this hearing? can we have a motion to table? in motion by supervisor kim, these items will be tabled. let us move to the fourth public hearing. >> items 26 through 29 comprise the public hearing of proving a tentative parcel map for a condominium conversion located at 8 napier lane. item 27 approves the decision of the department of public works. item 28 disapproves the decision and the parcel map.

item 29 directs the preparation of findings. president chiu: are both parties here for this matter? i understand an agreement has been reached and circulated to the board. at this time, the appeal will be withdrawn. if there are any members of the public that wish to speak either for or against this project, feel free to step up. seeing none, this hearing has been closed. if i could get a motion to table items 27 through 29? these items are tabled. thank you. items 30 through 33. >> these comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the planning

department that a project located at 663670 660-670 4th street is exempt from environmental review. -- located at 660-670 4th street is exempt from environmental review. president chiu: we will consider the determination that the project is categorically exempt. for days -- today's procedure, we will hear from the appellant, who will have up to 10 minutes. will take public comment from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the appellants. we will now hear from the

planning department, who can describe the grounds for the determination that the project is exempt. we will hear from the real party of interest, the project sponsor. we will hear from individuals from the public that wish to speak on behalf of the real party of interest. finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for a bottle. unless there are questions, we ask supervisor kim, supervisor in the district of this project -- the you have any comments? none at this point. appellants, you have up to 10 minutes to use as you see fit. >> thank you for the opportunity to present this the afternoon. i am presenting my own appeal. the reason is simple. after presenting the facts of this case and subsequent discussions to counsel, it

became clear the fact pattern that will continue to be presented by me stands by itself. it does not require a major law firm to take attention away from the real issues. at&t will attempt to use scare tactics to convince you that federal law prevents you. at&t must show the proposed project does not exceed our emission limits. they are incomplete and inaccurate, respectively. before i get to the history, i would like to point out that my wife, who was going in san francisco, and i feel the need to appeal the decision. by way of background, i have been a small business investor and have made numerous investments service providers,

handset providers, and others related to the transmission of wireless signals. i am familiar with the business and technology aspects of projects related to this appeal. i am also acutely aware of and sympathetic to the issues that at&t has experienced in recent years. it requires more bandwidth as day to demand increased for each individual subscriber. as you have likely seen in the proposal, there are outdoor rooftop decks. one can be exclusively accessed by the owner of the building. he has a strong financial incentive. unlike the deck, my issue is for

business. i run the company from an excuse unit. the barbecue, table, and hammock are often used for extended time. my children also use the outdoor space for playing, blowing bubbles, etc.. it is this space that attracted me and my growing family to the location years ago, when we moved back to san francisco. there are increased incidence of brain cancer. the other side can produce studies showing no adverse affects. i understand the vested interest parties have in financing and publishing these studies. what cannot be disputed is the propagation of signals at street

level. this is not a good proxy for my building. as is the case with other studies, many of these will be close to my deck and a in or near the line of sight. this powerful antennas will be pointed in the general direction of anybody who spends time upstairs. i would not encourage people to spend time on my deck. there is no way my young girls can be allowed to play upstairs. the important facts were misrepresented or distorted from the presentation to the planning department. the project sponsor a excluded and misrepresented pertinent environmental information

regarding the proposal. finding 8 clearly states the public exposure limit includes areas of rooftop but does not reach any public accessible areas. workers should not be within 19 feet of the front of the antennas while they are in operation. there are no features of the project that can be inconvenient to the health of those in the area. there are several points to be made. the original proposal by at&t -- when i informed of parties that my family, including my daughter's and their friends go there on a daily basis, the was a look of horror on people's faces -- faces. they realized they could never accept this. they simply revise the proposal, knowing public safety would be

breached. for at&t to claim they were unaware is disingenuous. for the project sponsor to claim that 36.5 feet is not within the public exposure limit is also disingenuous, given the were on my roof deck with me. they are within the perimeter deemed to be unsafe. if you require additional environmental data points, the window washers will no longer have access to the windows without putting themselves in harm's way for the exposure parameters because they anchor on the roof. there are restrictions to sell off excess. also worth mentioning is that the consulting engineering firm was given access to the roof deck. the report excluded any mention

of the roof deck. the proposal presented by the planning commission and wiped out the fact the structures are used on a regular basis. this was not a lie, but if it -- but the case of selective exclusions. the irony is that i have been a longtime at&t customer and find the coverage in my immediate neighbor is good. when the project sponsors measured, the area that has the worst coverage is at&t park and the surrounding area, and this offers no increase in benefit for that area. the beacon is located across the street and has no public areas on the roof, limiting any potential ceqa issues. the location offers similar

coverage. additionally, the top of trends station would be a great -- the top of the caltrans station could use the funds. it is interesting to note that in august 2004 the international association of firefighters, the same union that represents the san francisco firefighters, opposed the use of fire stations as space stations. the council for at&t says the roof deck is not within the exposure limit. as the plans show, this is technically correct, but disingenuous. the antennas point toward my roof deck. the proposed antenna closer to the other roof deck is