it implies that you are putting it in something that is already there. what is the response? >> the matter in question is regarding the applicability of rates to the project. the language in question is regarding three types of projects that are exempt under class 3. the item in question, we don't find -- there is no known distinction that says that installation is different than construction and it is different from location. in some cases, they are very precise. we're not aware of any distinction that is meaningful that tells us it is excluded. if you look at the examples of

this exception further below, it does not specify if it is installation, construction, where location that is exempt, it is just that that type of product is exempt. supervisor campos: it doesn't save the installation of small structures. but the installation in small structures. >> we feel that it is a reasonable interpretation, that it is equipment that would be included in small structures. the electronic equipment that these cabinets would have is installing equipment in small structures. supervisor farrell: thank you. just to follow up, you talk

about the cumulative effect. i'm not just talking about utility providers. i am talking about entire sidewalks here. the cumulative impact, how has it and then evaluated? -- been evaluated? >> we looked at the public right of way, and making that assessment, we explored whether there were other applications for environmental review the are in our department. and the applications for other kinds of entitlements, we asked

if they had any excavation permits for other projects of this nature. we did not find any. supervisor farrell: these are either permits that have been filed or the telecommunications community, has that been done at all? i think it cuts both ways. at what point, what is the threshold of cumulative impact?

>> if i may, with the planning department. this is a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. there are some overarching policy considerations that supervisors and others have about the merits of this proposal. in the context of this hearing, we are addressing the impact of the project. that is a narrow scope of focus and a broad range of concern. >> you talked about evaluating the feasible undergrounds. are they evaluating whether it is economically feasible in your judgment? is that physically feasible?

>> we cannot speak as it relates to economic feasibility. again, what is feasible to at&t may not be feasible to another group that is much smaller. we're looking at technology, whether it can be underground. we're looking at the size of the facility that would need to be in order for it to be underground. the applicant would inform us of any new technologies. they have to provide us with that information. they are the providers in that specific type of technology. they would know what is new and what is available. >> the box turns into a much more massive underground facility. how you judge whether that is feasible or not?

is it just to the cost to build that out? presumably, you can find the space for that. i'm wondering how the question comes into play. >> all of these boxes are currently known as the furniture zone. >> at the very best, the edge of the box would get move toward the property line. the size of the box given the facility from at&t, is approximately 49 15 feet that would be eliminating the possible planting areas. there is a lot of other potential technical issues to look at. is this in front of a commercial business. ? do they have an accessibility entryway that would be impacted by the installation of this box?

there are a lot of issues that we have to reveal on the case -- review on a case by case basis. >> you made a site specific determination that the project was not feasible. is there a situation where it would be feasible? is there a situation where it could be feasible to underground? >> for example. if they are proposing to put this facility around at&t part,

[unintelligible] supervisor kim: have to turn my my gun. -- mic on. and other are minimum requirements that you look at. >> obviously the applicant would have to make a good-faith effort to contact private property owner to determine if it can be brought inside the property line. their requirements as it relates to the location of the talks. in the facility would impede

people getting on the bus, those kind of elements. there needs to be -- they have stated that there needs to be alternatives. they would provide pictures of the site location. you can evaluate the entirety of the sperm that package. and make a determination about whether it is appropriate before even considering doing a site visit. >> are there minimums of setbacks? some of them are wider than others. you can determine them before you made their decision. >> these facilities are placed

in a so-called furniture zone. with the curve is. the guideline always requires -- there is a minimum path of travel. we require a minimum of 6 feet. they are typically a minimum of 9 feet. moving forward, they put up this facility. >> you can still provide the minimum on average. supervisor kim: it would

provide for folks that are disabled. >> they are now slowing down in these kinds of cases. supervisor kim: in terms of my other questions, and the report, it said that these cabinets are not deemed to be unusual circumstances because they are similar to other structures in public right of way compared to some of the traffic control boxes. how many of these other structures do we currently already have in the city? >> your question is, how many facilities do we have? how can we be more specific?

>> we don't have a count of all of the kinds of equipment and facilities that we are referring to in that statement. it was a broad statement about the context by which the cabinet would be placed in reference to traffic control devices, it was a general reference to different kinds of equipment and we did not quantify them. >> be you have an estimate of a type similar to these boxes? you're using it in your argument as to why it is unusual. we should have a sense of how many types of those structures

we have in the city. >> as it relates to a traffic signal boxes, we are dealing with thousands and thousands where there are light rail at those kinds of facilities. typically, on average, it is typically a street light every 150 feet. we're talking about tens of thousands of street lights. >> these are city structures and we should have account.

we build them, so why don't we have a number? >> based upon this request, we will contact various agencies. >> going back to the point about cumulative impact, when you talk about cumulative impact, the u.s. include what is already existing in the city as well? we're talking about thousands of these similar types of structures. the addition of 726, do we include what is already in existence? gosh yes, and the approach that we take in analyzing environmental impact is to look at the impact of the project as compared to the existing conditions.

>> there will never be a case where a pedestrian will see more than one of these at a time? >> that is my understanding. supervisor kim: there can't be one on one side and one on another side? >> there is something in this plan where there would be a required a mandate in terms of the number of feet apart. >> my understanding is that the project is to install the line speed cabinets within 300 feet of existing cabinets. the applicant has provided a map of these locations, we have reviewed that and found that given the location of these, the radius of these is such that they're not going to be located in close proximity to one another.

there are criteria that at&t has established for their own placement of this equipment, and there are criteria for locating them. there is a variety of factors that they limit the specific location of any one cabinets. >> that you take into account already existing infrastructures, which is possible that pedestrians might be able to see more than one of these similar types of structures as they're walking. >> my understanding is that their only be one of these cabinets. >> there are thousands of these other types of cabinets. it is possible that pedestrians would see more than one similar.

if the argument is that the pedestrian is only going to see one at a time and that is why there is the cumulative impact, that might not be the case if they are not in existence already. >> the context of our analysis, we are looking at a cumulative impact as the comparison of existing conditions to the conditions that would exist with the project. to the existing cabinets that are not the ones proposed are part of the existing environment. the changes the addition of the cabinets. when we look at cumulative impact, we're looking at the impact of the project together with the impact of similar projects that are not yet on the ground or part of the existing environment. the existing cabinets that may exist are part of the existing environment and they're not

really relevant for our cumulative impact analysis. supervisor kim: so we don't take into consideration existing physical structures in determining whether there is a cumulative impact from this project? >> is part of the existing environment, so they established the baseline including cumulative impact. >> what is challenging framingham home and not having a standard for how we evaluate what would happen, regardless of whether this project had suggested a 10,000, 5000, 700, or 100 boxes, we should be evaluating a common standard regardless of the number. i am having trouble understanding why we are having trouble deciding what would be a basis of impact and what wouldn't.

it wouldn't have an impact of 5000. we have other infrastructure, pedestrians may see more than one at a time. we want more than one every four blocks? there is some sort of basis. >> our analysis is that the specific project has proposed, for our purposes, we have

ululated the specific nature of this project with specific attributes. for our purposes of the environmental review, it was not necessary to establish a specific threshold. as far as the criteria, the consideration of significant effects look at the aesthetic impact. i was illustrating how we conducted the analysis with the the question i received previously about how pedestrian experience with you these cabinets.

there is no established rigorous threshold. it can be challenging when conducting an environmental review. supervisor kim: i do not have a follow-up question at this time. supervisor elsbernd: i wanted to follow up on one of the points. tens of thousands of these boxes are out there. i think with the clearly illustrates is the notion that there are unusual circumstances that should negate this categorical exemption. that answer was that of the water. tens of thousands does not strike me as unusual. all we have got left is cumulative impact. just to follow up a little bit

on the outline, you also have the notion that 726 might not be right, but let's do reverse logic. if we are going to say that 726 necessitated, what about 300? you can't have it both ways. that is why it is absolutely inappropriate to follow the guidance given to us by planning. the project description as it is, the hypothetical was that you will fall about a rabbit hole. you're going to screw yourselves up. let's focus on the project in front of us. if we want to look at the other parts and whether or not the cumulative impact is there is fine. that will lead is the path we don't want to go. [applause]

supervisor cohen: >> i understand that the cabinet's, the new ones will not be under 300 feet. is there a cap on how many we place in each respective district? the reason i am asking, and the plan, i did not see it. headed out of the analysis reflect this, but how to prevent or share my concerns for an over proliferation of boxes coming into the southeast part of the city? historically known as the industrial part of the city, how can you help me understand that? o>> i am not aware of any limitations of the placement of

the cabinet's. with regard to historical resources and historical district. your question of how my your concerns regarding and over proliferation of these within your area how best to be addressed, i don't know that i can answer that question. perhaps they can respond to how those concerns might be taken into consideration. it focuses on if there is a significant environmental effects. if there are concerns about that specifically, it could be something that we could take into account. supervisor cohen: in seems to me that it will have a factor into cumulative impact.

>> in terms of cumulative impact, i think just to clarify some terminology, concerns about cumulative effects, the 726, the impact of the project as a whole, a think that might be what you're referring to here. there is also discussion of the proposed cabinet together with any other similar type project. i'm answering your question with regard to the 726 cabinets. i don't have a number within the given district. but in general, they would be widely dispersed. we did not find there would be a significant environmental effect. that does not mean that there would not be concerns that there might be raised about the

effects of these in general that would be of concern to you. supervisor mirkarimi: this conversation is deja vu. it was about to a half years ago that i believe we have before us. there were only a few of us at the time. if i am not mistaken or am recalling correctly what had happened, at&t decided to pull back and withdrew their particular proposal to us. issues that were prominent in the discussion were cumulative impact and historical district. a number of us made the very strong point about those particular issues, among those leading to be understood through of the city and county of san

francisco, the neighborhoods that had been advocating for the boxes or who had been opposed or concerned but in different. what i would like to know, what has changed since that discussion 2.5 years ago. i would like to know that in those questions and concerns of cumulative impact, what has changed? it could have been conducted in those years, and what we have not been able to learn from that particularl exercise. let us know if anyone can speak to this.

>> the previous proposal for the project there is a consideration of the appeal. because there was no project for considering any further, the matter for our purposes, they did not do any further environmental review. there was no requirement for the environmental impact report. the forward three years later, we conducted our environmental analysis and determined that he

categorial exemption was appropriate as to what happened in that in turn and why the project was changed. >> i look forward to the presentation and their response. in your re-evaluation [unintelligible] allow me a moment to think about that. supervisor elsbernd: as one of the three, let's not forget 98% was on the issue of historical districts.