near the sidewalk. >> i believe it has to be on the sidewalk not across the street. >> so rec and park is the property owner so that's the district frontage. >> thank you supervisor kim and we'll have staff get back with the timeline and supervisor cowen. >> great i have to have some of the staff here we have a meeting in january. >> january or february. >> nevertheless, we had a long hearing about this topic and i want to have dpw talk about this the surface mounts and there was some discussion around sometimes how challenging it is to work with corporate sponsors does it difficult still exist.

>> yeah. the question is whether or not the process still has issues in terms of proper notification and that's correct. we've had several hearings subsequent to that hearing in january and what the major issue we continue to experience is the lack of community involvement and hopefully with this ordinance that supervisor wiener has introduced there's going back going to be more community involvement especially that's identified in the ordinance that is in the applicant needs to submit to the contingent and it will get the community this list with two sites. we have currently there's only one site that the community looks at and so this preferred location list there's more than

one site so hopefully, this will help iron out the majority of issues >> thank you, ms. chang i want to express one thing i like it increases the community involvement to one inconsistent concern and in various parts the district there hasn't been a strong enough community component that we guarantee those meetings are happening and more importantly they're happening after business hours a lot of people are working and want to be actively participating. a that's it >> and it's an important point in terms of changing the process to require the applicant to identify a number of locations at the same time notice everyone

to get to the community meeting not just working with the community on one block and go to another alternative hearing and there may not be a hearing so it's a changing process. i think for everyone but that's on all sides but doing it up front and in a comprehensive way it won't make everyone happy but reduce some of the frustrations we've seen around the process. so colleagues if there are no additional questions or comments we'll opening for public comment it is for 2 minutes i have 4 cards (calling names) if there are additional public

commenters fill out a card in front of the room. i'll call a few names if you'll come up >> hi i'm ray i'm speaking on behalf of the richmond. we highly endorse the legislation that scott wiener and the staff put tooth it's well written and deals with one of the top problems we've had with the top regulations it puts neighbors against neighbors now at&t out of the blue would be proposing a location for one of the boxed perhaps in front of ever someone's house or business and up to the obtain terse their basically told you come up with the alternatives that's unfair. because the business owner

shouldn't have that obligation it should be at&t. and that's the way the new legislation is written they have to come up with two alternative sites and that still pits neighbors against neighbors but didn't require the secondarily battles between neighbors. and this sets it up as a better field or landscape in which to discuss that issue. with the court decision by the court of appeals that you turned down the appeal there will be some accomplishments >> thank you. next speaker, please and the folks i call can line up - wait i'll call a few more

names (calling names) i'm sorry. i'm not able to read this name. >> i'm peter the point of san francisco beauty but i'm outraged the state elective has allowed companies to hijack our sidewalks and i thank scott wiener for this legislation it's a slam dunk good idea for the reaps supervisor wiener said. it's going to save a lot of strife and anxiety and help the residents get along. thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon community members i'm nicholas the vice president of the land park

association. we've got a lot of boxes in our neighborhood i appreciate this proposed legislation it's seems to be comprehensive and hits everything we're concerned about and really support it fully support that. particularly by the amount of effort that was blatantly not put into the outreach of our community i'm pleased that's part of the legislation proposed. thank you >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm ted the president of the hate ashbury association we've obtained to the placement of some of the facilities in our neighborhood. i want to show you the notice that gets sent and contains this

photoshop effort to show you what the facility might look like on the sidewalk. the thing i've noticed about those notices the photograph shop creation is about 20 percent to 25 percent undersized. it's literally lies about the size of the boxed and that's the way it should be solved through legislation is to require that a few size make up be taken by the utility to the site and placed there and photographed to that's a real photograph and a cut off of a human figure not how big that door is but a 6 foot person

next to the mark up. secondly, if the legislation didn't call on the specifically the notification that is being sent should be sent to a somehow foot road us from the proposed site and thirdly, it's important that the city has skin in the game is one that park or at&t park or other public land can be used for citing this this is a suitable location as well. at&t keeps on insisting those or off limits but we need to see this in legislation as well >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon chairman i'm kissing it on the executive director for the san francisco

beautiful thank you supervisor wiener. i want to echo the words of our where had president we know this legislation is a slam dunk we've been listening to the public and works to address each the issues so thank you on behalf of the board and members. there's others who couldn't be here by thanks for this process it's a huge improvement thanks for your support >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi i'm gary the president of the urban heights neighbors and on the neighborhood association. at&t uses the loopholes in the current system to avoid taking care of accident boxed and it's currently, the responsibility of the residents to afford it.

there's a droifb by mayor ed lee to exhaust all possibilities in placing them on private properties if any has been placed on the private prospers we're to see them this is to make n this a balanced but not perfect but a healthy start >> is it true, mr. weighing. >> good afternoon jim with the chamber of commerce. this is a 36 page of legislation we don't see many of those and it's extensive and necessary because this issue is a neighborhood battle for years but your concern is there does the legislation expedite the installation of the 21st century

technology and systems for san francisco businesses and residents does it encourage the installation even if excessive products for cable television and telephone services for the same residents and businesses. if the stated goal is a clear set of goals and rules and process we can support it if the outcome is to put the most modern technology in the technical metrological driven city that's our goal in cooperation with the residents and businesses to see the best technology is available to all of us >> thank you, mr. lazarus. >> next speaker good afternoon. i'm ms. butler

in the noah residents i want to compliment you for your efforts. i also want to second with the gentleman from the hate ashbury said about requiring at&t to provide an accurate make up b of what this is going to look like and with american people accurate designation of where exactly it is going to be placed if that hadn't happened they need to do that it could be included in your legislation. and also have concerns i realize you are trying to address the neighbor pitted against neighborhood but i'm not convinced that the neighbors coming tooth and talking about

various locations the what if what if at the end of that meeting the neighbors are not in agreement about where the box is going to be placed and if this happens i can see that then who decides where will the final decision be made and by whom that's not in the legislation >> in the department of health of public works. >> okay. >> and i notice at the board of permit appeals the lawyers from at&t stayed that one cabinet will serve 3 hundreds households in the city and according to the last census fingers we're going to have more than 11 hundred of

those boxed on the situations of san francisco it's not a pretty picture and i my final 0 thing what is the significant legislation are we addressing that. >> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> next speaker. >> hello supervisors thank you for having this hearing. i'm here on behalf of san francisco beautiful. i want to thank supervisor wiener for taking the initiate that everyone has been doing by installing - to install the facilities in the neighborhood just being a lot of pain for the people in the community. i believe through this new process the community will be involved in choosing the appropriated location in the neighborhood and also building that by having the translation services available this

community will be at the table and feinstein i want to echo what my colleagues said about sf does support the legislation >> thank you very much is there any additional public comment on item number one. i'm sorry, i have your card and forgot to call you i apologize >> i'm jim i'm with the hate valley association i want to thank the supervisors for their works. a couple of points to reinforce we're the tech capital of the world and yet in terms of technical involvements for a smaller cabinet or not within 3 hundred feet we're stuck with

at&t's own technology and we also are accepting their answer it can't be any other way. i proepts prop we have a technical consultant on retainer to look at this and for the potential for underground and we need our own person if we have them do it we have the hen watching the henhouse. there are disterrorized of the boxed in addition to them being undersized in the photographs they're not shown playing them on top of the platforms so the idea of having an accurate representation is really possible and finally in terms of the mrachlts recommending them

is all good having a performance standard to have 50 percent private placements for them to say they've tried it's inaccurate. >> thank you very much thank you. a thank you. any thomd on item one seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. gibner related to the timetable >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. two questions came up prior to public comment one was whether there is a deadline for the applicant to distribute or send out the notice of intent the answer is no the ordinance didn't set a timeline for the applicant to publish it's notice

that it's notice of intent in the applicant were to take an extended period of time inevitable the applicant will consent to a longer than 60 daytime period regarding whether we can extend the time period beyond 10 days but this item coming back to land use next week we'll discuss whether it's possible to extend that period or not >> thank you and just to in terms of the timing and legislation because of the glitch with the noticing of the fees under the newspaper we're going to need to continue this for one week we can't put it out of committee today but out of committee technique my intent

next monday to notice that for a committee report. supervisor kim >> seeing there's a continuous until technique i'm happy to hammer those out what want to say to the public it's not expensive. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney if i make that amendment technique it will not be subject active. >> yeah. if we can do it inconsistent with the law i have no problem to extend to to 10 days supervisor cowen you want to see something. >> if there are no additional comments if i can get a motion to continue this for one week. before we do that my apologizes

the amendments that i distributed at the beginning can i get a motion to adapt the amendments >> motion to adapt. >> we'll take that without objection. on the motion to continue for one week that will be the order. thank you. madam clerk, will you call item it is to vacate a portion of kent street as part the rue railroad improvement project >> and supervisor cowen is the author of this resolution. >> thank you, colleagues the resolution and it's companion ordinance are necessary for the councilman to make an emergency repair for the bridge, however,

a recent inspection shows nights in need of repair i have distributed also some other amendments that will specify the temporary recent 40 for the right to maintain a bridge we've until we resolve any flying issues we have mr. john updyke a represent if the sfmta. we're here to provide answers to a few questions you may have a have a brief presentation so mr. updyke please proceed with our presentation >> thank you supervisor cowen and members of the committee john updyke with the real estate department. i'll keep this brief.

as the supervisor mentioned you have technical amendment that is to address the issue that arose regarding the title we'll need to have is making neither quiet will action then follow the vacation process and just to protect this we'll introduce the amendments so the rights for rail operations won't be inhandbook subsequential. briefly i'll show you a couple of maps. those are actually from presentations that the sfmta continues to make to the community under the outreach process this is the bridge location which is the area of the vacation before you now. and i want to dive in a little bit deeper and show you the

specific location. of the street vacation which is a portion of the gwyneth, 92 come and ma kilogram as shown on the map. as the supervisor mentioned it is all about the existing brooklyn bridge in its delipidated condition and this is for the project a shot of the bridge. i would dive in with further daily detail and this bridge was constructed in 1911 >> that sounds like it's right showing it's age. as am i. this particular item is a notice of intent to have the hearing for the street vacation which

will be at the full board at the dates noted in the amended resolution. as the supervisor mentioned i'm joined by mta staff if you want further details we're happy to answer questions but i'm happy to entertain your questions. we're seeking a no recommendation full load with the out of committee load >> thank you, john updyke. >> thank you. i'd like to call up the representative from caltrain for a short presentation >> thank you. would you like to see the presentation we've prepared and shown to the board is that it and sure if you have any other comments you've seen the

presentation haven't you >> can you brief go through to refresh our memory. >> i'm patrick with the project with the caltrain bridge and what i have is a presentation we showed to the board when we declared the state of emergency to inaccurate the repairs. a quick history of the structure it was built in 1907 not up to current codes and we've been planning our replacement project since 2006. we've been to the community several times and reached a point we're planning on moving forward with the bedroom construction that closed the

street and redirecting traffic on to other roads. on in late march we've conducted inspections and ongoing spriksz inspections for known conditions some of the conditions we've found warranted a immediate action train traffic was shot down to reduce the structure process and it allowed us to continue with the safe operating conditions i have a couple of pictures. those are some of the pictures a little bit farther back we're looking at one of the main gir derz for the support beams and closing in on the conditions.

is conditions we're looking at is a cracked main underage for the structure this crack has been growing for years we've been mortd it and it is cracked now all the way through putting us in a position to lower the load and activate an emergency repair. additionally as this happened a decrease in the traffic in the area we've had a critical defamation in the crack where the web the main center portion of the beam is bending out of plain and it's a failure mechanism and it will continue if not addressed. so eave completed our emergency

inspections based on this condition and have a r5ir7 designed the board issued a state of emergency we issued a state of emergency contract they've been fabricated has we speak and once the repairs are in placed currently, the traffic is 10 miles per hour then we'll be able to get traffic up to thirty miles per hour and we'll taking a hit of 4 to 2 minutes from the train this is a temporary fix and it is showing of the overall condition of the structure we need to move forward quickly with the replacement project.

which is bringing us to the vacation requests the portion for today. and then that walk from here it moves into details we're sharing with our board with the timeline. if there are any questions regarding the technical position i'll field them out >> colleagues, any questions. >> no questions. >> thank you very much. >> mr. chair i'd like to bring i bring opening up one more presentation from the sfmta. >> good afternoon. i'm with the transportation authority. i'll provide some brief context as john updyke showed previously this fits in with a larger he set of projects.