will result in a significant effect, we first a look at the number of different questions that we can ask. the one that seems to be the focus of attention today is whether there would be a demonstrable-the fact of the aesthetic. we would look at whether it would result and the fact that is relevant. we considered whether there would be a considerable demonstrable negative effect. we had knowledge that there may be an environmental effect that is adverse with requirement -- we consider looking at the entire project that involves -- they would not be placed in any two facilities. they would not be in immediate proximity to one another such that the effects of two or more would be additive.

they would not be visible from a given location. in terms of pedestrian circulation, you would not have an added to the fact -- additive effect. president chiu: they would not be visible? >> the boxes more than one would be not visible to a given viewer from a single point of view. you would not be able to see more than one of these cabinets if you were in a given location. you would be able to see them clearly. because they would be dispersed throughout the city, each installation is proposed to be within 300 feet of an existing cabinet. they identified those existing

facilities, and they are dispersed throughout the city. we don't find that there is a potential for the multiple locations proposed to result in the fact that a given site -- and defects -- in effects at a given site. at the analysis, we looked at cumulative impacts. there was a question here today about definition. it would be useful to look at the definition of cumulative impact that is provided in the guidelines. the cumulative impact refers to two or more individual a fact that are considerable for which compounds or increase other environmental impact. the individual effects might be changes resulting from a single

project are a number of separate projects. the cumulative impact is the change in the environment the results from the incremental impact when added to other foreseeable future projects. for our analysis, we considered the impact of the project as a whole, we have an acknowledged there is more than one location. we evaluated the impact of the project by itself and we considered if there are any other projects out there that would result in the installation of facilities of a similar nature that could come by in the impact of the project. it would not result in a significant environmental effects. with knowledge there is what would be considered a negative affect or an impact.

is there a significant cumulative effect? it did not find that is the case. we did not see any evidence that would tell us otherwise. >> your test seems to be if you are standing at one box he can't see another box? >> i provided that as an example for the purpose of asthmatics -- aesthetics. in the example, this is a matter of visibility, that there be a visual impact. you would not be able to view more than one facility. we also consider the effect of the project as a whole. and whether it would have a demonstrable a negative affect

on the city. just the placement of these, could degrade the urban environment to such a degree that there would be a substantial adverse effect? there doesn't seem to be evidence if that is the case. >> if a driver or a cyclist is going down the street, it will likely be seeing the box after box. >> the example is perhaps that a driver would be going down the street or pedestrian, and they might in the course of their travel observed more than one of these proposed cabinets. >> it could be every other block, perhaps? >> it would depend on the individual circumstances of

where the cabinet is. the base of the information provided, it would not be located in more than one of them on a given block. to the pedestrian or motorist who is traveling along and observed more than one of these, we think the aesthetic impact of that is less than significant, because the views observed would be entered into and temporary. the profile of these structures, the nature of then is that they are relatively small and the context of the broad visual environment. it would be in the context of buildings and street lamps. they're not going to be so prominent that we think of pedestrians or motorists noting every time they pass it to the

extent of the environmental effect. president chiu: it could be a matter of interpretation. what you think of as pleasing and not be what others think when we walked down the street. >> that is correct, it is subjective. supervisor wiener: i have a question similar to what i was asking the appellate before. we have had discussions around the potential or not potential of undergrounding as well as other ways of removing boxes from the right of way. we have also had the discussion, maybe not today, but it was referenced in the planning department document whether

other carriers might want to enter the market. and with that, the impact instead of 700 boxes, we're talking about 200 boxes. there seems to be some either confusion or dispute about whether these kinds of factors are relevant in determining what the issue. the planning department did refer to each of these items. that these are items to be evaluated during an environmental review. my question is, are these relevant? >> if i may respond to the

question, if i understand your question, one item you raise is the matter of underground. for the purpose of the environmental review, our charges to the value in the project as proposed. we evaluate whether it would result in a significant environmental effects. we can consider whether there are mitigation measures or changes to the project that would reduce those impact to a less than significant level. we are also obligated to consider alternatives to the project. the project that came before us, the above-ground technology, we did not find there was a significant environmental effect of that. the department of public works does require that the applicants

for excavation permits that would result in installations of the equipment in the public right of way demonstrates that they looked at the possibility of an underground technology. there must be a safe effort to determine if it is technologically or economically feasible. and >> let's assume everything goes well for at&t today. if a neighbor objects and a notice is given, they object to a box. there is a hearing. how would they be able to argue that they need to underground this? is that a feasible alternative? and if they reject that appeal, as the board of appeals? >> i am seeing a nodding head

over here. i would like to defer that to him if i may. >> the process for the facilities are very clear within the order. the department provides notification to the public. if there are objections, it would go to a department a hearing. at that juncture, the citizen would go by the provisions. it would go by what is feasible, what is not, which is appropriate and what is not. there will be a recommendation by the hearing officer for final decision whether to approve or deny this facility. that decision is appealable to the board of permanent appeals. >> i understand the process.

my question is let's start with the underground of what is the appropriate time line in terms of when it is appropriate to evaluate that. and do we evaluate that at that stage? evaluated? doesn't get evaluated by the board of appeals? this seems to be a lot of confusion as to where that kind of alternative fits in in terms of the decision making process. i want to get clarification from whichever department on that. >> i would be happy to answer that question. in order for a project to proceed with entitlements, he must first be reviewed to determine if sequel provides. -- ceqa provides.

we conducted our assessment as proposed and did not include undergrounding. it can move forward for review under any required permit. my understanding is the review for feasibility. >> it would be precedent for other permits? would there be litigation of this specific issue and the board of appeals? >> the dpw order spells out a process, a series of steps before dpw would issue a permit. before the applicant can

request a site visit, he very beginning of the process, they must show that they made an attempt to enter into agreements with private property owners. they must also be able to demonstrate at that location that they have considered underground. that it is not technologically or economically feasible and the location. once they have gone to that point, it will conduct a site visit. they will engage in the permit review process. the environmental review needs to be done before any permit decision is made by the department of public works. there is a process where they will have three locations at

that particular site. a notice will be sent out for those particular locations as to which of those sites is appropriately. all of those things typically cut-before the environmental review is done. no decision has been made at that time. >> they did issue a permit, or maybe it was just that it was requested. they made a decision as of today about whether or not it is feasible. >> away that this matter brought before the board of supervisors is that the categorical exemption was issued by the planning department for all 726 boxes. but an appeal is not timely

until the first permit related to the project is issued. they went through the steps. they considered an underground at the location. the understanding is that they considered the issue about whether at&t approached the private property owners. they did issue the permit. at that time, it was right for them to bring an appeal to the board of supervisors. >> they have made the determination that is not feasible? >> that is correct. >> can you explain the basis for that determination? is it global or something specific to this site? >> and the department evaluated the location. it is at the corner.

there is currently a box at that location. it is surrounded by hedges and other vegetation. the proposal was to install a second cabinet. we evaluated the underground of the box ha. remove all of the vegetations that would provide a situation where it is more unsightly and by exposing the existing cabinet. that would not be inappropriate location at this case. >> the results might be different? hong >> correct. >> it is not globally unfeasible to do it? >> as technology changes, we're supposed to go back to all previous year's applicants. they evaluate changes to

technology. as it moves forward, it might become economically feasible. it requires a certain locations to be underground. >> have a determined that as a general matter, is feasible or not feasible? i know that the specific locations might be appropriate for whatever reason. but at&t has indicated that it is not feasible. there is not an explanation for that. i am asking if i have a position on that? >> as a whole other matter, you have to be deeper than 5 feet in order for you to put a lid over the facility. it becomes part of the sidewalk. it requires a walking area

around this facility inside the cabinet. of a sudden, it is a deep facility that becomes 8 feet by 12 or 13 ft. it turns out to be about nine by 15. at that point, it is doable. and from the appropriate use of the public right of way, it becomes very problematic. now you have been companies losing that space. >> i will defer to my colleagues. if you underground hit, there will still be approximately a 3 foot tall unit above the sidewalks, and air-conditioner something like that. is there an opinion about whether that is the case?

about whether it is feasible or not to underground it with a completely flush sidewalk surface? >> the department doesn't really believe that will be feasible because there needs to be meters to record power usage. in these facilities, and a monitor it and it requires ventilation. it may be possible, but is unlikely given that we have not received any other types of facilities that would not require some type of ventilation. >> doesn't automatically mean rising above the sidewalk? >> the facilities are typically flat, but they have great's

which is a different type of facility. i can't speak to the business plan or the technology that at&t uses in this case. it could be that there are environmental concerns. it would not allow for an open crates. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. following up on the questions through the chair, and did you in your analysis, look at what other large places of the cities are doing and around this? >> the department did not make that evaluation. we were following the in this specific case he. supervisor campos: was it possible that other cities might

actually be undergrounding this type of equipment? >> it is possible that various municipalities have certain locations. for a variety of reasons. >> i want to follow up on a couple of points. going back to the issue of cumulative impact, i want to know exactly what the department's decision is. is it that it doesn't really matter? >> with the planning department, the analysis and evaluated the project as a whole. there is no project of this

nature or any other that i am aware of. ceqa guidelines, class 3 for example, the guidelines permit certain structures of a single- family home. there is not in america threshold for a project of this nature. the planning department does not find that there is a significant threshold. i'm sorry, i am distracted. the analysis that included the 726 cabinet, we did not assess whether a lesser number or a greater number would result in a significant effect.

what is important is not so much of the number that the specific location and character is, the physical nature of these cabinets. supervisor campos: the way you pesent the analysis under the category of exception, the number doesn't matter? so by urinalysis, if at&t wanted to install 10,000 of these units, it would not be different from the way that you presented its. if, for instance, they said it is not 726 a 10,000 units, would there be a difference? >> the analysis would be different. we would be analyzing a different project than the one before us. we would need to look at the proximity of the location had

the location of these facilities. we decide -- describe them. we need to revisit the our characterization of them and the analysis. i can't tell you what the inclusion -- conclusion would be, but the analysis would be different. >> at what point does the number become so significant that it no longer applies? what is the threshold from the department's perspective? >> how about 5000? >> that is an excellent question, supervisor campos. i am not prepared to answer that question today. and and think there is one by any other legal standard that i am aware of. supervisor campos: based on

what you're saying, you might have too many to apply categorical exemptions. but somehow, it isn't too many. what is the reasoning? i really wish the department could say that these other factors that we considered in determining, at what point does a number become too large? if 5000 is too large, what is the threshold between 726 and 5000? >> that may be a very interesting exercise to consider at what level the number of these cabinets would result in a significant effect? we did not do that appropriately. we did not consider a

hypothetical. supervisor campos: it might be a hypothetical in this scenario, but we can have a number of other companies come back with a similar proposal that has a much larger number involved. there is some precedent that we are establishing here today. i'm trying to understand what the implications of this analysis is on future projects that might become -- coming our way. >> we don't believe that any findings would apply to a project that is different from the other one that is under consideration at this point. >allow me to restate that. a question that we are answering today, we don't know that it would result in a significant effect. it is one we have analyzed for

this project specifically. if it were modified to be a greater number of facilities, the project would need to come back to the planning department for further environmental review. regarding the possibility that this would be an invitation for other providers to move forward with projects of this nature, that is a speculative point. we are not aware of any other carriers that are considering a similar approach to providing internet and television service. considering other companies in the market with kinds of boxes, it is conjecture at this point. supervisor campos: i understand what you're trying to say. is to leave this question hanging. and in terms of explaining to our constituents of the implications of what we're doing here today, if we approve 726

but we're hearing from the department that 5000 might not be the right number, at what point is that ok or not ok? i think it is important because i do think that it matters. it impacts what you can potentially do in other cases. i know my colleagues are asking. in terms of the point that was made by the appellant that the exception does not really fit because the exception is supposed to apply to equipment that is placed in structures that are already there, you have a response to that? it seems like a reasonable reading of the language. it talks about the installation of small mill pm