the san francisco land use & economic development committee. i'm supervisor wiener the chairman the committee to my right is supervisor jane kim our vice chair additional to my left is supervisor cowen our clerk is andrea and i want to thank sfgovtv for brovt the hearing specifically jonathan and jessie. madam clerk, any announcements?. yes. please silence all electronic devices. and copies of any documents should be submitted to the clerk

and the items shall appear on the april agenda otherwise stated mr. clerk call item one >> to establish the face mounted site permit and . >> and okay. as we indicated this stem was heard at a full hearing reject due to a glitch in the fee norris of the newspapers we weren't able to act on it but we continued it to this week and had a public comment reject. so item number one colleagues to refresh your memory is long overdue in terms of setting standards in the mr. president of surface mounted utilities on our centers the utilize, boxes

it's received strong support will clarify and improve the process and require early public outreach in terms of the mr. president of those utilize boxes require a stronger relationship with the soourntd neighborhood and also require for example, the utilize placing the boxes allow for murals to be placed on the boxes and also requested greenery and maintain the greenery and make good faith efforts to site the boxes on private property if this is a possibly and an early assessment about the technical feasibility of the under combroun the boxed. that's a brief recap we had a lengthy hearing last week and that's where we are today so

colleagues from there's no comments or questions i believe madam clerk i think supervisor cowen wanted to be a co-chair so. okay. thank you cohen >> sure. >> thank you supervisor kim open up item one for public comment 3 cards (calling names) public comment is two minutes so come on up and you don't have to go in the order i called you. >> good afternoon. welcome steven curry a resident of crocker amazon. one of the issues that i'm very concerned about it is process and the conversations between at&t and the public. on thursday i'm filing on appeal

for one of the surface mounted facilities going into our neighborhood in a park where the emotions that that sent to me last week basically, the sacrifice mounted facilities are not allowed in the park do curb cuts to get into the park they've told the neighbors they've put that on the prefery part. that's not the only reason to appeal it there's no working relationship what i mentioned in january about a conversation in mitigating the issues that the neighbors have either appealed or have concerns with there's no e-mails been sent i know you can't legislate being a good company or neighbor company but

with at&t their needs to be something of them for the community. so i just wanted to bring that forward >> thank you. ms. olsen. >> good afternoon. welcome i very much appreciate the legislation donates a long time coming i have 3 tweaks i'm requesting section 2 seven hundred a e-1 the italics are to be put in the replacement of the surface mound for the same utilize use be installed on the foundation and the same smaller ones. second next to be revised italics added and eliminates

some the right-of-way eliminate the middle and include or insert prehigh school they're on the fringe of their description or have a traffic sign on the block and the public notice of intent to submit plantations to be revised to read the frobt address including the assessors block and lot for the period of locations. the reason for that at&t uses internal billing addresses that are non-existing addresses so thank you very much >> thank you must olsen. >> ms. workingman we have others (calling names). >> good afternoon, supervisors dee dee workman from the chamber of commerce representing over 15

hundred businesses has reviewed the site permit we believe there should be a reasonable process for the public input above ground locations that enable the systems to be installed giving san francisco and the businesses the technology. however, is legislation is to sdurng any technology in the facilities and it will significantly increase the cost including the dpw and other companies it will increase other fees of the planting and trees and it will increase the costs to businesses it don't think the internet for their businesses and it seems like that will delay the upgraded systems and

reduce competition and the update high-speed delivery ability it should be elevated by the city controllers to ascertain this on depends as well as local businesses and heard by board of supervisors budget and finance committee before you vote on it >> thank you many workman. >> chairman and supervisors from the san francisco beautiful thank you four co-sponsoring this legislation. remedy for private property including the small property owners and merchants that allow on the pedestrian access to their building fronts we think this legislation is going to improve the process by which community can participate and thank you for your support and look forward to seeing this

legislation move forward so at least we can have it in neighborhoods and on the ground >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors teddy director for external affairs for at&t. we want more clarity and certainty in the surface mounting fats order as it relate to our high-speed we have the proufl approval to put in the public right-of-way. i want to get this into the record the 7901 we've expressed to you already the second thing is that the option of economic analysis is supposed to review the proposed legislation that comes too brown the board of supervisors there's been a

demonstration no economic impact. i'm not an economist but i look at 5 hundred permits and the it by 75 hundred that's a 8 point millions impact >> 52 percent. >> so as we look at the requirement of the office of the economic they're to look at the sustainability and prosperity plan specifically it called u calls out telecommunications this is not to do with any provisions it's only for the screening so the impact vs. no, i would ask that we just slow

down a teeny bit and get it over to the financed to see the impacts of the city. >> the numbers you put up there that has to do with the requirement of at&t the questioning to plant the greenery around the boxes. >> yeah. on the proposed permits that are outstanding for the light speed produce. >> is there any additional public comment on to me okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim >> thank you. i want to thank i guess the dpw and the city attorney's office for walking through the steps. i still prefer an increased number of days now i understand the process how it fits tithe within the 60 daytime line i'm

willing to forego the that amendment >> thank you for all who come out last week and could i i think spice it today where everyone stands this has been a challenging issue for the city. we know under state law with have constraints we can't band the utilities from placing their utilize boxed on our sidewalks they have right rights but we have the right to regulate the mr. president and make sure the utility boxed are being placed in the niece of our community. when you look at what this requires in terms of doing early front loaded outreach to neighborhoods so instead of doing it in the current manner which is not as tight. when we look at the requirement

we bring a broader area of the neighborhood together with at&t for other utilities identifying multiple sites where we only look at one site where the kick the can down the road this is a significant improvement to get it front loaded and deep community involvement in placing those large units on neighborhood situation i respectfully disagree with at&t the greenery and mural when you're talking about placing very large 4 foot a little bit bigger on the people's on the situations outside of people's homes on the sidewalks it's a minor thick to ask that if we want to put >> mural on the box that the utility should permit.

that if the community wants they're to be greenery around the boxes which everyone agrees it attractive and gets graffiti that's in the an unreasonable request so they should maintain the greenery as opposed to having the adjacent property owner so i'll say this came up last week, i did meet with at&t and at&t did send us a letter expressing the concerns. we invited at&t understanding there's significant disagreements we won't agree on but addressing the concerns they have because there might be some

amendments we agree to at&t limited their letter to the philosophical agreement between the murals and unfortunately, it was a fair limited back and forth in her opinion of the issues and it's not a criticism of at&t they've you disagreement with the elective i respect their rights to have the disagreement but i want to thank my elective aid in getting this done and all the cities departments that are extremely helpful including the city attorney's office. supervisor cowen >> one of the issues i've heard from my constituents is a desire to see the murals along the boxes i think the at&t rep is in

the room you guys are prohibiting people the ability to put murals or paint on the utility boxed because of the painted compromising the integrity of the box? >> ms. rehas. >> good afternoon supervisor cowen i'm with at&t. the new light speed cabinets have a recidivist you'll get a missouri and look like washed out watercolors so that's the first thing on the graffiti vs. the second thing did your office want to be the ash take care of art >> no, we have an art

commission that determines what's art so the public art around the city that's what on the public right-of-way; right? >> open a private utility cabinet on a bona fide cabinet. >> so certainly we don't need the defeat but helpful if there's more flexibility i want you to sustain on this filmmaker you're putting on the new cabinet you described in the anti graffiti. >> so that comes with a warrant on the cabinets to maintain. >> what's itself name of the company. >> al can tell. >> thank you. so that comes with a warrant to maintain the temperature in the cabinets because inside the cabinets are computerized

technology they have fans in the cabinets to help maintain the temperature but when you put dark colors the manufacturer says we can't guarantee it so we taken that question back hundreds of times at this point since 2005 and that's the reality of the warrant >> do all seven hundred and 26 cabinets have this coverage. >> yes. the cabinet idea i want to be real clear we took that back and asked the city why they don't allow it on their structures in the public right-of-way we haven't gotten an answer he want to know why they're not included in the

legislation. >> so on the murals mta there are mta traffic control boxed for example, the church. >> on third and oakdale. >> the city is willing to do that there's interesting there are large box as i recall there were box that were temporarily removed and there was an outcry and since been replaced. >> really popular tons of them in oakland and to i see, i see. >> did this pertain to the city as well. >> the mural requirements

pertains to all of the utilize boxed. >> so even those of the city. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. so colleagues if there are no additional questions or comments i would entertain a motion to forward item one positive. >> okay. >> we'll take that without objection.. okay mr. clerk call item 2 >> item 2 is a hearing on the streets with the hunters point shipyard and the candle stick development. >> thank you. i requested this hearing today along with my co-sponsor supervisor breed relating a to a technical and important issue in terms of how your neighborhoods are described

and that issue is the width and a street clearance of our roads in san francisco that plays a critical role in safety. the issue really is how to really balance all of the various needs that our roads serve in san francisco. we know that we have regular discussions in the city in terms of allocation of roads whether to cars or bikes or pedestrians or parking. we also know that in terms of is safety of our community the width of our roads matters. this is really a question of balance. and advancing sometimes needs that seem to be competing whether or not they are. the issue that confronts us is to consider all the public

assess and taking them stookt. colleagues i'm sure you're aware of the san francisco fire department expressed a view in the hunters point shipyard and the candle stick which is the largest development happening in san francisco that the anytime street clearance and the street clearance is the clear space in a restraining order from parked are parked car to parked car instead of it been 210 foot lanes to be expanded to 36 feet a thirty percent increase in terms of width and crossing and so forth. this could lead to having instead of two, 10 foot lanes to widower lanes.

i want to really start by making it clear i've said this before i don't think any of us can say i have tremendous respect for your fire department in the last month alone the fire department has brooibl responded to fires in any district is the women and men of this department continue to amaze me in saving lives. so i think we're all in agreement on that this isn't an issue about the fire department but how we structure our roads and good to have a public dialog about the issue. i'll be honest over the lacier year every two i see the chief smiling we've got discussions

about pedestrian safety and roads in san francisco. the fire department has at times expressed concerns about various pedestrian safety improvements like bulb outs and we've had discussions we've had an epidemic of pedestrians being killed on our streets. we've got way, way too many people killed and although skaegs and enforcement are important no matter how much enforcement and education human beings are imperative and the design of our streets has a significant impact in terms of overall safety. and this board of supervisors and the mayor and the voters we've all said again and again and over again, we want our streets to be safer.

the board passed the better safety safer streets and easier pedestrian crossings. the board passed a legislation by the supervisor kim community investment & infrastructure commission us to voegs. the mayor are recently issued his pedestrian safety strategy. which has very, very important step forward in terms of insuring we're going to make the jerry changes and others changes necessary in order to have safe streets and it repeatedly talked about the role that crossing distances has in terms of making our streets safety and making

sure we don't have overly wide streets. i want to make clear even though we're going to be focusing on one project candle stick point today, this has this issue is very, very pronounced ramifications for the development around the city. we have a lot of large projects in the pipeline in addition to candle stick point and the hunters point shipyard we'll follow we know that we have park merced and treasure island and the transbay district and other projects sclaj locate this will come up again and again i called this hearing because what happens at candle stick point on this issue whether we increase the minimum street clearance on

residential student side to 36 percent increase that will become most likely a precedent for other developments throughout the city. and i think that's very important while making the discussions not just the forestry depended but the public process is important to make those decisions. i also want to stress this is a very important issue around pedestrian safety we know when you have widower streets cars good faster and more accidents happen. there's a longer distance for pedestrians crossing especially for the disabled it's harder to get across the street but not just about safety but this walkability of our neighborhood

we have a long time policy in the city over the decades of designing neighborhoods and neighborhood streets in a good urban design way so people are part of their community and people can walk around we have streets conducive to that vibrant life. we went through an unfortunate history in the 40s and 60s of going in the opposite direction in addition to building freeways we took neighborhood streets and widened them into semi freeways but cutting back situations we did that by demolishing homes and you look at some of the streets we're dealing with now geary boulevard was a wonderful street turned into a semi freeway and san jose avenue and caesar chavez and germany are a

street, street after street was widened and we video pedestrian problems today and for decades now we've been spending a lot of time and an enormous amount of money trying to fix what we the in the 40s and 50s and 60s like caesar chavez so my view is rather than making them safer with a street and spending years fiksz it that lets get it right in the beginning. that's what we're going to be discussing today. i think this is a very important issue even though again, it might seem technical in nature when you look at different neighborhoods and streets in san francisco or in any city around the world so much of what a neighborhood is diagnosed by the state and we see it again and

again when i see streets overly wide particularly side streets whether to widen residential side streets beyond the 20 foot clarence agreed to in 2010 and passed by the board of supervisors then it has significant impact into the liveability and walkability. i wanted to note that 20 feet is the time clearance under the state fire code. 20 feet is also under applicable traffic design standards nationally and the appropriate city clearance. when we look at the streets in san francisco there are many pretty high volume streets that are around 20 foot clear