requesting 835 per vehicle. that is more than king county. as shown this table four of page 30 of our report without sales tax the cost for vehicle for the sf mta would be $1 million 643. it would be more of a cost. we ask the department to explain that and as you've noted there is an attachment one on page two of our report which identifies each of the additional sf mta items that would be included and the cost for each and the sf mta has represented that the additional optional equipment is required to operate the buses more effectively. on that bases we have recommended that you proof -- approve this.

supervisor mark farrell: colleagues, any questions? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to thank staff. we went through these items. from my perspective, putting a new fleet when we have an old fleet when we have an old deteriorating system. i will push that envelope when we can get rid of the buses and the obscene wires in our city and take care of that and do it in a climate friendly manner. i appreciate you doing that and hope that king county will give us a discount when we beat them on sunday. can we have a motion on this. >> we can do that without opposition. >> madam clerk. do we have any further business before us? >> no, we do. supervisor mark farrell: we are

adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >> >> >> good afternoon, and welcome

to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. i am scott wiener, the chairman of the committee, to my right is supervisor jane kim, our committee vice-chair and to my left is supervisor malia cohen. and supervisor cohen i would like to welcome you back. our clerk is lisa miller and i would like to thank sfgtv for broadcasting this hearing specifically larson and -- any announcements? >> the clerk: yes. please silence all electronic devices. any speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear in the agenda on january 28th unless notified. >> we have a robust turnout for

today's hearing. we have overflow seating in the main board of supervisors chamber room 250. if you have completed your public comment or your item is completed and you are inclined to give up your seats some someone can come in from the overflow, that would be terrific, however you are under no homage -- obligation to do so. please call item one. >> sf sf 1 1311214 multifamily house are revenue bonds. >> i would like to bring up miss pam simms who is doing the presentation. >> good afternoon, i'm pam

simpson of community and housing development for a bond for hunters view phase 2a located at 227, 228 west point road. the sponsor team includes john gun three as a general partner. the sponsor is in a process of procuring an investor and construction lender. when completed it will be a 107-unit housing development and one manager unit with 32 bedroom units, 8 four bedroom units. it will be targeted to households earning month more than 50 percent or $48,000 for one household. 27

will be affordable rental or tax credit units. these contracts are conduit and do not require a placement of a bond. the debt allocation committee will be submitted on january 15th. if awarded an allocation we'll return later this year to issue the bond. here with me today are sponsor representative from the company and from divine. we appreciate your support and look forward to seeing you with the ground breaking. this concludes my presentation. we are happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. we can go to public comment now. >> okay. at this point we will open up public comment on item no. 16789 1. i have two cards. for this or any other item, if you wish to make a public comment we have blue public comment cards and pens in the front and you can fill that out and hand it to the clerk. public comment today will be 2

minutes. go ahead. >> my name is francisco decosta. i really don't like coming here. i prefer writing about you guys and so i have come here to that people at home can know the schenn gans that are going on here. we know the john stuart company is all over the place. thousands of units at the presidio, treasure island, tenderloin, north beach, hunters view. why are we giving this gentleman more work? why? so here we have millions of dollars, $45 million in bonds, catering to the join stuart company. but

then you read the language here and what you get from the board you see that the signed document so that they can speed up this process. which is okay. i'm going to ask you. if you are really represent the four people, low income because that's public housing land which is not mentioned here anyway. what are you doing for the poor? right now in san francisco we have the filthy rich and the middle classes evaporating before our eyes. now we have the john stuart company pretending he wants to have low income people, but that's going to be our -- all market value or market price units. where is the board of supervisors. this is why i write about you all because the internet gives us more power to

write about you. stop the schenn gans. thank you very much. >> next speaker. miss jackson. >> you know phase one of hunters view was never completed. the tenants had never requested any of this madness going on with the redevelopment agency. they are still redevelopment. hunters view was never part of the redevelopment area. they have rewritten, they have cut and paste, because the area a was never part of hunters view. i used to live at 13 west road. i

know the community. the people are sick and dying there with all the toxics. that is one of the most rich toxic area there is. i'm hoping you do not support this because they are lying about what is going on. and there was a report done about the schenn gans of the city hall. what i see is all the people where are they now? they are at city hall. the money talking about, the tenants themselves requested they come from san francisco back in 1992. guess what, now the city has the funds. the bayview community don't have anything at all. every dime

that came here through grant to san francisco came through hunters point. from eoc and the hope program and the housing development, development housing. it came from us. we are the ones who stayed up 24 hours a day mostly to get these programs in. but now we are not involved. i hope you do not enforce this and like it was stated. stuart, he has gotten millions of dollars from bayview hunters point. no one in my community makes $48,000 a year. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, miss jackson. next speaker? >> i had not planned on speaking on this. but i was around the fillmore district got dismembered. this is the same game, the exact same game

that happened to the fillmore district years ago that you are building affordable housing and then we promise the units to be people being glaes displaced. they didn't get it. the people that lost their housing didn't get it. i want you to start looking closely and if you want to sit down and talk to me, i have got the history. what's happening right now is the exact same thing that happened in the fillmore in the 70s. under the auspices of we are going to do it and 3 years later under this affordable housing they get people to come in and young people who have never worked, children of realtors and after 3 years they sell it at market rate. something needs to be done. and, i have got the history. and i don't want it to happen

again. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues, the matter is in the hands of the committee. supervisor cohen, would you like to make a motion? supervisor malia cohen: i would like to make a motion to submit the resolution. supervisor scott weiner: that is the motion. if there is no further discussion we can take that motion without objection. madam clerk please call item 2. item 131202: agenda[hearing - at&t sidewalk utility boxes]1312022.sponsors: wiener; kim, farrell and avaloshearing, directed to at&t, the department of public works, and the planning department to discuss the roll-out of the at&t u-verse telecommunications upgrade, focusing on the permitting and site installation of the sidewalk cabinets, and to discuss the current community outreach and permitting process and suggest improvements. sf 21234 >> supervisor scott weiner: thank you. i called for this hearing

to provide a status update and informational hearing on the at&t boxes placed in our city. i want to thank our supervisors kim and avalos for cosponsoring the hearing. more than a year ago we had a ceqa appeal at the board of supervisors for the at and t boxes and it was affirmed by the court whether a legal issue of cat categorical was appropriate. we didn't want

these boxes on our sidewalks. almost exactly the same time that we affirmed the cat egorical exemption my office and other offices issued a memorandum of understanding with at & t agreed to a certain level of outreach and participation working with communities in decisions relate to go placement of these boxes. understate law at & t has a discretion but we have our limits. we can do is ensure that @ & t is working with local neighborhoods to determine if there is appropriate places to place the box whether there are private

property or other locations not on the public right of way or action in connection with boxes to reduce some of the challenges of the boxes create whether we are talking about public art or pedestrian upgrades and so forth. these boxes do have impacts on our sidewalks. we did have a hearing last year in general, it's not just about at & t boxes but other boxes whether it's providing cable services or people waiting for a bus, but they do take up very valuable spaces on our

sidewalks and can lead up to graffiti and other challenges. we want to ensure to know how to process is playing out. we worked with our district when permitting is coming out for a particular location for a box. i know we hear from constituents who have significant concerns about boxes being place on their street or neighborhood and i know it is a continuing challenge as we work through this process. i know that we all share a concern for our sidewalks in wanting to make sure that sidewalks are accessible. that we don't have graffiti and that we make sure that we are impacting our neighborhoods in positive ways and not negative ways. as part of the memorandum of understanding that a number of us enter into with at&t with

ceqa process. this is an informational hearing, not a hearing where we'll make specifics about specific boxers. we have it very clearly for a process for people to object to boxers and work with at&t or not work with at&t and address a hearing by dpw ora appeal or permit appeals. i encourage you to work at&t or

dposhgs department of public works or work with a resolution in the dpw hearing. this hearing is not a substitute for that process. i know for anyone in my district and i'm sure this goes for my colleagues we are happy to provide information about how to participation in that process. the purpose of today's hearing is to get a status report on how things are going, where we are and where we think things may or may not go in the future. the department of public works will be providing information for you as to where we are going and we'll invite at&t after the presentation from dpw to talk about where it see's the process and the planning department is here today if questions arise. the planning department has at the request of myself and others gotten involved to work with

dpw to make sure that any boxes that are placed on our streets comply with the better streets plan because we have a plan that was adopted unanimously by the board of supervisors that has certain standards in place for what gets placed on our sidewalk to make sure our sidewalks are usable for everyone and walkable. with that, i will recognize supervisor kim and after we have initial comments we'll turn it over to the department department of public works. supervisor jane kim: this year i'm before the land use committee and happy to be a cosponsor as well. they have a number of utility boxes on the south of market street because at the time the tenderloin was intentionally left out due to a lot of concerns around public safety concerns that utility

mounted boxes would cause in a dense neighborhood. i have a lot of interest about these boxes here in our district. i did see some of our constituents from south of market and tenderloin here and they are intimately aware that some of these issues are pedestrian safety and open space. we have the fewest parks and the smallest parks amd all of the city and public space is important. as we look at the number of boxes that are being put throughout the south of market area we have a lot of concerns from our tenants and particularly a lot of our disabled and senior tenants. of course we have concerns about some of those that are allocated in our youth and family special youth district in western sylmar like the

areas of carmichael and multi-recreational park. on top of that we do have very narrow sidewalks and some of the highest collision rates for pedestrians and cyclist. in addition we have heard from sfpd located in our neighborhood that are worried about i level barriers when they are scoping out illegal activities. we have concerns from our constituents about defecation, urination, to vandalism as we increase street furniture throughout the committee. i'm really interested in how the process has gone thus far. i did vote against the certification of the eir a year ago but my concerns are whether the environmental views are adequate at that period impact on the city. now i would like

to see now that it has been going forward, i would like to see the process and one where the community has an opportunity to weigh in which are incredibly valid around helping us to build complete and safe neighborhoods. i'm really looking forward to this presentation today and also from members on this issue and how the process has been for them thus far. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, supervisor kim, seeing no further initial comments, i will invite the department of public works, bureau streets use and mapping and i also want to note that carla schwartz from the bureau of urban forestry as well as netey are here today. >> good afternoon, committee members. my name is lynn fong.

thank you for allowing us to provide you this information. we have a short powerpoint presentation we want to show you as we go through the different permitting processes. first of all, we would like to discuss the definition of what is the surface facility? a surface mounted facility can take many forms, they can take communication force, hub supplies, controllers and electronic panels and ticket vending machines. for the at&t and surface mounted programs there are cabinets that are frequently discussed. the two types are the interface cabinets, the green boxes that you see throughout the public right-of-way. and devices. at&t facility cabinets are still

cabinets 59 inches wide, 48 inches wide and 26 inches deep. they house telecommunications equipment that allow us to provide communication services to speed telecommunication services. so the purpose of the program: the department has expressed concern that the installation of the surface mounted facilities whether at&t or any time will impede travel on public streets and inconvenience property owners and create blight right-of-way by the public. so in order to answer to these concerns that dpw had in august of 2005. dpw ordered 5 and 6 was implemented. this order which is titled regulation for

issuing excavation permits in the public right-of-way is the purpose of the order to minimize the impact the placement of any sfm facility will have impact on the public right-of-way. this establishes rules and regulations anden insures permits affected will be heard before dpw issues any permit. a few things the applicant is required to provide is provide technical report, providing graffiti reports and each facility must display contact information of the applicant. so that folks that do receive problems or any other type of issue can call in. supervisor scott weiner: back to that last slide and those requirements, can you just describe how in terms of with

at&t and how that's working? because, i mean some of the boxes are in place, some have been in place for a while now and they are the older boxes as well. so if you can in terms of the reporting and displaying contact information and repairing within 48 hours, can you talk about that? speaker: like i said there is two types of boxes, the older once in 2005, those do not have the 1800 number. they will come out and replace or repair graffiti. those don't have the 1-800 number. it is required. all the new ones do have the 1-800 numbers. all the once

that you are suggesting are you talking about the graffiti issues? supervisor scott weiner: i know graft is the most common and other types of vandalism that occurs, but let's talk about graffiti because i think that's the most common. i will say that i'm not 100 percent sure that it's an at&t box directly in front of the building where i live and it is periodically graffitied and that does in front of my home gets removed rather quickly, but i know other people have told me that they have boxes where it's reported and it doesn't get removed in a timely manner. i'm wondering what the process is when someone, i get they can call an 800 number or 311. can you talk about that process?

>> okay. they can call in to 311 and 311 will take the call and within 48 hours, the applicant whether it be mta or dwp, anyone, they will respond. as far as from at&t from our experience at hearings, it seems that some people are happy with the 1-800 numbers and others feel there is a time lag and the other people will come and tag the box the next day. calling in might not be sufficient for those folks. as far as the 311, it's something we are currently experiencing is people don't know who owns the cabinet. when they do call it in its tough for the intake, the people receiving the call,

the operators don't quite know. we don't really have a bunch of information gathered in terms of if this is an at&t cabinet and what are the measures taken and whether or not there is a lot of graffiti on that cabinet. supervisor scott weiner: i know there has been some confusion and they have put together a better data base. if someone calls and says there is a box and i don't know what it is but it's at this address. does 311 have the ability or dpw have the ability to say this is an at&t box or mta box? >> they have some information but not all information because some of these cabinets are older. where we have information we are able to identify it as an at&t box but it's not always the case. supervisor scott weiner: the call goes