find there aren't many alternatives and that's unfortunate. oftentimes we are hard pressed because we have to keep so many feet away from curb cuts and intersections and fire hydrant and tree roots and it's difficult to go out and find alternative locations. that's something that we are willing to do. oftentimes the narrative goes when we are meeting with the community is will you help us figure out a place that might look good because we want to know what the public is thinking as far as where an acceptable place is and we can investigate if that particular location works under an order and if it doesn't then we can suggest like this place maybe we can suggest some other location similar to it that doesn't have these pediments in the order. when the process is allowed to work we have on many

many occasions have been able to work with the community to find alternative locations that met their needs and desires. i will fully say it doesn't happen all the time but it does happen an it happens with regularity. i believe. also we have addressed some of the communication that we've had, supervisor wiener about the screening and paying for the maintenance. what they have agreed to do with the additional maintenance and that's part of the fee we pay, but i think it's different for rain guards. but after a year or two, that averts to the property owner. supervisor scott weiner: do you think the property owner should be responsible to take care of that greening when it's designed to compensate to have

a large metal box near your house. >> the city feels it's fair. supervisor scott weiner: if it's not fair that the city requires that, do you think, i mean -- >> if that's the city policy to stress that upon their property owners, i don't think it should be thrust upon us, i do believe we should help foster the planting so that it takes and it can survive, but beyond that we are not a landscape company. if the city wants to require landscaping in the public right-of-way we are happy to contribute to that cause but not for on going maintenance. we are required to maintain our cabinet in person and petuity but i disagree with you on that. supervisor scott weiner: if the city would take back responsibility on maintenance

of the trees, do you think they should take responsibility for the right-of-way. >> if the city should take p responsibility for the right-of-way. >> the answer is no. >> if you ask mr. bateman, that's what his opinion is. wean in -- supervisor scott weiner: in terms of the murals. i understand you have your warranty and specification, i just don't understand why we can't have specifications for how you paint these boxes. because that to me is probably one of the ultimate compensations to at least make it artistically appealing. >> purely hear say and

anecdotally that it's an issue. that is an issue of ours with painting. again, supervisor wiener, that's the stand we have taken. we are happy to talk about other ways that we can beautify but direct paintings on these particular cabinets would null and void our warranty and may risk the equipment inside and i don't want to entertain. supervisor jane kim: i do have to go with supervisor if we are putting trees and asking the owner to maintain it, if that's the argument, if at&t is installing the boxers, at&t does have the responsibility for the landscaping around the boxes that you put in on our right-of-way. but that's clearly a disagreement. i wanted to go back to what you had said earlier about asking the members of the p be to look

for alternative places. i heard from the community that they are not able to do that. this is in the south of market there is a lot of concerns because the box is placed on a very tiny and narrow sidewalk within a residential site. they are not opposed to a box, just put it across the street in a parking lot where nobody cares that it's there. it's my understanding that at&t won't agree to that alternate location just across the street. >> that's not accurate. i think there is a couple of issues. and then i have a couple of my own areas for improvement and that leads to one of them, supervisor kim. in that particular instance i believe the property where the neighbors would like us to put is under cal trans jurisdiction. if we can get cal trans to allow us to do that, we can do that. supervisor jane kim: can at&t

make that request? >> i think we have already made that request, but sometimes you in your position can foster that along. that's one of the areas where we have, if i can offer up areas of improvement. one, i would like to say that i think we have an excellent working relationship with dpw and they have been very willing and anytime that there, there have been many discrepancies and anytime that we have worked through the definitions and the sfm order there is a lot of ambiguity and backtracking and clarifying. it's not anyone's fault per say but there have been a lot of issues around what does adjacent and how is that different from affronting and those type of questions that come up. there is certainty around some of the definitions and the policy. we

are working through those as we encounter them we inquire from dpw and working collaboratively in giving an answer back to those things. sometimes they don't like it and sometimes they don't like that we push back. it's a healthy dialogue. i think. the other issues is sometimes the community members will offer suggestions that are in congress with the dpw guidelines. so we an instance recently in inner sunset where the community asked that we place the cabinet up against a store wall and the city came back further order said these have to be placed in the street furniture zone. the fact of the matter is there is already newspaper rack s against the newspaper wall and it came back as can you do it again. we are

happy to adhere to the orders but when the community makes the suggestions might there be son leniency. supervisor wiener i heard you about the harvey milk school where at the cabinets go across the street that is parkland. the city has been unwilling to allow us to place any cabinet on their property too. oftentimes the community will offer school property, mta property and we have either not gotten a response back when we have acquired -- inquired or flat out denied. if the city can help us work with a solution that can be helpful. i noticed something in san francisco beautiful is brought up. there have been issues of bilingual notices and verbiage

in those chinese and spanish on notices that dpw has pushed back and said if we push that on there we have to address those foreign speakers to at&t and we find something wrong if you want to make a complaint with the company you can go e to dpw and if you are a non-english speaker you can go to file that complaint and there is something unfair if not unconstitutional as far as due process goes. we are fully supporting putting bilingual notices and other languages but the city is required to determine the process on the timeliness of the complaint and that shouldn't be something that at&t gets to determine because you are not an english speaker. all should be handled and properly vetted through the department. and in terms of hearing schedule. we have had some

issues with dpw, one of the issues we've had has been much better in scheduling those. i think we have heard about undergrounding and it's an issue that the fact of the matter is we don't have viable technologically and financially feasible alternatives for undergrounding this equipment particularly in urban environments where we need to put them in control of environmental evaluates. i saw the gentleman in the room today. we've had people that have offered to help with that, but this project is moving forward now and even if we had something today that might possibly work, just to get through vetting process of making sure it meets all the regulatory environmental issues and field testing it could be years off before it gets approved into our network. that's something we are always willing to talk to people about but the reality is we are not in a position to hold up our

project for years in the hopes that some technology can be invented to allow that to work. with that i will entertain any questions you might have. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, supervisor cohen. supervisor malia cohen: thank you, i have a couple of questions. first a state that i'm surprised to hear that you are in insinuating that there is 2-tier system for non-english speakers. we have an outreach to make sure that we have a language program. even with the department of dpw we'll look into it. >> there is not a bifurcated system now but all of our notices go out in english only. we have offered to put them in chinese and spanish but the

people complaining in spanish, we need to field those calls, not dpw and we don't believe that's the proper venue for doing that. right now it's english only but we support any efforts to make that multilingual. supervisor jane kim: can we have dpw respond to that. supervisor malia cohen: what we would do is give at&t an opportunity and dpw would like to speak in its entirety which i would be interested in hearing maybe just a little bit further after public comment. just a couple questions. what also strikes me that is very interesting is that this conversation is happening here at the board, with constituents, it's happening with dpw, but the one entity that is most qualified to talk about is the department of technology. they are largely missing from this discussion. and they are the ones that are the experts when it comes to

triangulating signals and they are our experts if you will. so, we have new leadership within this department and i have had an opportunity to sit down and talk to them about what is our overall plan as a city and i have asked them to come up with a long term strategy because really the reason why we are in this trouble is there is no long-term strategy when it comes to upgrading our technology infrastructure whether it's yours or whether puc is running a pilot program in conjunction with other state and pilot programs. so it seems to me like there needs to be more of a smoother transition and just some kind of conversation. i don't know if you agree with this. certainly a proprietor working with at&t but we as a city have an at some point to make the process

a little bit more smoother for people. so real quick, i want to hear a couple things that i did not hear. there is specific language in the mou, the memo of understanding, that "at&t will not build locations where there is significant community opposition" i think is more importantly how do we quantity fee opposition because of the cards and e-mails that i have gotten in just district 10 alone to me substantiates community opposition. how do you quantify opposition? >> these boxes serve anyone from 4500 people. i don't think i have seen any level of opposition that would show the majority of the people served are opposing this site. that

would be one of the first thresholds and we have not reached that threshold yet. supervisor malia cohen: also you consider -- i won't deal with that but there is one with work force development. you and i have had conversations about this. where are you in the process of satisfying your 33 percent local hiring goal? >> as i stated earlier in my comments we have hired 150 new union jobs. we've exceeded the 1/3 and 10 management positions and we opened a new garage on paul avenue. supervisor malia cohen: okay, and then there is a reference in the mou to a public website about information related to the upgrades as of earlier this afternoon, we weren't able to find it. is it still up and

operational? >> it was as of this friday and for the last 2 years. www.ip networks.com. >> what methods are you providing? >> we have information to answer concerns and we have various information. we talked about greening on there and graffiti abatement on there. the site is in three languages and both chinese and spanish. supervisor malia cohen: is there contact information? >> yes. i regularly get contacted through my website. supervisor malia cohen: my question is it is understood that boxes will not go into historic districts. there was a proposal to put a box at 22nd and minnesota which is a dog

patch district. there wasn't much discussion when they brought this to your attention as to whether or not this was going forward. i want to know what the plan is for this specific location. >> first we took all the boxes located within the historic district out of our bill plan before we even went before planning back three or 4 years ago. so any of the planning districts or any of the historic districts that are recognized by planning in districts we have removed those. there are individual homes that are in the national historic register and those types of things where we wouldn't place that. so in that particular instance, i believe that the cabinet can be cited outside the zone and still be within 300 feet. i don't have them all with me. supervisor malia cohen: i know i'm asking something specific.

i would appreciate the specifics around it. mr. chair, that's it for me. supervisor scott weiner: okay, thank you. at this point. was that the end of your presentation? >> yes. supervisor scott weiner: at this time i will open up to public comment. i will call the first batch. if you would please lineup on the side of the room to my left that would be terrific. if anyone because of mobility, limitations, that's fine as well. we'll be happy to accommodate you early in the process. public comment will be 2 minutes. you will hear a soft bell when you have 30 seconds left and a louder bell when your 2 minutes has expired and your microphone will turn off and we'll ask you

to wrap it up. i will call the first batch. i apologize if i mess up anyone's name. sherrie steiner, jim bloom, human freud, i can't read the last name. jamie michael's, steven, kevin strain, mike fong and christian. >> i'm bob plant hold. i

offered two concrete scenarios why i object to the process and indicate the mou is flawed. we have only heard aesthetic concerns raised today. i'm going on the basis of what we heard in here today. dpw in its presentation said people in agencies are noticed within 300 feet. that's not good enough. where i live, there is an elementary school diagonally across from me, there is a middle school across from me and a public elementary school a block away. in this intersection there is a paid school crossing guard and count down signal. that means there is significant accidents. but the public elementary school is beyond the notice and therefore they wouldn't know anything about this. that's bad enough. but in addition, the dimensions of these new cabinets is shown in the first slide of dpw's

presentation. 4 feet high and nearly 6 feet long. a lot of kids 10 years old are shorter than 4 feet. we have adults of short stature and people in wheelchairs under 4 feet. all of those would be obscured by that cabinet as they are approaching a corner and the scenario picture we saw had it near an intersection. there also is a seat for drivers to make right turns on red even illegally. they are looking for oncoming cars. they are not going to see behind those cabinets, kids, people of short stature and people of disabilities, i believe there is a neglect . none of the people making the presentation, none of them are short statured and wheelchairs. many people got left out of the

consideration on the decisions. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, next speaker. >> patricia voit. there is a case called 2625 san francisco. if anybody was noticed which many of them weren't concerning this issue, they would say 2505, that's not near me. you know? and because a good 2-3 boxes almost 300 feet difference. today at&t says some of our sites we put our own numbers on it. to the public, that doesn't happen. they don't know that. my organization was not notified of this issue, period. eight people who objected to it were

not asked to go to the block walk or whatever they call it. i have not been receiving at&t notices for almost 6 months, our group. the process is flawed. and i think we can work on making it better so that the public knows what they are getting. this is a very interesting case and i will send it to both of you. what was said to the neighbors today and this thing is illegal according even to the mou. so, i want you to be well aware that i think the process is applaud -- flawed and we need to sit down and work on the process and the interpretation of the mou and possibly change it. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, next speaker. my name is kim lee. last

year they have been meeting and they agreed to remove those box, they won't install the box in front of my house. because they are in front of my house and besides my garage. the engineer said they were doing that. i don't know why they reject that and i just got mail around thursday they said they reject it. when you have possible you can look at the map and look at everything. my corner is the narrow one sidewalk and we have lots of trees and compared with other three corners. i don't understand why they agreed and right now don't agree about that. i didn't get any information from at&t information and/or the dpw. so would you please, i would like

to cooperate with everyone to see what was the attitude, the situation we can work with that. if without any notice or information, i will be reject this kind of process decision. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is john morris representing the home owners association at 2208 mission street adjacent to our building a box is proposed on carlos street. a number from our building did object to this. i want is to describe from our perspective. we were informed that the walk is only during business hours. people did take time off from work and we were joined from other people in our neighborhood. we had very

specific reasons for this location, physical constraints. the city was processing a permit for the sidewalk cafe. it has since opened. there were other reasons as well. we presented other ideas and locations one 100 1100 feet from the location. one of them being a car repair shop with no doors or windows, there is no trees there or no obstruction. at the end of the meeting we left thinking that there was a serious commitment to looking at a lot of alternatives that were presented and since then we received information from the city that the project is moving forward in the original location and no indication why suggestions didn't work or weren't considered and sounded as if the effort of going to the meeting produced no results. they went ahead with the location. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. i would mentioned other

situations where that happened and at the hearing got that result. i would encourage you to talk to at&t and dpw. >> hello supervisors, my name is erica sampson with the college hill association on the southwest corner of vernal heights with supervisor wiener district. i'm here to learn more about the process and enjoyed all of the discussion preceding. and to also determine at&t's true commitment to greening and at&t utility cabinet has been approved on my block at 89 richmond. personally i'm opposed to the boxes being

above ground because of blight and obstruction. the positive college aspects of the greening aspects committed to. the box walk to neighbors to president and myself. we met with lynn susan of at&t on october 2013 after observations were raised by other neighbors. we determined no other locations were possible on our block and you -- undergrounding was not possible and shifted the entire block not just parallel bought the green our entire neighborhood. we felt as a neighborhood that that was significant and would out weigh our concerns about the presence of the box. so the hearing to approve it was held the day

before thanksgiving. no neighbors were able to attend but we wrote letters. last monday we received letters from the dpw sf division that it had been approved. supervisor scott weiner: please make sure to work with my office to make sure the commitment is kept. that would be great. thank you. next speaker. miss hol ton. >> good morning, supervisors. this is my very first city meeting in front of you and i don't like opening it up like this because i had some issues. i had a fun time this morning overhead at the 9:00 a.m. dpw hearing on all of these boxers. there were 13 terms on there

and dispensed very quickly. what i have is a situation where i am questioning the process that was used during this entire ordeal and i call it an ordeal because i never knew anything about the box. i didn't get a notice. turns out there was a mistake from the planning website data base. i wasn't put in the right category of presidio heights and i didn't get a notice. and then someone else in the neighborhood said there is a sign out there. then i find out that way and i start doing some homework and contacting at&t and got mr. blake man involved and someone from internal affairs, davis or polk street and okay file a grievance on dpw. don't present it to muhammad but to an e-mail