president of the residents association. the problem i have is with the city ducks list. it no longer exist. the technology is so old and cannot be updated and no new name can be added to it and they still have no solution to it. i as the president of the association had to contact dpw, at&t, planning department to get the information updated so that the former president who should not be hassled with these types of issues, there is a real issue with process and there is a simple thing to be able to get this list so at&t can contact people or any other agency with san francisco. that is no. 1. no. 2, i attended a hearing and they decided to do a box walk afterwards, if i'm giving you my contact information, there

should be a hearing. i could not notify members of my association who thought that i had notified. there is another issue with process. if we can get this cleared up, everybody would be a lot happier. thank you very much. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, next speaker, if there are any additional commenters, please lineup, unless there is other folks to speak, miss berkowitz is our final commenter.

>> if you want to e-mail us afterwards, we can make it part of the record. >> san francisco neighborhoods which consist of 48 neighborhoods throughout the city. everybody's district. i think the point is with all of this is that we have reached a tipping point of sidewalk boxes from every company plus the city. and i know planning has a term for it which escapes me for a moment. it's the tipping point. i received several e-mails about these boxes coming into my neighborhood because i am registered at city decks which asno longer exist. there is no place to object

except to the public relations consultant. there was nothing about dpw or at&t. also i do want to thank you for this hearing, however, i would like to point out that it does not fulfill fulfill the mout and again after year two which should have taken place last year. mr. blake man told us this is a box. here is a photo

of a box. the box is here. supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you, i just wanted to share my experience. i live at 529 buchanan. they want to install a box at 503 buchanan.

that address does not exist. i find that to be the most frustrating part of all of this, the lies, the strategy, to trick the citizens and i mean, i think it's been said before. i just want to say that i support them investing their own money in creating an infrastructure that we as city city san san francisco to be proud of. they want to add a fourth box. it seems absurd. thanks for the time. supervisor scott weiner: thaens for coming down. is there any additional public comment on the at&t utility box hearing? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public

comment is closed. i would like to thank you. i know there are a number of items who are forwarded with possible legislation to codify the surface mounted utilities. we'll take the feedback into account. and before i wanted to briefly invite dpw up and at&t up if they want to make a brief comments to respond to anything. i do want to just note one thing. there were some references during the hearing to not allowing tata -- at&t to put the boxes up and there is some moratorium. for those who believe the boxes should not be on the sidewalks, that is a legitimate point of view, state law is not the friend to that view. state law from sacramento gives at&t as a

public utilities certain very clear rights to utilize public right-of-way. i'm not saying that is a great thing, but that is what state law provides. similar to state law not allowing us, you remember when local government used to be able to telecom cast what channels to offer and sacramento took that away from us. we are, i think there are those of us who want to very much make sure that we have a very good process locally and that it's a participatory process and understanding that if we said to at&t tomorrow, no more boxes, you are not putting anymore boxes down, at&t i would imagine would file a lawsuit and probably win. so it is a challenging situation for those of us who feel passionate ly about our use of public right-of-way and the idea of no

more metal boxes in them but also understand that we unfortunately can't make law in sacramento from san francisco. so with that i would invite dpw up. >> good afternoon. thank you for this opportunity to just clarify a couple of points that i would like to make based on at&t's presentation. first the notification language. i want to make clear that dpw translate that it provide notices in other languages. that actually dpw said please provide translation services at&t because we felt it was

very important because there were available to answer in other languages. at&t has not done so at this point and we do urge at&t to provide this translation services for their notice which contains information about their deployment which contain information about their cabinets which contain a lot of information which should be available to other people. secondly the significance to let you know on october 9th, at the hearing mike blake man said the term significance means 200 objections. i'm not sure whether or not where this information was obtained but typically the boxes receive about 400 customers and based on that he mentioned that 200 would mean significant. i just wanted to point out that

recently we heard a site at 201 carter street, at&t went up to state for the record that at&t would not be placing a site for 201 carter in the vicinity of 300 feet due to the fact of significant objections. the significant objections were 10. there has been a location where at&t has agreed not to place it anywhere in that vicinity. that's 201 carter. the meaning of significance, i'm not sure what that means. but it's due to significant opposition. and for the record, 91 still man, it was objected in her district. the person objecting is that this property is going across the street. they couldn't go across the street because it was on cal trans property. it was dpw property.

we've already assessed the place. there is pedestrian access and enough sufficient walkways for others. that's actually a preferred alternate site because it's next to a fence. graffiti report. the dpw order does state that at&t does require a quarterly report. for the report at&t has never provided a quarterly report until july 13th. each report has about 150 sites whereas i pulled the same quarterly report for dpw and it's doubled the amount. so there is a significant problem. if at&t reported in the quarterly report in 150 sites divided in 3 months, whereas if you listened to all the objections today there is more than 50

sites with significant graffiti problems. the underground report. at&t is supposed to provide information which we have never agreed with from the report in 2013. last of all, i just want to point out that the 2,000 protest that we received in 2013, that again i would like to mention to you how signature -- significant that is comparatively if we look at all the other permits combined whether it's sfm, dpw has received 170 other protest compared to all the others. supervisor scott weiner: about 90 percent of the protest to dpw last year were for permits on boxes? >> yes. to clarify there is something that can be said

about improving communication, public outreach, citing, a whole list of items. supervisor scott weiner: the neighbors raise an issue from at&t to do greening on their block with connection with the boxes. did that get incorporated in the permits when it's issued? >> we do in conditions of approval. we did put in a condition of approval. we asked can you provide that information to us and they will be working on that after the permit. supervisor scott weiner: it seems to me and i imagine we'll put that in the legislation that it seems good practice that as part of the process leading up to the issuance of the permit there is a condition that's agreed to between the neighbors and at&t that it should be reflected in the permits just so there is no confusion after the fact.

>> it's placed in there. supervisor scott weiner: that's perfect. >> that's about it. that's all i have. if there is any questions. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. mr. blake man? nothing? great. supervisor cohen, any concluding remarks? supervisor malia cohen: i have so much to think about. thank you for bringing this matter before us, supervisor wiener. i think i have spoken a lot on this particular topic. i'm ready to move along on the rest of the agenda. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. i would like to thank you all for participating in this hearing. this has been a very

helpful hearing on many fronts. supervisor cohen can we continue to the call of the chair? supervisor malia cohen: continue to the call of the chair. supervisor scott weiner: without objects, that will be the order. >> madam clerk please call item 3. we are in a brief recess.

okay we are joined by supervisor breed who is the author of item 3. supervisor breed. supervisor london breed: thank you, good evening now. this legislation will allow the developer of 555 fulton street project to proceed with the demolition and other entitlement. it expands the special use district for another 5 years because it expired. this legislation does not address or in anyway prove the issues around formula retail, the size of the retailer, affordability requirements or any other specification about the retail uses. i'm still actively engaged in conversation on

those topics as i said to you last week on land use and not ready to proceed on that legislation at this time. i will continue to work with the community, the developer and the planning of the department to come up with something that works for the community. when and only when i'm comfortable we have reached a resolution will i bring legislation forward with a retail regarding the retail use. but all of us agree that the 555 fulton street parcel needs to be development. today's legislation allows for the process to complete while we complete our work on the other details. i know the hayes valley neighborhood association has recently expressed an objection to this legislative approach. this just came to me today and unfortunately it came

out of a bit of a surprise. the letter from saturday says we would like to see a supermarket that hires locally and engaged a community emphasizing fresh and local foods and affordable to all neighbors. i completely agree with this. this is exactly what we are working on and nothing on today's legislation impedes from achieving that goal. the legislation is back for a second reading today because last week the committee added some signage regulations suggested by the planning department. colleagues i would appreciate your support and rogers is here from the planning department to answer any questions as well. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, supervisor breed. i believe we did get a presentation. unless there are questions, we don't need another formal presentation. if there are no further comments,

we can open this up for public comment. we have two speaker cards. >> hi. good morning. i'm gail bar from the neighborhood association. what i would like to address today is the demolition of the site. there are several conditions that i think have not been discussed regarding the safety and use of the site in the interim when this property is demolished. we have many examples of properties that remain vacant or have remained vacant and nothing that helps us understand that the developer is going to keep it safe. we have a homelessen campment

right now and the homeowner is not addressing that. we have a church on one corner where we don't know what role the developer will play in terms of a vacant site of what will happen and could stay vacant for more than a year. that's my comment. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. mr. washington? >> my name is ace washington. i'm a long time community activist. i go back 25 years in our community. i go back where i used to lobby with our liberal white groups, the bank. now we have 20 years later a new community in the western district. what i'm confused about this is the fifth district, the fillmore. right now, there is no one voice in our community. so therefore we are disappointed about

everything. i have been monitoring for years in the western addition. now we are at a new era. i'm glad to see our two african american black queens up there because one thing is for sure, we need your help to help us in both of your districts, in the west and south beach. we are coming up on black history month that is unprecedented in here with what's going on historically nr: san francisco. i'm appalled that what is going on in our community and many are not aware of what's going on. not aware. people are talking about demolition. we have a uc extension. we have the feel no more. it is pathetic that redevelopment has gone and left us all alone. have no one to turn to. now, the thing of the matter right now, i'm here protesting not only this project, but every single project that is up in the

western edition coming up. even gary street to break up. we have so many developers and so many developments going on in our community where the redevelopment said there is nothing going on. what i'm here to declare to all of the groups that call themselves representing us in the fillmore, we are all one must work together. my suggestion is hold up everything right now. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, mr. washington. is is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> so, we have, before we proceed i neglected to mention before supervisor kim had to leave. i think the at&t hearing

went longer than some folks had anticipated. so she apologized and wanted know express her apology for having to leave. can i get a motion to excuse supervisor kim from the meeting. okay. so moved without objection." to supervisor breed, any additional commentary? can i get a motion to forward the motion to the committee report? okay. we'll take that without objection. madam clerk, please call item no. 4. >> item no. 4, 1712-1716 fillmore street marcus book and

jimbo's bop city. >> thank you for waiting this late in the evening. i really appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to preserve this treasure in our community. as many of us know marcus is a true treasure in the film -- fillmore and western edition community. i have been contacted by people all over the country about what they can do to help support marcus books. where i bought my first book is where i learned to love reading and how i learned that there was part of a community and place bigger than just me. andrey and julia richardson in the store they ran for decades, it helped me understand what it means to be african american and i know that it's touched so many people's lives. and what is amazing to me is that i am

monks an amongst perhaps more than the group of people in this community because this place has been there so long. this originally sat at 690 polk street. it was a pool hall community gathering for the japanese community. later the bill hosted nep on drugs and after world war ii, this became jimbo's bop city. it attracted musicians such as duke ellington, arm astronomy, fitzgerald and when the

redevelopment agency threatened to -- the hometown community, members of the preservation historical movement came to save this and other victorian structures and created this victorian village where this bookstore is located. the marcus bookstore, jimbo's bop city was raised off it's foundation and trucked 2 blocks to 1712 fillmore street where it became part of the victorian village. a small collection of refuge historical buildings escaped demolition. since moved it's the black owned store and for black intellectualism for empowerment and activism. rosa

parks, james baldwin, malcolm x and oprah winfrey and many known and unknown literary folks in the african american community. it's ironic and inappropriate that the city is landmarking a building that helped san francisco preservation in the first place. if this building was resilient enough to survive two earthquakes, if it was surviving from the west and truly it's historic enough to earn your vote today. i truly appreciate the support that we refund not only from the historic preservation commission but there is planning commission. it's clear that people believe this is definitely a building that is worthy of historic preservation because of it's history and

today, colleagues, i ask for your support in moving this forward to the full board for consideration. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you supervisor, cohen. supervisor malia cohen: thank you. i would like to thank you and appreciate the time you took and for making this a reality. i will be supporting this measure. supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. will there be a presentation from the planning department? miss brown? supervisor london breed: colleagues in the interest of time do you want to? maybe open up public comment at this time. is there any public

comment on item 4? i have some cards. rose wilson, desiree smith and karen kai, c'mon up. >> my name is desiree smith. i'm here to express my support for the jimbo's bop city as a local landmark. we are a membership based on cultural identity. we have reviewed the draft for the landmark case report and feel the report clearly documents historic significance and high integrity

status of 1712-16 fillmore street. the building serves as a living embodiment and the tangible community in that neighborhood. it also serves to tell about the landmark and the history and government intervention and destruction in much of the western edition in fillmore neighborhood. i passed a new article in our winter edition. i hope you enjoy that. i will keep our comments brief. i just wanted to reiterate that we recommend this property be confirmed landmark status. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, next speaker. c'mon