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 c

it very clearly for a process for people to object to boxers and work with at&t or not work with at&t and address a hearing by dpw ora appeal or permit appeals. i encourage you to work at&t or dposhgs department of public works or work with a resolution in the dpw hearing. this hearing is not a substitute for that process. i know for anyone in my district and i'm sure this goes for my colleagues we are happy to provide information about how to participation in that process. the purpose of today's hearing is to get a status report on how things are going, where we are and where we think things may or may not go in the future. the department of public works will be providing information for you as to where we are going and we'll invite at&t after the presentation from dpw to talk about where it see's the process and the planning department is here today if questions arise. the planning department has at the request of myself and others gotten involved to work with dpw to make sure that any boxes that are placed on our streets comply with the better streets plan because we have a plan that was adopted unanimously by

at this address. does 311 have the ability or dpw have the ability to say this is an at&t box or mta box? >> they have some information but not all information because some of these cabinets are older. where we have information we are able to identify it as an at&t box but it's not always the case. supervisor scott weiner: the call goes to 311 and do they route all of those tickets to dpw or does it go directly to the owner? >> it depends on whether or not they know who owns the cabinet. if unknown often times, dpw will go and an abate it because they want to make sure it's abated in a timely manner. supervisor scott weiner: when dpw an abates the graffiti is it billed to the owner? >> currently for the other utilities i don't know. for at&t we did look into that. we are developing a process now where we do invoice. the reason why we have not done that is with specific guidelines at&t does have a special coding on boxes and they have special requirements for dpw to mitigate the graffiti. because of that 48-hour turn around, dpw is going to paint it and we couldn't implement that invoice i

dpw. so the next page is the hearing process. it's posted by at&t and the object or has 20 days to object to dpw. they can do it through e-mail or they can mail it to us or fax it in. we respond to every single objection. >> so after that, when dpw will schedule a hearing when we receive an objection whether it's one or 100, we notify the objector 15 days in advance. the hearing officer will make a decision and the director will either adopt ora prove or disapprove the determination and we issue a final determination. the common concerns as you see on the powerpoint, the common concerns listed will be ada path of travel, there are too many cabinets in the neighborhood, it devalues property, they are not to scale which is an issue because people when they see the notice posted in the area they don't quite understand the actual significance or size of the cabinet. graffiti is the no. 1 complaint we receive at all hearings. screenings and hearings, they don't understand the property owner would be maintaining the greening. access to vehicles, impact on aesthetic charact

i didn't get any information from at&t information and/or the dpw. so would you please, i would like to cooperate with everyone to see what was the attitude, the situation we can work with that. if without any notice or information, i will be reject this kind of process decision. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is john morris representing the home owners association at 2208 mission street adjacent to our building a box is proposed on carlos street. a number from our building did object to this. i want is to describe from our perspective. we were informed that the walk is only during business hours. people did take time off from work and we were joined from other people in our neighborhood. we had very specific reasons for this location, physical constraints. the city was processing a permit for the sidewalk cafe. it has since opened. there were other reasons as well. we presented other ideas and locations one 100 1100 feet from the location. one of them being a car repair shop with no doors or windows

ors do have trouble to attend. so they are not communicated to at&t. the next thing they hear is at the dpw hearing and there is a lot of concern. supervisor scott weiner: the next thing we hear is they get a notice to their address. let's say they do it here instead and some other people maybe not be very happy about that. i know it becomes a very challenging situation. if a new address is chosen, is there a new noticing that happens? >> it depends. sometimes, let's say we are at a hearing and there is an objection. let's bring up 121, we received 55 objections for that site. the community was able to work out an alternative site. the hearing officer can keep the hearing open for 120 days to look at the alternative site. if it is kept over for 20 days, then the noticing is not so long and the noticing is for second set of days. that second set of folks that are impacted by that site don't get the same view process in terms of the length of the notice being kept out and it won't have the same due process because we are not having a second hearing. supervisor scott weiner: what if you were n

all of those addresses on file so we have a record of what we sent and who we sent them and at any time with dpw or member wants that information we have that available. once a notice has gone out and if there is any objection to dpw about that, we then will respond in like to how they commented to dpw and they forward all of those issues to us. if you send us an e-mail we respond with an e-mail and just clarifying in the statement, in that e-mail we respond we try address whatever questions or concerns they have. sometimes they have a question of why you are doing this and what's the purpose and the graffiti? we try to answer that question and we mention we are willing to meet with them about the proposed location and that proposed location if it's not to their liking we are willing to entertain any alternative locations about an alternative site as long as it meets the guidelines. we will schedule that meeting. i will tell you we now schedule them during business hours. we've scheduled them at night, we've had them on weekends, holidays, mornings and afternoons. whenever we have scheduled them, s

dpw exerts that this because at&t has not been denied any permits. dpw cites to shall hear and determine appeals with respect to any person who has been denied a permit or license and the city /kpharter does not define what a permit or license is. dpw argues that /s-s not denied a permit or license because the order and because we haven't had permission to file for an excavation permit and this creates a catch 22 situation where we are being told we can't appeal because we don't have a excavation permit and we can't apply for one because we don't have approval to apply. at&t cannot take such an approach because the order prohibits as i stated and section 4a 1 -- if i can put that up there -- >> the city's interpretation is actually correct and proper because we do not approve the location that does not prevent at&t from submitting an application because the site has not been approved in this case. this is very similar in many ways to the previous that went to the board for appeal. it was based on the excavation permit, not for the approval of the site on 22 avenue so the department's trying to be very consistent in our interpretation of that portion of

at&t is not build for graffiti clean up. dpw acknowledged that several weeks ago at a hearing. >> if they do they get time to reply or under the courts disapproval of the boxes in the neighborhood. many of the organizations individuals have had to leave early and cannot make to the meeting. i'm submitting a document with 29 more comments that, but stay the same as all the of the community members have said. i'm going to read one of the comments that i think grasp all the points in a concise matters. the boxes are ugly and will be magnet for graffiti and pollute the street scape. at&t shouldn't have any right to take public space for it's private interest. if at&t wants to sell it's service boxes. >> good afternoon, my name is seata ve. i'm here to read the comments from one of our members. she says "i live on telegraph hill. we live here and share the sidewalks with the hundreds that visits north beach and fisherman's wharf every year. with homes all overlooking the bay with a golden gate bridge over all. we are going to mar all of this with utility boxes? the dream we all live here, the dream people carry in their hearts that

i didn't get any information from at&t information and/or the dpw. so would you please, i would like to cooperate with everyone to see what was the attitude, the situation we can work with that. if without any notice or information, i will be reject this kind of process decision. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you very

or 311, here are the dates and locations. i don't know if that's occurred. in the same breath i think at&t should be talking to dpw to say we got a call, here is what we did and where we did it and talk about that to communicate. dpw has a long way to go to figure out how to run this process. it appears flawed to me. i would also find a way to identify the box. if i go to say here is box 3, here is the location, everyone knows where it is. it seems simple to me. also try to identify as mr. blake man said the continuation of graffiti. if it's happening on a regular basis, talk to a neighbor and put a camera and try to stop the perpetrator and identify who is doing it all the time especially if it's coming out of someone's pocket. i would try to do that one. last thing i wanted to mention if you will pull up on the screen, i would ask supervisors to tell me based on this sheet in the meeting this morning, this locations were in your own area. can any of you tell me that? my point is that you can't. if you go to dpw, click on the right hand side and track down the street number, you can at least try to list them by z

at&t and got mr. blake man involved and someone from internal affairs, davis or polk street and okay file a grievance on dpw. don't present it to muhammad but to an e-mail address. i outlined one protest or for jordan park and i gave them the alternative. then i said these are the orders that we would like it done. i have a telecommunications background. there are certain software and hardware requirements to be met and i understand these things but i don't think there were any real analysis of my alternatives. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. i live in district 7. a box was placed in my neighborhood. the one thing i will say now that it's been completed competition has come into my neighborhood and my actual cost for services has been reduced. thank you for allowing that to be installed. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, mr. marshall? >> hi. my name is jim more shall. we had a rather bad experience and to the opening comments that you made supervisor wiener and kim, i couldn't agree more with needing guidance as to how things are going. thing are not going well. we rec

permit at issue truly is that at&t has satisfied all conditions of the permit and dpw has a chance to say we are denying the permit for reasons one, two and three in this letter or this application, then thosish shies would come before you for /aeu analysis and appeal. >> i think what our city attorney just state d makes sense to me because the permit that will ultimately be denied is the permit which we have jurisdiction to hear and it will be included in that as the matters that you brought today on appeal. so we will get there. i agree, this must be frustrateing, but that is part of the city process. i understand your argument on the law, but i don't want to mess with the city process because i don't want to operate outside our current jurisdiction. >> i heard something a little troubling, and i don't know that this is germane to the particular issue. the represent said that at&t was asked to go out, meet with the neighborhood and identify alternative sites and it looks like they're trying to circumvent that. it seems like there was an opportunity to find an alternative site and that's being looked over. >> for the process, i think -- i think we are so inclin

dpw and there is no mitigation at the hearing. there was no conversation at the hearing and i mentioned it on january 6th. my issue here is if you are not a member of an association or you are not the president or the vice-president or the secretary of an association or just john q public, they are not going to contact you. that is bad practice. i heard from lynn where these boxes cannot go and one is in a park. one they noticed for us is in a park. that's just -- supervisor scott weiner: thank you. >> thank you, supervisors for calling this hearing. it's been a long time coming as you can tell from the attendance today sentiment within the community is really building up. san francisco beautiful did sue the city and at&t about this project and the exemption that was given to at&t with regard to environmental impact. but, this hearing which is long over due is really important and will allow us to understand some of what's been working and what's not been working with the process. i also want to thank dpw for the report they made which really outlines clearly some of the frustrations with the community and it sounds like at&t has frustrations with the process. i wan