tv [untitled] October 5, 2011 3:00am-3:30am PDT
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.
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 see that cars, based on their emissions per mile, vary depending on what propulsion may have. but there is no way to get a carbon neutral car. you cannot get to zero. there are manufacturing impacts to make a car, shipping,
electric transmission, etc. but electric cars do reduce emissions to a regular car. electrification as an industry is important. but there is another problem. it is important for this commission to meet climate goals, because that reduces co2, but it does not reduce sustainability levels. there are still too many cars. congestion affects our economy. people are causing major traffic fatalities. electrification is only part of the solution, not the full solution. vehicle miles travis -- the vehicle miles -- one we did --
when we did transportation analysis, we looked at miles traveled compared to the outer areas of the city. we'd really need to tie our land use and transportation in those areas. it is a good way to check back with priority development areas. not to say that as we move forward we need to pay special attention to the outlying areas of the city, to make sure there are options there to reduce their emissions as well. we need to lead by example internally. there is a luxury or pressure by
the city to have these be recycling programs and composting. we were one of the biggest waste generators in the city, and now we are one of the smallest. we are also working with the public utilities commission on our routes. we are working with the department of the environment. we have a green roof on our office. we have a tremendous success with our transit. it is one of the greenest in the country. we work with restaurant tours to get the grease from their -- we work with restaurants to get the grease from their restaurants to fuel our fleet. our taxi fleet is the greenest in the country. 80% is green vehicles, hybrids or alternative vehicles. we have some very stringent construction guidelines for our
agency. we have also submitted ourselves to the sustainability commitment to the american public transit association. they have levels of commitment similar to the leed standards. we will qualify as a golden- level status, one of the few in the country that has met that requirement. that is not enough. that is the 1% the agency talked-about. the other 99% is the six key strategies we are trying to push as our climate and sustainability strategy. it is really about managing travel demand, trying to increase the requirement from our residents or visitors who have to drive. the supporting infrastructure -- we cannot just say, here is the option. it has to be equal or better to
what they have now. with that, and very challenging ideas to move forward. it is important that we get the support of more of our partners to make that work. i will walk through these very briefly. the first strategy is trying to integrate a lot of data. we have so much data -- next bus, next train, 511, 311. we have more coverage and anybody in the country. a lot of parking information. a lot is out there. we have to figure out how to integrate it. when we have the ability to have a lot of information for the users, the can make a smart choice of whether they want to catch a train or a bus or take out by sharing. ridesharing is an area where we
are trying to do more with this system, and getting more people to share the ride. we are strongly supporting car sharing. we support both of the operators in the city. there is also peer-too-pierre -- peer-to-peer car sharing or you can borrow your neighbor's car. it is a good system. we are working with the region to debut by sharing, which i am excited about. that will help with smaller, shorter trips. this is something we would like to see happen with our app development community. eventually, you will have all the data you're looking for at your fingertips. whether you need to get to a meeting or a friend's house or moving around the city, whether transit, bicycle, texas,