code for the fatty site permits. thank you. i'm the author of number one so colleagues before us is legislation to establish and codify an improved process for the illuminate cabins on the situation of san francisco. i want to thank the dictionary of public works including the street mapping as well as the planning department and the rec and park department for the insights as we created the legislation thank you to san francisco beautiful for the partnership and collaboration in moving this forward and thank you supervisor breed and supervisor chiu for signing on as co-sponsors. this legislation first time will establish binding procedures around is surface mount

facilities i he utility cabins for robust outreach for neighborhoods and allowing for meaningful and real community input and having the murals on their boxes and requiring planning of greening and maintaining that greening on around the illuminate boxes. is legislation for the first time will require meaningful efforts to place on the private prosperity o properties for the annual feasibility on the playing of boxess on the ground. colleagues as i recall in january we held a hearing in the sfaukz on the at illuminated

utility boxes we heard two hours of public genuine criticism and sometimes anger over the process the process at times pits neighbor against neighbor and it's nebulous and confusing to many people. a process in which confusion unfortunately is the normal. and one thing that almost everyone agreed on including the utility providers the process needs improvements. we've heard from neighborhood organizations from russian hill to the castro to the richmond and sunset with a common; right request to please fix the process. under the utility code the california law cities you must

allow telephone providers to use the sidewalks for the installation of their utility boxes and our telephone poles and others facilities. this code provision relating to the telephone code in 2006 after a fierce lobbying in sacramento the cable providers got the extension for the utilities on sidewalks beyond the telephone serves and to include the video services with this stakeholder code san francisco is prohibited from you're going the situations to verify the utility box, however, we don't have the power to prohibit the boxes we have

the authority and this ordinance will accomplish this goal to establish a clear and comprehensive process and the sighting we're not precluded to provide the utility providers to follow a good process and do everything they can to reduce some of the effects of these boxes on our public right-of-way. so colleagues the legislation does it front loads the outreach to avoid pitting neighbor against neighbor it will stop the kicking of the can under did you current process where at&t or another provider will put a box in one location and the neighbor obtains and it gets put

into another neighborhood that creates more problems. the utilities will have multiple viable locations and notice those locations at the same time. the utility providers will hold neighborhood meetings and provide translation services something that's not also happened under the process. it will be in a public setting with all viable locations are discussed at one time it allows the community to engage to attempt to determine if there's an appropriate location that works for the neighborhood. second the legislation requires that utilities make an effort to identify the property offering be market rate for the use of private property not good enough to send out notices to pay a low

price to purchase an easement on someone's property there has to a good faith effort. third the legislation authorizes city demonstrates to impose certain conditions to make sure that the pedestrian safety and circulation and other concerns are fairly addressed it's not clear under the current regulations sighting the facilities. fourth the legislation will require plants that to have murals on their utility cabins should they be improved and today at&t has reduced the artwork on their boxes. the legislation will require utilities if it's requested to

plant and maintain greening around the boxes today at&t will agree to plant but not to maintain the greening and that means, of course, that the adjacent property owners in addition to get a utility cabinet next to their house are sad he would with the maintaining around the greening. and fifth the boxes will have city policies in mind and minimally impacting the neighborhood and insuring the public safety and the placement is inconsistent with the city plan and the city scrapes have been made by the city and once the boxes are on the sidewalks they'll be in permits relatedly

to the ghetto and all new cabinets will have to have clearly visible contact numbers to report graffiti and any scrape or street tree issues. all the graffiti and landscape issues will have to be corrected within 72 hours. the legislation also requires that they post a bond with the city so other is not abated the city can do it and bill the applicant against the bond and reimburse the city for the bond if the graffiti is not removed in a timely manner the public works will issue fines of one thousands a day and repeated violations can lead to the city

requiring a box to be removed entirely and the underground at this point it is underground the boxes is not considered feasible in media locations it requires an annual public hearing by the department of public works where the city departments and utilities and experts and members of the public can discuss the technology where underground becomes feasible. if at that point if underground becomes feasible the utilities will have to place their boxed underground and colleagues, i look forward to a robust fill discussions and hope to have your support. i want to note we have minor

amendments i've distributed most are technical cleaning up amendments one is a location when utilities seek locations on private property the applicant you must offer mandatory compensation for the use of the property and we're including an uncodified section for the department of public works so have those within 60 days of the date. with that colleagues if there are no opening questions or comments supervisor kim >> oh, is there a presentation. >> no, the departments are here for questions. >> i do have some questions well, first of all, i'd like to say thank you for your work an

delineating the surface site predicaments it's important to clarify there's a lot of happiness on both sides in terms of the process for the permits are issued and so i want to thank you for the tremendous amount of work given the constraints we have on the city. i have a couple of questions this is for one of our residents this is for all predicaments but other transit agencies that are not sfmta which is the one facilities on perry street to another part of the city. i'm not sure if they're covered >> in certain receptors like placement greening and for the most part they're covered.

they will not have the same level of progress as the utility companies >> uh-huh. >> w will and that's often the case because with traffic control signals they've got extremely limited processes to much, much more limit universe in terms of where me place the boxed. >> and a couple of others questions. and some feedback one feedback there was a suggestion that the abatement of graffiti is a 48 hour period we require that with 311 and i'm curious about that >> our starting point for the legislation the city administer ed lee issued a surface mounted

facilities regulation that contains the fraction we operate under today. islanders is that order that regulation provides a 72 hour window but i'm flexible on that if folks want to go to 48 hours but we decided to stay at the 72 hours. given the experience i think that would be a sufficient improvement if the graffiti were held until 72 hours >> i think that's a good turn around period i want to make sure we're consistent with the city it's 72. >> it's 72 hours i believe. >> okay and another feedback this is on page 20 line 6

through 10 on the protest it must be in writing and submitted 10 days when posted. my concern is that 10 days isn't enough time particularly if it that's the date the notice was mild. most individuals will have a hard 7, 8, 9 responding to that timeframe can we extend that >> i'll ask my colleague to come up and talk about that mr. power do you want to address that issue. >> on this with supervisor wiener's office the state law it pro sxribz a time that the city can act this which is. >> 60 days.

>> we had to operate within that period so we expend the protest period you know give it 15 days for the sake of argument. i we've in terms of the 60 days we have denied the process under the legislation that a number of some of the community outreach work is before they applied for the permit but once the permit is filed we have 60 days under state law we're trying to deal that in terms of compiling. i have no problem for a longer period of time if it complies with state law >> what are we skiing in

besides what's possible. >> not in the lay is the 60 day process so the applicant wants to identify the facilities there's notice that happens and a public hearing that happens in the evening. right now the applicants have been not meeting in the evening because you people can't participate this happens before the 60 days. once the economy does this the applicant submits to the department that is basically this it is 60 days against. and within that period either a permit is users e ushered because no one someone obtains and there's a directors hearing in which dpw hearing officer hears the objection and looks at

the evidence and makes a recommendation to the director of public works to issue or deny a permit and the permit is issued. if i'm missing anything - >> if i can go from that so the department will receive a permit onions application from the sf m f sponsor how maydays for notice of intent. so the 60 days starts the moment you submit our application >> right. >> and how many days does the did not have to mail and post the intent? well, one second we'll find that

answer. >> mr. song isn't here. >> i guess i'm wondering about the flexibility i think most people i would have trouble responding given my own schedule and the residents have implicated schedules so my question is really - >> if i could go to public comment we'll have this information. >> this is - they work with the city attorney's office and so we'll get a precisely description this is a tight fit i have no problem of extending it. >> i completely other one's the

state law but my one last question is on the cords that are slated for improvement. and i don't know if this is a question for the planning department but we have two cords in the south of market two under environmental review and on folsom central we'll be asking applicants to not place sf m f on the corridors >> we'll try it's an interesting dilemma because we want to avoid some of the cords we're vesting money and up grads but on the other hand, you can see the neighborhoods are not getting the upgrade. >> so i'm from the planning department's icon inferred with

the staff paul lula and others that are administering the review the current policy is for the crossroads getting the upgrade see in your district or castro street we'll recommend not placing them there to make things attractive and safe and corridors it will be out of place. >> so i know that second street falls under that category because of the environmental review but the funding has been obscured for the fillmore but all the funding hadn't been secured will that count the blood that definition. >> it would. >> okay. >> so the second street was led by dpw and we participated in that and folsom street the reason for improvements we

partnershiping with many of the agencies but the urban design their clear we have some discretion in saying what's the onlyal location for those and there are several factors but we've anticipated or have other public ground improvements. >> i'm not sure if in the to planning or rec and park department what is adjacent is it open space through the parks we had a disputed sf m it's not 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,'s