streets, puc properties and school properties etc. we are not doing that. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, mr. holland. >> thank you for holding this hearing. it's over due. as you know par as long as with san francisco beautiful is one of the original appellants of the exemption from departmental review. i would like to give you what it has been, par has been the largest organization in the city representing over 4,000 people. we were never asked to get the letters from at&t. listing all the sites from the district. there was never a preliminary what are you going to do with it. we just got them. we published them in our newsletters and invited residents and par

members to give us a call if they had questions we would respond to them. one of the things we found is the following.. no. one, we haven't found anybody yet whether they received a notice or whether they were proposed sight that proposed having a cabinet there with one notable exemption in the richmond district. that exception is the apartments at ocean beach which were assigned as customers. for at&t. 2, part of the problems with the exemption from the environmental review is you've left us with no tools really as alternatives for remedying the situation. three, the alternatives that you talked about in the current the regulations that dpw is using those are not real

alternatives. moving a box across the street from you is still a box across the street from the neighborhood and pits neighborhoods against neighborhoods. supervisor scott weiner: we are happy to provide a copy. >> a letter to you in july of 2011. a letter from mr. blake man. eye -- i have a copy of that. that is a definition of a legal agreement. you know that. supervisor scott weiner: it was an understanding. supervisors don't enter into legal contracts with people that are

part of a process. we talked about understanding for how the process would work. >> it should be advertised if it's an agreement. supervisor scott weiner: yeah. mou. memorandum of understanding. >> also the dpw stuff today is not available. the regulations for some reasons -- supervisor scott weiner: okay. talk to dpw. we'll make sure it's available. next speaker. >> chairman wieners, supervisors, my name is brand anderson in a community organization but here as an individual. our supervisor farrell made the same comments as you that if you don't want them they are not going to be there. we made calls about 311 and 1-800. i think dpw who is

in charge of this she should have provided you spreadsheets that said we get 150 calls or 311, here are the dates and locations. i don't know if that's occurred. in the same breath i think at&t should be talking to dpw to say we got a call, here is what we did and where we did it and talk about that to communicate. dpw has a long way to go to figure out how to run this process. it appears flawed to me. i would also find a way to identify the box. if i go to say here is box 3, here is the location, everyone knows where it is. it seems simple to me. also try to identify as mr. blake man said the continuation of graffiti. if it's happening on a regular basis, talk to a neighbor and put a camera and try to stop the perpetrator and identify who is doing it all the time

especially if it's coming out of someone's pocket. i would try to do that one. last thing i wanted to mention if you will pull up on the screen, i would ask supervisors to tell me based on this sheet in the meeting this morning, this locations were in your own area. can any of you tell me that? my point is that you can't. if you go to dpw, click on the right hand side and track down the street number, you can at least try to list them by zip code so people can find them. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is dell seymour. i think everybody in this room is moaning and growning about cable. we are going home to watch cable. i think we should

come out with a better design for these boxes. i represent the tenderloin. we kind of like the boxes because it keeps the piss and poop on one spot. 10 years ago it stopped a bullet that might have got me. we are not too much in opposition here. mr. blake man from at&t he was nice enough to brag about putting three garages in the bayview. did he hire anybody from the bayview. maybe he forgot about that. i'm a former at&t technician for many years ago. let me tell you at&t is not going to clean a box. that's g against the unit it ain't going to happen. we have a bunch of unemployed

kids. let's get this -- them to paint the boxes. you have great ideas by putting murals. that's like putting lipstick on a pig. it's still a pig. mr. at&t can you hear us now. thank you. [ applause ] supervisor scott weiner: thank you, next speaker. >> that is a tough act to follow oh. my name is craig. as a speaker said earlier that at&t will dig up people. for the record i'm not affiliated with at&t. they didn't pay me. i got an e-mail from san francisco beautiful and got a picture of this box making me to believe that that was a threat that was going to happen that they were going to put this in front of every landmark. in fact that's what

got me to speak against san francisco beautiful demand favor of at&t and temperature 90 percent of people who are employed and can't make it. i took time from my schedule to people that need an alternative to comcast can't make it here. when indicated by a stack of cards here by opposition, that is compared to the 825000 citizens in san francisco and over 500,000 voters. i don't want san francisco blighted. if that was the case i would turn down every electrical wire and wouldn't want electricity. who is not here are the people from working in san francisco

who i calculated over $700,000 a year to comcast. anyone like comcast in this room, are we going to protest comcast too. i'm sorry. my apology. supervisor scott weiner: please keep your comments to the committee. we have a rule to make your comment. no clapping or booing or shouting out. if you want to express yourselves by putting a thumbs up or down, feel free to do that. we do ask that everyone allow members of the public to complete their public comment and we'll do the same for you. go ahead. >> thank you, i'm not planning on running for public office. people can boo me if they want. i moved here thinking i was liberal and people that are progressive they need to look that up in the dictionary. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: next

speaker. >> yes, my name is nick ames representing the park association. i guess i should respond. i was going to get to the point to address now. i just wanted to offer a suggestion that perhaps if we are going to pole the neighborhood to see what the consensus it's, -- is, let's do it. let's hear it from both sides and do that easily i would suggest by sending out post cards to each block, north west east and south proposed. that's 1 block, you have 4 blocks. that's enough to get an understanding of how to community feels. okay. having said that, in terms of

noticing, actually on a similar note, i would take that 300 feet is totally inappropriate in terms of noticing simply because pedestrians, well, that's less than 1 percent of pedestrians using that sidewalk. i would say again let's put out noticing. 4 blocks, northwest south east, in terms of noticing, the 300 feet rule makes no sense. 20-day notice makes no sense. i would like you to consider san francisco unified school district and department of public works and department of recreation and parks and in the local parks they can be placed

camouflaged and landscape is already done. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is david chromeey, i was the initial appellant back several years ago when at&t backed out of the discussion because they saw the controversy was so great over this issue and they said they would come back again after doing more community outreach. then in 2010 when the board rejected another appeal, it was only a 6-5 vote. the supervisors presence assured us that those of us in opposition to this proposal that we would be able to stop these boxes if we didn't want them in our neighborhoods. they assured us and that became part of the memorandum of understanding and i don't understand why that hasn't been enforced. final thing i want to say is that

at&t has petitioned the fcc go out of the land line business by 2020. these boxes are based on communication with existing land lines. what's going to happen when they go out of the land line business? thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. next speaker. my name is rochel clayton with district 5. thank you. i wanted to say for the issue about best solutions and alternatives. you mentioned the fact that new technology for the city and that the technology should be upgraded and renovated. first off, at&t is still working on 100-year wiring copper wiring versus u

verse technology. last year they decided to phase out copper wiring in 22 states. not sure if california is onefer those. the disadvantage is that we have dwellings that are built in 1900s that have the same undergone, if you haven't undergone any rewiring it's still operating on the same wiring of the 1900s. that means that at&t assures that the old technology for which the copper wiring is not working with not conflict with the u verse. i cannot see why that is not a security. the other thing is that copper is increasing in price and presently the various issues of storage underground

was all commercial broad band companies would be the best solution. performance and issues such as utility lines continuance and redundancy for mants is not cost-effective. in order for at&t, their competitors, fiber optics and water damage would be the perfect solution. supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is mike. i'm a joe q public member. i'm in district 10. i agree with the sentiment with root -- a lot of the

speakers. i did take time off work. there were a number of people that were very interested in speaking but they had to get back to work. i don't think everyone is being represented at this point that wanted to be including residents. and the working residents of the city. i -- basically this is a map of what happened in our neighborhood. in 1 hour, all of these flags, those are people that signed a petition in opposing this. that was 30 out of 35 doors we knocked on said they were opposed. in the hearing that was considered not significant opposition. i'm sure if we expanded that beyond 1 block we would have a lot more in opposition. what i want to know is who's going to pay for all of our time. why is it up to us to do this work and oppose

something we don't want. why is it the residents job now on a regular basis, we are talking about many hours of time to gather the information and report the problems and follow up and follow up. why is that our job. why isn't that at&t's job. i don't understand. the process really is geared towards at&t making money. we were fine with using them as a service. because of this we actually switched. we have a service that comes from the phone line. it's about four times as fast, less expensive and wei -- we have had no problems with it. i think there are already alternatives. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is tony. i'm strongly opposed to the installation of

cabinets which is right outside of my house. we talked about blight and graffiti. what we have not addressed yet is the fact that they can potentially cause negative health impact due to the radiation that these cabinets submit. as we know all electronics emit some kind of radiation. i have not seen any studies or test that they have conducted that shows they are safe. what i would like to see from at&t is test, studies so they can educate the public on whether or not these cabinets are safe to be installed in these public areas. thank you very much. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is paul wells. i'm from

district 10 and a resident of portrero hill. one thung -- thing i do remember is that at&t had the cable. it was their decision to sell it off to probably a good profit. i know my rates went up. now at this point they are coming back and managed to get a 6-5 vote in their favor with boxes all over the city. i think the demonstration has been made and by most people if not 90 percent of the people who have been speaking today in opposition of these boxes. what they are is plain, clear from any of the pictures that you have seen they are blight, they are target for graffiti and i don't know any person who is assigned by at&t to clean up the graffiti. i don't know of any program that's put in place to

accurately and adequately address the residential concerns of the place a. ments of the boxes. they act as a barrier for anyone to break into a car. they are that big to be able to shield that. now that we can't get these boxes from being installed, let's create some accountability for them being out there and the process by which more of these appeals against them and the 200 to 1 ratio of the boxes being put in are addressed and more people have an opportunity to have them removed like the original 6-5 vote have the basis for the people positive on it where that residents would be able to stop a box from being installed if they want to, thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank

you, next speaker. >> my name is catherine fong. i live in the district. i'm against the proposal of the u verse utility box. my place is across the street where they would like to place this industrial device. the stability of our investment is a necessity, not an inconvenience. it must not be devalued. we believe the present proposal would in fact degrade the quality of life in our neighborhood. our location is a place where property is stable and as such cannot have further ugliness without negatively affecting the property value. please note the dominance of come -- concrete in our public right-of-way. if

at&t makes this even more industrial, it becomes as less desirable place to live. this is a simple economic fact. if this goes down, the city's tax space will go down. at&t has been providing voice and comcast has always been providing cable tv. comcast internet voice with tv and rates want to do the same. i don't have a problem with at&t funneling service to their infrastructure as long as it doesn't result in these massive boxes on our sidewalk. we would like to have an at some point to discuss these problems in a separate meeting with you. at&t's approach to connecting their infrastructure damages the communities need to have clean unobstructed to keep

property values stable it impacts the quality of life. there is lots of underground solutions. >> my name is maryann and i have lived in the district. i'm here to voice my objection to the process use by dpw and at&t. dpw is required to hold meetings to discuss any advancing technology that will permit applicants to install on the ground. we haven't seen any

evidence that these annual meetings have been held or that there is any progress towards undergrounding these sf facilities. i would like to speak to the current solutions as at&t proposed as a fiber optic technology occurred that were placed in the 19th century. this is being advertised as the latest telecommunications technology by at&t and dpw. it demonstrates that at&t's technology is not the best. this is why they are installing the 26 boxes. as you can see from the overhead the addition of the new boxes is also in addition to the ones they

already have. as one of the leading technologies in the world, san francisco should also lead in internet connecticut like kansas city. we need a project to install the fiber network. i'm glad you are starting to look at this. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi. my name is karen chang and i live in the sunset. this is a model for private property, here we are talking about our streets used by residents and distances much greater. residents and 300 feet is not a notification by employing this rule, notification to the public is

under cut and opposition will be less. we've also talked about the process around proposing alternative sites that meet the criteria. this is an insidious way of letting neighbors choose the locations for the sf. this is not only a repugnant consequence of regulation but a waste of time. the fact is that no one wants this in front of their house. the service they claim they did did not ask people if they would accept a box in fronted of their house to get that service. if the community does not offer and alternative site.

this process is unacceptable and chooses which neighbor to punish with sf m. requiring this is a conflict. we've also talked about the community opposition. i would like to request that the public be provided a clear definition of this significant opposition to oppose. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is kathleen. the dpw order obviously express i am

propriety. we received a construction notice. this was withdrawn by at&t in a hearing because they placed the box in violation of item 3 exhibit b of the order. 6 months later, april 2012 we received a second notice of an alternate site. they didn't contact us for 7 months. we presented objections and with were not contacted until september 2012 stating that a hearing officer denied the permit but the director over turned the hearing officer's recommendation. contrary to the order has led to this travesty. we went to the dpw counter and the clerk said to look at the website and ask about procedures and we

contacted mr. quan at dp w and that was not answered. we were asked to use the sunshine ordinance which we invoked no less than nine times to get the information we needed. we logged the appeal to $300 to ask to meet with our supervise. she arranged a meeting with at&t. the next meeting was us asking them to please provide incentives and look at private property owners which is something they should have done to begin with. they ignored the incentives suggestions and we can only assumed they wro it to property owners. we learned this was not successful. >> thank you very much. for

anyone, you can always submit a submissions into record. next speaker, please. >> my name is thomas. i live at 2200 colcan street. i'm in strong opposition to the boxes and the dpw process. our objection is where they would like to place this device. i would also like to speak from the architect