into the public right-of-way that's why it's so narrow between the streets and neighborhood fingertip that said, however, at&t told the hearing officer at the hearing if i can again ask the overhead to be put you have u up it's identified an alternative location and at&t will be perfect happy to install its equipment at that location the hearing officer should have held the hearing open and ask at&t to renotice and made a recommendation i'll respectfully disagree with the board they have the discretion to reverse it and the department follow its own rules and make a recommendation that's would be

appropriate i want to clarify all at&t is seeking through the appeals is to ask the city follow the s m f order and the basic process that the city set up and agreed two >> i have a question i keep on repeating and repeating and repeating the same thing and you said they've that expended past the point but in this case your own box walk took one hundred and 10 days later. that's simply a gungs when the department scheduled the hearing so when the department by state law has to act within 10 days of an objection schedule a hearing within 60 days so after the

department sets a hearing on the objections that will schedule a box walk that's contemplated by the mou and meet with the objectors and attempt to identify alternative locations that we are prefer able to the community the delay does not come with the at&t it is for the department sets the hearings one hundred and 50 days after we notice that's the chocolate hold no, the process >> could you put the picture back on the orderly with regards to the location. >> i'll put the big one. >> can you show me specifically where this is the equipment bed has to be put. can you point out with a finger or pen when you did the box walk

where is the equipment to go >> what the retinas proposed it at&t will put it's cabinet between the two buildings so where your finger is. >> that's correct. >> my next question to the public was somebody present during the box walk so could someone step forward from the public? i'm sorry. could you stadium again >> nick. >> were you present. >> i love the way he shows the picture he shows the back we're talking about the front there's

not even a fence that's the bush it goes 15 feet across. sorry nick. >> t so it was off the sidewalk between the buildings off 15 feet from the sidewalk so not in the rear area. >> this gate w is where we keep the garage cans for the maintenance people. >> that's fine. >> i don't why they show this picture from the back that's at front. >> so counselor. >> could i add one point about this affirmative it needs to be pointed out one of the problems those cabinets are very large and you notice that from this

photograph that this alley way between the buildings is to give people egress arrest the gentleman said you keep on addressing it if the rear they're talking about the front of the property so there's no reason where why you go to the rear to access the front because the front is the front you understand. >> i do understand let me point out from at&t's prospective for two reasons this is an inappropriate location so if there's a fire people can escape. >> so your missing the point. >> you have a question commissioner. >> never mind it's going to go

on i'll wait until the end of the momentum. >> it's a circle discussion. >> i think we show of stuck with this and aggregate this we don't have the information to look at f this on a case by case basis this is nonsense. >> we have rebuttal from the department ms. short. >> and i'll not have anything other questions. >> i'll focus on one point the department didn't schedule the hearings until after the box walk that's how the process has been flowing until this year now the department has been skelgd the hearing in 90 and symptoms after at the hearing by previously the department would

only schedule the hearings after the box walk were held in this case, the box walk was in november we then scheduled the hearing after that so again implicit so extend that. >> okay commissioners the matter it submit and i have a question for the city attorney what are the options that at&t we may somehow end this to the department. >> we don't have the option to amend the appeals only the authority to grant the appeal or deny the appeal or grant the appeal with conditions but remand is not an option but the request continues to be made by not something the board can

accommodate. >> i'll move to deny the appeal on the base it was appropriate. >> okay. on that motion from commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda >> okay. that motion carries. on to item 14 this is again at&t california vs. the public works on balboa street on the excavation permit to evade in the public right-of-way for a surface mounted facility. mr. johnson >> so i'm going to be endeavoring to be brief.

so again, there's more than 2 hundred days between the date it at&t filed it's implemented application and the date of the denial. as with many permits i've previous argued at&t had a box walk and there were other locations and the base of the denial if there's more preferable locations at&t was asked to start the process over again. i want to ask mr. blackman come up and make a few comments about the relationship between the 60 day issue between the box walks and the interim between giving notice and getting a hearing

>> good evening. so when we scheduled the hearings the hearing is not a requisite we were faced numerous times we'll hold the box walk immediately after the complaints being filed and wait six months for the hearing to be scheduled and criticism from want public why did i have this meeting and wait six months for the hearing to be hearing so we schedule the hearing and now because finally the dpw has been scheduling them within 10 days of getting the complaints they're not scheduling the hearings by at this point wisp waiting to hold the box walk until the hearing was scheduled so we wouldn't

have the feedback before the hearing officer >> i'll be happy to address any questions if there are any. >> thank you. >> ms. short. >> thank you i'm going to focus on the statements that were just made the staff who schedules the hearing and has the hearing are our staff i will say that at this time which this application was submitted and when the box walks were held the department did not scheduled hearings until after the box walks were held there was communicated to mr. blackman we have e-mails from at&t staff okay. those sites

are readies foreclosure hearing we've done the box walks and we have 0 antes overwhelms to what hold the positions so we schedule the hearing after the box walks were held so at&t was asked me the box walks mr. blackman wanted to hold to the thirty day realize and communicate that to his staff in going to we're trying to work together and then at&t is scheduling the box walks prior to the hearing the hearing is a requirement in each of the cases because there's been objections thank you. >> any public comment on that

item on 45 balboa street seeing none, mr. johnson you have rebutt rebuttal. >> i'd like to make one specific point in rebuttal on this. so you've heard the respondent talk about the timing of the box walk and the timing of the hearing again, i have to point out that the city makes clear in pits brief for this particular street location even if after the contingent walk took place it took another 90 days to get a hearing. and decision 20 tb the department that's obviously not within 60 days and in violation

of public utilities code nothing else to add >> ms. short. the only requisite if the box ways was in june so our hearing beyond that was simply the function of the availability of the hearing slot but again now we have after meeting with mr. blackman we're scheduling the hearings immediately within the thirty days timeframe >> you talked about the slots for the hearings do you do that for hearings on other matters. >> no. >> commissioners the matter is submitt

submitted. >> i'll move to deny the appeal on the basis that the it was denied appropriately. >> thank you on that motion in commissioner president lazarus. commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. commissioner honda >> okay. that motion carries 4 to zero and the permit it denied we're on item 15. again at&t california versus the department of public works and the map is on hate street appealing the denial of an excavation of a surface mounted facility. mr. johnson >> thank you. so just a couple of quick points

on the specifics of this permit. the permit application was originally filed for had a street on august ethnicity at&t didn't receive a final decision until march that was more than 2 hundred days after at&t submitted it's application throughout the period at&t both in fasting meetings and in written corresponds repeatedly ritsd it expelled the city to comply you with the law especially, after the box walk it took the cities 90 days and that's not if compliance with the law i have nothing further

to add for this particular location >> ms. short. >> the only thing i'll note again, the application was submitted august 9th and the box walking was on november 22nd that's month months later. >> public comment on 2001 haze street, please step forward. >> thank you for your patience this evening. >> good night i'm hemming e helen we're the private property owners and with at&t is doing us is making a hardship basically, we have one of their boxed on

colt street. at&t is not following the s m f order which at&t's claims is a rule or regulation they only picks and choose part of that when it benefits them dpw was not wrong to deny at&t. we are asking the board of appeals to uphold this. i attended the box walk under january and during the hearing at&t acknowledges two aeflts locates that of acceptable for the s m f both locations are less impactful than the hay street location. we have experienced with their s m f they're going a poor job of

maintaining that box i'm constantly calling 311 to getty graffiti promised a 72 hour turn around it's in crafting color that attacks for graffiti we've incurred damage to the sidewalk 20 surveys of concrete was replaced because of damaging the surface of the sidewalk. so i encourage you to stick with your denial and everything will be fine >> thank you for being patient with our process. >> is there any further public comment okay. seeing none rebuttal mr. johnson. >> so again, the only thing i'd like to add for the purpose of a record at&t followed the process

that was envisioned it identified alternative locations the hearing officer had the discretion to hold the hearing open and renotice and follow the order and make a recommendation that was a contemplated by the order as the rodent explains this evening they've decided they don't like the rule and it's in vision of law and according at&t respectfully asked the board to reverse and grant our appeal with instruction. thank you >> ms. short. >> i think the departments response to that the s m f is a guideline not an ordinance and the spirit of the guidelines to insure sufficient community

notification and so we are simply asking that all of the various locations have the proper notification to be presented at the public hearing. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> my turn? was it uphold >> to deny the appeal. >> deny the appeal that the department acted appropriate. >> so on the motion by commissioner honda to deny the appeal commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. and commissioner president lazarus okay. that carries and the last one at&t california vs. the public works is on the

mapping on 17th avenue appealingless march 5 of an excavation permit relating to the surface mounted facility. mr. johnson >> thank you, ma'am already a few points specific it was more than 2 hundred days between the date it at&t submitted it's application and the department issued a denial. there was only one obtain our that appeared at the hearing and the basis was they preferred one of the alternative locations that were identified on the box walk. the hearing officer recommended the wednesday, may 7, 2014, on the basis interests other feasible location that might have less than an impact the department didn't have the

discretion no evidence or finding in the record that the original blocked the public in any way therefore it acted laufl and the board should reverse i'd like to make a point on the s m f order. i've heard the respondent saying those are discretionary guidelines that the department is free to ignore it says that's an order and it makes that clear in the body of the language. the city is required to follow its own rules and regulations when it's progressing the permit applications and to the extent it is in violation of the law and unless there's questions i

have nothing further to add at this point >> thank you, ms. short. >> i'm responding to the application the box walk was held 4 months later. the dpw order is not an ordinance. it was intended to provide a process that allowed for multiple locations to be considered. we're noted following that process because multiple locates are not being proposed so again, we're following the spirit of those guidelines and because this process has no one been working it will be codified in an owners as proposed by supervisor wiener and credit card at the land use committee.

i don't see anyone here from the public so mr. johnson your rebuttal >> i'll point out the respondent has made for me, the argument i've been making you've heard her get up and she said the department is not following their own guidelines i can simply say as a matter of state law this is was an order and the department is bound to follow it and given that you've heard respondents and see they're not following their own guidelines i'll request that you reverse on that basis. thank you for your patience and i'll further add to the extent there further appeals i'll be happy to august them so long as at&t is not going to be

following this tediousness >> let's do this commissioner. >> ms. short. >> thank you just a few points i don't think that state law has anything to do with a dpw guideline it's only a directive of the depended we've tried to follow and clearly theirs issues and at&t is selectively choosing their own staff asking us to delay skelgd hearings until they've been to have their box waungz and didn't schedule those

right away. >> commissioners this matter is simpleminded. >> i'm going to move to say the department denied it properly. >> on that motion commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. and commissioner honda. thank you very much commissioners that was our last item that was our end of our business and adjourned

>> on december 28, 1912, san francisco mayor stared into a sea of 60,000 of constituents that gathered at geary. the berth of the first publicly owned transit system in the city, the san francisco municipal railwa >> hello, i'm nona along with the legacy of voters in san francisco i'm here to discuss 19th street only june 3rd the city and county of san francisco through it's port commission mfrtsz 3 and a half miles of

waterfront along the bay and it currently regulates the maximum allowed heights they run from 40 to 84 feet they usually need approval by the planning commission and the board of supervisors those changes don't currently require the voters to approve it prop b has height limits in effect unless the city voters approve the height limit any ballot question to there those must specific the proposed height limits in you vote yes. you want to prevent the city from port property to exceed the heightened limits unless the city voters have approved the

vote limit increase in you vote no. you don't want to make the change. i'm here with lewis former city attorney and proponent of prop b 82 >> thank you. >> and joined by on opponent of the measure thank you. i'd like to start with opening comments that from each of you ms. renee your opening statement. thank you to the league. i think we all agree the san francisco waterfront is a truly special place. and if you do we're asking the voters to, yes on b and, yes open b is support by is sierra club 78s be neighborhood alliance and affordable housing alliance and others citizens. prop b is simple and scared u straightforward it says waterfront h