those 700 areas are not going to have the amount of space that la playam -- la playa has, so there is a huge public area where you have room for, but that there are other boxes, you probably do not have anywhere near that amount of space to play with, i am guessing. >> going back to the order itself, in these kinds of cases, nearly all of these facilities would be placed in the furnishings know, which is near the curbside in this case, to match whatever else is out there. obviously, the department will make an evaluation. are there any existing trees, parking meters, parking signs, other boxes out on these areas already in order to make a determination, as part of that determination. supervisor mar: one other

question. in the order that was signed in 2005, it said that dpw had received a number of excavation permits from a number of utility companies and city departments. i think that the city departments, it probably will month before the city good. if it is a city department recommending this, but for the utilities, it is my understanding that they mostly with before, the entities, that they will be increasing their competitive advantage or making more profits from their use of public space, butthe other utilt are commonly requesting these permits, besides at&t? >> currently, we are talking about 2 you a separate items. there are service facilities that are above ground for all agencies, be it from the city or

the public or private entities. the utility excavation permit the department issues is not only to members of the city family -- puc, mta -- but also to your typical utility provider -- pg&e, at&t, comcast, nrg, and a variety of other utility companies authorized to occupy the public right of way, as allowed by the california public utilities commission. supervisor weiner: following up on the question about the is that tick determination and what matches and does not -- about the aesthetic determination and what matches and does not, when does the team -- dpw involve other departments, such as planning? i ask that not to denigrate dpw's as the pick sensibilities.

-- aesthetic sensibilities. [laughter] in my experience, the planning department was really the department that made sure things looked right and had good urban design standards. dpw did an excellent job actually making sure the plaza came into existence. so to what extent is -- does dpw in both planning anin the aesthetic evaluation? >> currently as necessary. we do contact planning for certain evaluations. in a majority of cases, the city once the service facilities for each utility company to have a uniform coloration, a uniform scheme, in case one in the department will receive phone calls or notices from 311 of

graffiti or other damage, we can quickly identify the utilities and notice them to effect the appropriate maintenance or repair. in many cases, we are currently evaluating -- for example, if you have situations where you want to make the surface facilities uniformly colored, like i stated earlier. so we try to work with all the agencies to make sure everyone are clearly identified, and that they are clean from graffiti. excuse me. i lost my train of thought. as far as working with planning on the coloration of this scheme, it is challenging because many of the city's --

facilities being installed by city agencies need to be a specific color or type of material, for purposes that cannot be modified. the department is going to always be challenged as it tries to move forward with these types of the implementation you are suggesting. supervisor weiner: i would encourage dpw to involve planning in some of these aesthetic determinations. i am not saying in every aspect throughout the city. but there are situations where you have projects that impact the way a neighborhood looks and feels. i think having planning involved is important. i have a question about public process, because as we have been discussing, there is a lot of analysis of certain aesthetic decisions and creativity that

goes on in this process. i wonder if you could describe the extent to which the public is involved, in particular people who do want to be able to help shape the future of their neighborhoods. >> as part of the surface mounted facilities order, obviously, there is a notification process required 300 feet from the location to all properties. typically, we are then contacted if there are objections from residents or others. we contact the agency who is proposing to put the facilities up at this point. typically, the agency would try to work with the resident and/or neighborhood groups to try to find a solution to mitigate any issues they may have, to resolve any concerns they may have. if it cannot be resolved, we would have a public department of hearing where concerns would

be raised through a hearing officer. the hearing officer would at that point, after the hearing, review the information provided by the agencies and then make a recommendation to the director to either reject the location as an inappropriate site, approve the location as is, or approve it with conditions, which could include things like landscaping and other elements to be placed in the public right of way, to resolve some of the concerns that citizens may have. supervisor weiner: typically, you reach out to neighborhood associations, particularly if you are doing something that is more than one item, something that is going to impact the entire commercial corridor? the reach out to the merchants associations with the neighborhood associations? >> typically, this information is available to the public.

we are required to provide that notice to any organization within the planning notification requirement as part of the process, if memory serves. supervisor weiner: i would definitely encourage -- i know the planning department makes a valiant effort to keep the current contact list on neighborhood associations. one example related to the m.t.a. was on 24th street and noe valley. mta put a bunch of bike parking facilities on it and did not contact cbd, the noe valley association responsible for a lot of the streets getting. of course everybody wanted to get the bike parking, but it was inconsistent with the cbd. that caused a bunch of consternation that ultimately got resolved. had there been better outreach

by mta ahead of time, i think it is important to contact the people who are actually starting the public realm. >> similar to what we are currently doing with t-mobile foods in terms of notification -- with the mobile foods in terms of notification, we have facilities to provide notification to our department website and others in order to provide a better notification process in this case. supervisor weiner: thank you. any other questions? were there any other departments that are present, other than dpw and planning? seeing none, we will go to public comments. chairperson mar: it sounds like because there are so many people we should limit this to two

minutes per person. supervisor weiner: when you have 30 seconds left, you will hear a suffering of the bell. at 2 minutes, you will hear a loud one. if people could line up so we can go quickly from one to the other. richard lanceroti, [lists names] >> thank you, supervisor, for calling this important hearing. i am the president of walk san francisco. i was also on the better streets

plan cac. first off, there was a comment that these boxes conform with the better streets plan. the buttressed its plan says that all sidewalks in san francisco in a residential neighborhood will be 10 feet wide as a minimum, with the recommendation of 12 to 13 feet. it also says that also a box in commercial areas shall be 12 feet wide at minimum, with recommendation of 15 feet. the obvious concern, i think, with most people who have walked around san francisco is that there are lots of sidewalks that do not meet those minimums. in a way, the city does not conform with the better streets plan. thus putting more obstacles on the sidewalk just makes things worse. we can talk about these different zones on the sidewalk, but the reality is that most of the sidewalks are

too narrow as they are. adding more obstruction's is not one to make the situation any better. having said that, i do think all efforts should be made to keep surface-mounted facilities of the public right of way, whether through private property or undergrounding or wireless use where feasible. where they are needed, they should be outside of the public right of way. we should put them out of the white of folks trying to walk by. thank you very much. >> hello. i am past president of san francisco beautiful. in the limited time, i would like to place an emphasis on one

of the sections of the dpw order that deals with the placement of utility boxes on private property. that is section 3. i believe this section bears some strengthening due to the abuses or lack of diligence, let's say, of the city and at&t implementing it on prior occasions. i would recommend the city consider a registry. this could be formulated through the treasurer or the assessor's office. any private property owner of who might be interested could make extra money by renting private property to companies like at&t, who would like to put their equipment there. the interchange, to be meaningful, has to mention that someone may make money in providing space to at&t. years ago, we found that at&t did not mention there was

possible compensation. technically, they are in compliance with this memo, but not operating in the spirit of this memo. as the public, we need some protection through the strengthening of this. the memo obviously would cover the subject graffiti. i took this picture yesterday at 1091 folsom st.. i would emphasize this probably typifies we have as much a problem with enforcement and less to do with the design of the dpw memo. i would say this is not an open season for putting unnecessary utility boxes on street level. they would not impede pedestrian traffic but would still create the same esthetic issue. thank you. supervisor weiner: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is dick millet with

the patrol boosters association. you shot my argument down because i was going to attack the eir. but that is ok. i still have something to say. patrol hill as a neighborhood has overhead utilities on both sides of the street. some of these utilities do not serve the neighborhood. they just go through the neighborhood to serve other neighborhoods -- yours probably, and yours as well. some of them, when they get to your neighborhood, they go underground. i do not think there is anything in the better streets plan that suggests how we go about undergrounding. we did do a study with sophie maxwell, and it is on the internet. mr. wigton is here. he is the author of it. we still do not seem to get the will to do that kind of thing, even with the better streets

plan. for these boxes, what i am worried about is are they going to be shared with other utilities, or will the other utilities want to do the same thing, so we are going to get some more? when they come in, are they going to turn around and replace what is already there and remove the old ones? or will they just be in addition to the old stuff? my neighborhood looks like a third world country. i think the design -- they are asking for state of the art service, but with a third world installation. we have to be aware this business of making them look good and looking for examples in the city -- a lot of times what we are going to do is copy. that is what we have to -- is copy mistakes. that is what we have to be careful about. we are reviewing regulations for excavation.

i think we ought to take a look at what we are providing, and are we state of the art. supervisor weiner: thank you, and thank you for raising the issue of electrical wires and others. when it was happening in the city, it was fairly in equitable. supervisor cohen's district got less than it should have, and other districts got a disproportionate amount. hopefully when it starts again it will be more equitable. thank you. >> i am just getting ready to say something. >> i am david mcneill. i think of was on your list. i understand ostensibly about coordination among city agencies, and i will return to that. the thing that bothers me about all of this is that the earlier

agenda items had little to no cost to the city and involve exchanges of property, but involved publi -- the city and the college and other well-establish projects. this has to do with hundreds of sites, ultimately. i think there was a lack of precision about exactly what is envisioned, so it is hard for the average citizen to much better. the public/private issue is what particularly disturbs me. there is a logical issue as well, how surface-mounted facility can conform to the better street plan. it is almost unfathomable to me.

i guess if it is on the surface it is not complying with the rather stringent requirements of the plan as it was described to us. i am sorry the planning department representative said it does conform. i did not hear any evidence that it does. i suppose maybe a close textual analysis might reveal more about this. but i do complain about the lack of precision and i hope you all are hearing more precise information. finally, i understand at&t already has a large box on my block. i gather from what i heard today that there might be another within 300 feet. but it is ugly as sin and if the others are expected to esthetically comply to that standard, we are in trouble.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i live in the haight ashbury. i could address a lot of issues that this brings up, like the cumulative effect. i just forgot what i was going to say. of course the president, which concerns me most -- the precedent, which concerns me most. but neighbors like myself have brought into the better streets program and the graffiti removal, the street cleaning, greening the sidewalks, putting up planters, sweeping the streets. those of us who do those kinds of things feel like patsies when the board of supervisors, or in this case the planning department, would ok 726 boxes

all over the city that are going to look exactly like those examples that were shown previously. it just makes us feel unappreciated. it seems the city is cynical in doing this. i just feel it is a vote of no- confidence for the neighbors who have been working on their streets and sidewalks for some many years. supervisor weiner: thank you. i remind members of the public if you could not talk about the environmental review appeal pending before the board, because that hearing was held and closed and we have fewer than all 11 supervisors here. >> hello. my name is jonathan goldberg. i am here with san francisco beautiful. we would love to be here promoting the ideas and activation tools and forced through the better streets plan and the general plan.

however, the street scape should not be designed or planned to a subjective standard. neighborhoods are due in part to what their streets should be planned to be. the buttressed its plan clearly states guidelines and design elements to bring our streets to the highest standard, not to a subjective one issued by someone at a city department. we hope dpw can offer to act as a mediator between neighborhood groups and the planning department in dpw, so that these sorts of issues do not come up in the future. thank you for your time. supervisor weiner: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is band. i am a resident of san francisco.

i am here really as an emissary, just to see what is going on and what the board can do about it. particularly, i am interested in -- everything here seems to be broken down into neighborhoods. i know we have neighborhood supervisors, and i understand that. but i have gotten, back in forest hill -- we might live in forest hill, but we shop, play, and work elsewhere. that is important to us. and i think that what has been

missing from all of this, as i have been listening today, is a global san francisco approach rather than neighborhood by neighborhood. this box offense this neighborhood, there for somebody else is not interested. i wonder if the city in its approach to things is looking at it from more than a neighborhood perspective. chairperson mar: public rights of way are basically like a commons that we all are stewards for all of us, regardless of the neighborhood where you live. i think that is a great point. to jonathan from s.f. beautiful, how you define aesthetic has to take into account the groups in the

surrounding area. it means pleasing in appearance in the context of the surrounding area. it might not be a dpw staffer, with respect to your understanding, but the neighborhood people who really understand if the green box is going to be pleasing or not, or if the paint the beautiful art community piece on it. it is really the people in the area that should define that. but think you for bringing up a great point. -- thank you for bringing up a great point. supervisor weiner: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you for having this hearing. i am a physician and private medical consultant, a former member of the executive committee of the sierra club and was on the board of coleman advocates.

we have lived in supervisor ferrell's district for more than 35 years. i am concerned about the conformance the planning department suggested about the 700 boxes. i really hear the word esthetics. i do not think there is any way one could say the box is being proposed fit the neighborhood where i live and the city context. on my way here, i took about four de pegs. -- jpegs . these are probably the least egregious ones within a five minute walk of my home. [laughter] i would recommend to the supervisors and the people at large to go past the corner of bush and to visit iraq, where next to godzilla -- and

divisidero, and go to the corner of tai and divisidero. these boxes are continued graffiti attractants. if you look at the corner of the vallejo and broderick, the amount of concrete pedestal because of the steepness of the hill is a significant tripping hazard for senior citizens. there are six metal pylons with fluorescent tape around them to keep the cars from running around them. you cannot open a car door to part anywhere in that area. thank you for having a hearing. >> good afternoon. i live in haight-ashbury. i am concerned about the lack of coordination and the inability of the city to control and

manage the thousands of boxes that are already on our streets. the last thing we need is more of those. as a homeowner, i am expected to maintain the sidewalk. i would like to see the city hold up its share of maintaining the sidewalk. also, there are almost no sidewalks were landscaping would be feasible. that is ridiculous. noticing neighborhood groups is important, not just of the neighborhood association happens to be located within 300 feet of one of these boxes. come on. telling us to have to go to a website to look at every city department to find out when meetings are -- there has to be a better process. if there has to be more things like this, the city shouldn't money from it. but i believe the ordinance says an underground or private first. thank you.

supervisor weiner: let me call some more cards. [names are read] when we are done with public comment, i am going to ask for a few more questions to be answered. >> [speaking spanish] i am a resident of san francisco and live around the mission. i am here because i am opposed to seeing more utility boxes around the city, especially around my neighborhood. i think we should not be giving a