dpw denied the application. the reasons were clearly articulated, mainly being that the food program exists to "provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting food opportunities for mobile food to less congested areas of the city." it was then appealed. and now we're back again. the appellant in his brief states it was arbitrary and inconsistent, the original decision by dpw. he also spends time talking about south of market, 2nd street, and 10th and mission. we would oppose them if they had an application here as well. this decision was not arbitrary and it was not contradictory. furthermore, there is no new evidence presented and no evidence of manifest injustice. as i stated to the board and the dpw hearing officer, this location is saturated with affordable, convenient, and interesting varied food options. you have 17 options within two blocks. it is a difficult area because it's a major thoroughfare north to south on oak and a major east-west, which is divisadero. this is 93 feet north of divisa

dpw says this is objective evidence at paging # and 8 of its brief. if planning only needs to determine that a piece of equipment is well designed, that is the only thing it needs to make in decisions for our city, and here, based on this record, the neighborhood context was never taken into account at all. some things can qualify as well designed in and of themselves, a tesla automobile might be a well designed object, but if i stuck it on a light pole at 3400 washington street, would it be unobtrusive? what if we took verizon's antenna and strapped it on the head of a person in this room, would it be unobtrusive? it's the context in which the equipment is situated. there may be locations in this city where that equipment would fit without disturbing the environment, but this chamber is not the place for that, and neither is the presidio heights neighborhood. most of the houses and buildings are rated class a. that's rare. residents have spent well over a century maintaining their lush lands and tree scapes on each street. they're blessed with sweepi

an option by sf-puc and dpw. >> commissioner johnson: so sf-puc and dpw are the reason we're rezoning rm1? >> well, the property owner needs access to their land and this seems to be the most feasible option. >> what about a swap of the current parcel well the puc parcel? i'm not trying to redo the settlement, but were things like that considered? >> many options were considered. it's the puc parcel. they must get maximum value. they cannot split a parcel and have a portion that's basically useless on the market. from the puc's perspective, if they're going to sell a surplus asset, they're going to sell it at the highest value, which includes the dpw parcel being thrown in at the same time. when you have a larger parcel thrown together, it's a higher value. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm glad we got that clear. i think the piece that was missing for me is the reason that we cannot provide the easement, so i got it. >> and i should clarify, the reason why it's going to rezone technically, it's standard practice that the unzoned would take -- so it would transfer the property to the

so dpw encourages small businesses to go out of business and fire its employees. we employ a lot of people and a lot of people need the jobs to take care of their families. it's not just me. it's my employees. it's the sub contractors that we hire. the people that deliver our food. coca-cola. the people that take care of our uniforms, architects, contractors. we help the infrastructure of san francisco. we renew everything when we build. if it's an old building, we've to go up to code. we have to make it earthquake safe. and all of those things are costly. a 600-square footrest -- foot restaurant can cost you $400,000 without union labor. they say they don't consider mobile restaurants selling what brick and mortar do. if you are oversaturating our food, people stop wanting to come to our business because, oh, i will just take it from the cart right there. i have a lease to uphold. the dpw has said that they don't take public safety into concerns but allowing propane tanks on city sidewalks. it's illegal for a restaurant or apartment renter to have a propane tank

is it dpw? is it puc? is it -- who is it? how do you control the bird's nest? the thing that sets me off tonight is we all saw on that screen that big loop of wire that was just hanging there because probably some worker anticipating that that wire will go somewhere in the distant future leaves it up there because it's easier. meanwhile in one of san francisco's most important locations for tourism, most important location historically, this loopity loop is hanging as part of the bird's nest of this telephone pole. who manages this? >> i cannot speak to that particularly, but i would like to defer -- >> i knew i would get an answer from somebody. >> can i have the overhead? for this pole, it's owned by pg & e and the california state public utilities commission has the rules for the attachments to these woodening pg & e-owned poles. so they're the ones setting the rules for the telephone lines. the wireless facility that's under review under article 25 in planning is just this antenna and the radio transeiver. article 25 defines a wireless facility as antennas

and have you gone to dpw and said, okay, you started this program. can i have some help? when did the food truck program start? >> 2014. >> 2014. have you gone to the governing bodies with respect to food trucks and asked them -- obviously, there's been a change. there were zero and now there are a lot. and whether they've reviewed the impact of those and if they're in a position to start changing their legislation or their -- the rules. >> yeah. >> have you done that? >> to answer your first question with the study, california restaurant association and golden state restaurant association do similar things. i handle the bay area counties. when things like this come up, unless you golden gate restaurant association is not getting involved, we would step in. attempts to reach out and be a part of this were not getting along, not happening for them. she called upon me last week. i was really sick last week, so i was only able to talk to her on monday. as far as approaching the public works department and discussing this, this is something we've discussed in our offices that

has dpw been able to determine how many blocks or miles this legislation would allow for? >> though we have not taken a look at the consecutive blocks we have mapped out the total number of streets within the pdr districts. we have the total number of streets here and a total number of blocked segments if you need that information. >> supervisor cohen: mr. shaw, my colleague is asking if you have a map. do you have a map for the overhead? >> i do not have a map, currently, no. >> supervisor cohen: so what are the number of blocks that are dealing with testing. >> the total number of streets is approximately 236 streets and that encompasses 236 blocks. >> supervisor cohen: how many? >> 1,448 blocks the number of streets in the pdr district. if we take away the high impact corridors the ones of safety concerns, then we end up with 130 usable streets and that equates to 761 total blocks. >> supervisor cohen: okay, so when we take out the high impact corridors it leaves seven hundred and what? >> 736 blocks. >> supervisor cohen: available for testing. okay. are you able to dem

. >> and maybe the small business and dpw is a big part of this equation. and the colleagues at dpw are collaborative, and we are confident they will be supportive. >> would they be interested in coming? >> i hope so. we'll certainly invite them. >> they are a huge part to this equation. i know the planning department will work around their issues and a lot of policies in place. and that is probably another question that's probably going to be arising a lot, and how to get past the historic building aspect that planning is likely to be mostly involved in here. >> it is what it is and we have to do our best on this. all right. thanks, bill, for your work on this. >> certainly. >> is there any public comment on item six? seeing none, item seven. discussion on accela permit and project tracking system. >> good morning, commissioners. this month has been an extremely busy month on the project. we've completed all of the walk throughs and prototypes that we wanted to complete in order to start defining what the new solution is going to look like. that included w

resources from dpw, from the hot team, from the police and from the department of public health behind the scenes, but i think it -- in the future, i'd like to see the department of public health at the table itself. and it really was that -- that joint effort, everyone working together, that made the difference, and so i'm as frustrated as supervisor cohen and kim with the fact that most, if not all of the homeless services in the city, with very few exceptions, are in our three districts. it it's frustrating. it's not fair, and i've always fought and will continue to fight for more resources for our districts that are dealing with the bulk of the city problems. but i think we need a shift in our understanding of navigation centers, and instead of seeing them as such a burden, seeing them as a real opportunity and as something that very much improves the safety and atmosphere and well-being of a neighborhood. and i think that we always talk about navigation centers in such a negative way, all citing, not in my neighborhood. and that just happens in the experience in the mission distri

. >> thgs what dpw said. quote, had verizon wireless instead applied for a permit to install a new pole on the 3400 block of washington street, public works would have had to deny the application, and let me repeat that. would have had to deny the application. now, let me read just a little bit from the city attorney's brief in front of the california supreme court waiting argument in t-mobile against the city. this is what mr. herrera has to say about the same issue. this court has characterized the rath of way rights granted to telephone companies as a limited right. the right of telephone corporations to construct telephone lines in the public rights of way is not absolute. that's from page 18 of his brief. mr. herrera's entire brief is filled with discussions of article 25 and 27, and he says on page 35, that the two are equivalent to each other. i suggest to you that you really don't want to be on the wrong side of what the california supreme court hands down having the information -- having a record wit

three yiers and another three years we get an additional option for 15. >> we can discuss this with dpw as i understand the contract is following the rfp process. he'd we'd see what is necessary to add for future capacity. >> maybe a moot point with the 15, but i was trying to anticipate rather than having to come back and do everything all over again. can you talk a little bit about, as i understand it, there is going to be training and hiring, local hires to do the monitoring? >> yes, the monitoring is public works program that the port may opt into. i would like to note that on average, it's going to cost about $167,000 a year to monitor per p facility. so that would be -- per facility. that would be a substantial hit against our revenue. we haven't made a formal decision yet about whether or not to accept those services. but in terms of the character of program itself again, i'm afraid i would have to defer to julia on that one. >> what i'm getting is i like the idea of local hiring and job creation. >> it's a local grant. and in this case, we work with hunters point family through

he was the chief administrative officer and then he was in charge of the dpw. in that role, ed was very affable. he could be very helpful. sometimes the relationship with the mayor and the supervisor wasn't always good but as a department head, you always felt that ed was someone who was open to your ideas and helping. all the changes when someone becomes a mayor, as you know in san francisco, politics is a blood sport. basically, he was in a lot of people's minds, up into the time he was elected mayor, he was someone who knew how city government work in terms of nuts and bolts. and someone who might be helpful to you in implementing policy in his position as a department head. >> supervisor, i have to ask you, san francisco as a whole, its position not all in the nation but around the world, what impact will this have? >> well, i think particularly with the unfortunate situation in washington, cities like san francisco with their sanctuary status and other progressive ideas is vulnerable to a lot of scrutiny and a lot of pressure. how we deal with that in the

the city government, i think he was the chief administrative office for awhile, and then in charge of dpw, department of public works, and i had a good -- most supervisors had a very good relationship with him. you know, he was easy to deal with in those days, and he also had a good working knowledge of the city and could be veryings very helpful to the supervisor, even if the supervisor wasn't getting along with the mayor at the time. you know, he always feel that he was comfortable with mr. lee, and a lot of that changed, of course, with politics, but it's a blood sport in san francisco. however, this is still a loss, still a shock. >> tom, it's early to talk about legacy, but i know you are an lgbt activist, a cause near and dear to your heart. what impact do you feel ed lee has had on the city and looking forward, what do you think he'll be remembered for? >> caller: well, i think he, as a mayor, continued the, you know, positive empowering roles that most recent mayors have played for the lgbt community. legacy, i know that, you know, despite the controversies and, you know, trajecto

we've met with dpw on december 7th to get an update on all the easter projects, so station five, station 16, chief williams will address it. adf, which is our ambulance deployment facility. we like to have regular updates to make sure that they're keeping up on the timelines and so forth. and i feel pretty good about everything. we do have a significant delay in station 16, which you will hear a little bit more about with chief williams' report. that evening on the 7th, i went to mclaren lodge where there was the park and tree lighting, and then, on the 11th, i had a meeting with raiders that had been brought in, people that had expertise in the field of fire investigation and fire prevention. they bring colleagues in from throughout the nation to kpum in and score exams, so they had expertise in those areas to score the lieutenant's exam for the bureau of fire chiefs and bureau of fire investigation. i believe we had 33 people take the h-22, bureau of fire presentation exam, and then, 13 participated in the h-24 over at the bureau of fire investigation exam. and also in the last period,

findings but, to answer your question when it was offered it was offered during the work hours at the dpw cesar chavez yard it was at the beginning of the day before they went out so it was slightly different and it was designed to be facilitated by bringing it to you by making it free but it was not designed to take away from work time. >> the other question i have, as a diabetess prevention study and we know that weight is an important part but insulin resistance is related to exercise, tolerance and lean bod owe weight so do you actually have the ability to get a hemoglobin a-1c and the active participants or some other objective measure that would actually relate directly to diabetess or pre diabetess as a opposed to just weight? >> so, the screening was weight plus the cdc weight screener and we chose not to do a blood draw because of the realities of recruitment are hard and it's very hard to get people to show up to an information session to commit to a 12-month program to come once a week for 12 weeks to be like and we're going to take your blood twice was more than we thought we

begin holding public workshops to help explain this to property owners, along with colleagues from dpw and the mayor's office of disability and the planning department. so with that, i'm happy to take any questions. >> seeing none. thank you. >> item 8 c. update on major projects. >> tom hui department of building and inspection. as you can see, the value for the major project goes down roughly 5% but still okay i think. any question? >> just to reinforce to make sure we have all the policies and new guidelines we're working on, the interim control, new buildings coming down the line falling under the category of tall building. >> yeah, we'll have it to work on. >> any of the major projects, let's be ahead of the curve making sure they're following the interim policies. >> what about issue the tco, we ask them to do it. >> yeah. thank you. >> great. 8 d. >> good afternoon commissioners. the numbers for october, building inspections performed 6044. complaints received 400. complaint response 24-48 hours, 371. complaints first violation sent 69. abaited complaints with notice of violatio

you think it is dpw. that is not true. we have a truck in the tenderloin and witnessed the sfpd involved in property confiscation. you lose medicine, from the mental health perspective other kinds of things people are losing survival gear sets folks back. that is something that sfpd can certainly address and follow the property policy that is implemented by the aclu and lawyers' committee not followed by sfpd. the context professor covered really well, but i want to move on. >> president turman: what are you asking of us? >> sorry. the recommendations we have a number of them for you all and commander is going to be talking more about what is going on with this. we want to look at dispatch protocol, exam that. if it is not a police issue, meaning a safety issue or something outside of the context of sleeping or resting or being homeless and present we would like to shift that up. if i am the public and calling to say there is a homeless person. now the city is going to send a police officer, and we want to look at that. th