we would urge you to deny the appeal of the planning department s ruling that at&t does not need an environmental review to place utility boxes in public spaces, on sidewalks and next to buildings to upgrade the broadband network in san francisco. the planning department said in its ruling, although the project is not without opposition controversy, opposition, controversy do not themselves institute significant environmental impacts. we respect the work and advocacy of the few community-based organizations opposed to at&t s plan but we disagree on this issue. we believe that the environment and quality of life will be improved by expanding broadband access in san francisco. we believe it is good for education, economic empowerment and good for all kinds of sustainable jobs. we believe it would be good for both our local and national economy, it would be good for competition and choice in the broadband hdtv marketplace and broadband access is essential for a sustainable and
i realize, i think many of these cards checked the wrong box. let me read the final cards, jana, rudy rucker. and let me ask anyone else who wants to speak on behalf of at&t and the proposed project, you can line up for public comment. my name is matt regan here representing the bay area council, a public sponsored public advocacy organization with 275 member companies in the bay area. i think the fact that we re discussing this issue at great length is testament to the fact that while san francisco is progressive, it has problems with some progress. any city needs 21st century infrastructure. we re 30th in the world in broadband access and that s the united states. san francisco is considerably lower down the ladder in terms of city standards. the type of small start-up companies in san francisco, the garage companies, the social media companies taking root here in the city require broadband access to be viable and successful. large employers also require broadband access