and again, as ken mentions, as we are essentially providing a lifeline, we want to make sure that service does not go down. the second thing, with the same premise of undergrounding them, the credit can get very hot, as the temperature is raised, so we of cooling fans that allow was to cool the equipment -- they can get very hot. supervisor chiu: i have to say that your description does not match mine. it did not require as much battery power, did not require as much heating or cooling, so again, given how long this project has been, i am wondering if we are looking at technology that we're going to be living with the size of these boxes for

decades to come. >> if the boxes were ever to become obsolete, we are required to remove them, as well. we have to remove obsolete equipment, so to the extent that ever happened, where the technology will become obsolete, -- obsolete, it would be necessary. i would like to address the fact that technology has advanced, and things like video compression technology, the ability to do pair bonding and the ability to push out more in copper, that has advanced. there are two or three new products, all of which are the point of view -- all of which

are deployed. these are simply software changes. supervisor chiu: thank you. supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: thank you. if i can, ken, start with you. using case law as president to help us to understand what we are doing here -- using caseload as president -- case law as precedent. cities that are being asked to apply the exact same lot as we are today. the urban settings of california? >> sure. we have deployed these in every major city of california, and, in fact, we are now in the central valley, up in your rica, other areas -- up in eureka.

there was deployment about three years ago, and we had issues before the board. we withdraw the application and continued to build in other cities. we have statewide ceqa laws, as you all know. most of the cities, over 260 cities, have not required any ceqa at all. as the total vacations kroatian, a utility. there are four or five cities that have required a ceqa review, and they have given us an exemption. supervisor elsbernd: you have not had to do an eir? >> we have not. supervisor elsbernd: thank you,

ken. if you can complete your analysis? >> sure. in fact, i do not think i got to the cumulative impact, but to get to it, there is an evidence standards, which i think i sort of mentioned, but the only punitive impact that has been addressed brings us back to what i was going to talk about in the context of unusual circumstances, because the same set of case law applies about the aesthetics or cumulative aesthetics. aesthetics is judged according to the immediate surroundings. all of the cases say you must consider existing surroundings. moreover, in an urban environment, it must be consistent with the urban environment. these are consistent, as your planning department has found, with the urban environment. it is not a question of the is

the added duty of something that someone likes or dislikes. -- it is not a question of the aesthetic beauty of something that someone likes or dislikes. that it is consistent. there is nothing more to it in terms of an opinion about that. it does not raise a fair argument to overturn the use of the exemption. that also applies to cumulative impacts. there are cases that say that the impacts have to look and the environment, and the aesthetic law cases apply to them, as well. it was referred to does -- as a

"shed," but it is visible from the trail, and the mitigation had been imposed was not effective in keeping it -- that is an opinion based on fact. this is part of the definition of fair argument, which gets very confusing. this does not count as evidence. in those circumstances, in a rural environment, it was found to be an impact. this was taken into account. this is consistent with the urban environment and all of the caseload. you simply are not in this case, so that answers it.

the two cases include one against the city of berkeley. supervisor chiu: that is interesting, because that is cited by the opposition, where the court rejected the opinion that was being put forth, and it actually says the personal observations on non technical issues can constitute a substantial evidence that we can consider. >> correct. it is found whether you can see before a koran aluminum cover from the hiking trail, whether that counted as enough evidence, and they said that was an opinion related to fact and that it was enough, so i am distinguishing that in a rural setting, introducing a new aesthetic element, when you're testifying as to the visibility

of actual question, not just "i think it is not attractive" can be taken into account as one element. supervisor chiu: so you are suggesting that because we of the density, you can put more boxes in there, and no one will notice. that is the argument? >> in the existing environment, correct. at a telecommunications cabinet where state law in your own code dictates this, that is not unusual and does not introduce a new aesthetic. supervisor chiu: in understanding supervisor elsbernd's point, but we do have of the densest neighborhoods. we have a lot packed in. i think the concern that we heard is when you're putting in

726 refrigerator sized boxes, this adds an awful lot to our neighborhoods, but we will continue to hear. >> to the extent to address your question in terms of is it just too much because there are too many of them, i agree with the plan department, and i know there was what constituted the right of way. it is a certain percentage of the sidewalks, and this is a good one. it is not on the sidewalk. it is off to the side. it is the amount the sidewalk that is actually taken up which is minuscule. i recognize it is a big city, but 726 cabinets dispersed, which was also okayed by the planning department, they are dispersed. where do you get to the point where they are not dispersed? three on every block? who knows?

726 are dispersed. >> -- supervisor chiu: and as i am talking about it, we are talking about one every block? give us a sense. >> they are dispersed. i cannot give you anything more than that, but there is a visual to show you about the dispersal. >> president chiu, we can certainly provide the map, but it certainly changes by supervisory -- supervisorial district. in those instances, it is 1 mile away. in large quarters, they may be four or five blocks away, but you tick in the league do not have this within a couple of blocks of each other.

supervisor chiu: it is a 300- meter record of it? >> no, not at all. i think supervisor mirkarimi asked one of the questions about what has changed from the last time? what has changed from the last time we were here is the willingness to explore the space in which with the distance in which we could move this new infrastructure from the existing infrastructure, so now, we can place these new boxes within 300 feet of the existing cross connects, which in many instances will take us a full city block away, which gives us tremendous opportunity and tremendous latitude to work with neighborhood associations on box placement, because they need not be side-by-side. we can look at alleys, and we can look to greenspace. we can cover it by shrubs, and

we have some of the inflexibility in those 300 feet. supervisor chiu: supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you, supervisor chiu, mark. i know you have been in district two, and i know people have appreciated working together. that being said, there are still a lot of concerns, so i went to flesh this out with you and see what you envision happening. >> sure. an example where we have actually gone through the dpw process. this was in district 1. we have an existing cross connect box. we met with the condominium association.

they very much wanted this, a competitive choice. we said we would ideally like to place it next to your existing cabinet, but we can work within 300 feet to find a place. the existing cabinet is off of the sidewalks and behind a hedge row of bushes. we were able to go in and place a second cabinet. we went through and met with them. we met with the neighbors and put a public notice before we filed with dpw and got their input if there were any complaints or concerns, and once there was none, we filed with dpw, but that kind of interaction with the community, it need not be next to the existing box. in this instance, it was an ideal location because it was already off of the sidewalk and

screen from view. in other conversations that we have been having, we have gone out, and we have even brought a sample of sarb-ox and literally put it down the street, which another organization did for us. here is what makes the most sense from a technological standpoint. which one of these works, and if it works, we will submit it to dpw. supervisor farrell: quick question. in terms of dpw, who is getting notice here? >> good evening, supervisors.

this is three letters feet from the proposed location of the cabinet. supervisor mark: ok, i want to delve into this a lot more. what if there is no agreement. how far do you take it down the road? my understanding, they may issue it. ultimately say no, what do you envision the process being? >> first of all, this is a three-year bill. just to piggyback on what he said, the current notice requires that we posed placard's. at&t has voluntarily given a mailing to all property owners within that same 300 feet, so we are also expanding this. but this is doing mailings to

all of the residents, as well. this is a three-year building project. we can easily start with the low hanging fruit. we can start there. if there are appeals in the permitting process, we will work through those of the process requires to mitigate any kind of customer concerns. one question we get, does it emit rays or radiation. so the answer those questions on the spot, or dpw will say what is your concern? do we need to plan bushes or do screening. ultimately, people appealing the decision, anybody can appeal something in san francisco, the way the order said.

you can also work with dpw about who is standing to appeal that decision, and we will work with that to mitigate it. we will move on and go to another one of the 726 and start the process there. >> i guess that is a key point to me -- it supervisor farrell: i guess that is a key point to me. "we will not put it here. the appeals process, somebody may appeal to the board of appeals, and they say, no, we are going to deny the appeal.

i am asking you in public now. how else to the neighborhoods have comments that if they work, and if there is just no way that you actually say ok, we will move on to the next one, we will not do it here, i mean, how do we get the confidence there? how do you address it? >> ultimately, before we even go to the permitting process, we have worked out a possible location for that. if we have got that, then, again, it will be a case-by-case basis. who is making the appeal? what is the grounds for the appeal? we will work that out. but ultimately, we are in a competitive environment. we are trying to be good citizens, and as ken said, to reach out to the community, and it doesn't make any sense to irritate our potential people.

one year from now, what we have built all of the easy ones, do become back and revisit them? yes, we can possibly revisit them, and we would try to do that and see what it is moving forward, but our intention is not to build if there is community opposition. supervisor farrell: i think we all understand that that is a leap of faith. you have got my number. .thanks. supervisor chiu: supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: someone who has been in it for a long time,

i know that they fight really hard, and that is a compliment. they are very, very passionate about their neighborhood and they are parts of this district. are you saying that if there was that kind of significant opposition in a particular neighborhood or a particular block that at&t under no circumstance would say, "we are going to go forward anyway, because we have to have the service around here? >> that is something in a

neighborhood would have to take into consideration. my boss will add to this. >> scott, you are right, yes. but also understand that each of these cabinets controls over 400 poems, so you as an elected official would have to help us make a decision. if they have a vocal group, do they truly represent the interests of 400 homes in your neighborhood? as i said, not one week has gone by when somebody says, "when is this coming to san francisco? they want the service. they have this competing interest. to answer a question, this is not interoperable. we can build out and turn out each individual one. is there is a problem, understand that that particular neighborhood will not have the benefit of that particular technology. supervisor elsbernd: and what i

already see is, if there was a community meeting, it would be ugly. and we have all seen it with the emails we have been getting. the people and think that this will be the end of san francisco if we do not get it, or it will be the end of san francisco if we do get it, and there will be these, and how does at&t navigate that? >> we have started a great relationship now by at least knowing who those are. as you said, to make sure that we cast our net wide and to look to you as policy makers to help make these decisions. ultimately, -- or not. supervisor elsbernd: to bring up

the undergrounding again, and digging up people's property, let's say planning said to you, "you cannot go forward with this," or dpw said, "you cannot go forward with this unless you keep this all out of the right of way," or "you cannot go forward unless you do not something else." leewood at&t proceed with the project? i ask this because for myself, and i assume for colleagues, it is a lot easier to decide that we either have the technology and clutter the sidewalks, or we don't have the technology, and there is an open question about

what is feasible, and i heard what you said before, but if that were put to you by one of the departments, how would you respond? >> i think he would be forcing the company to make a decision about whether or not it would build out the entire city of san francisco. the public works person stated, if you're talking about digging 15 by 15, it is not going to work in most of the cities, and it is going to end up with an above-ground piece of furniture that is in many instances larger than the actual vrad, so there could be parts of the city where that works, but in most parts of the city, that will not work, because you will run into electrical lines, sewer, and other infrastructure. and so the thought of building a 15 by 15 vaults still does not address the aesthetics, which is the largest complaint of the

appellant, because you're going to end up with a cabinet above ground which is in many instances larger than the one you put underground. supervisor elsbernd: and then my last question has to do with state law, and i would ask that we find whether it is appropriate for the city attorney to agree or disagree. in terms of the at&t legal position on this, if we require an eir, and we refuse to certify it when it comes back to us, which would normally mean the death of a project on a local level, can at&t go ahead and do this anyway under state law? >> i think you're asking me for a legal opinion, and i think i am wise enough to defer this to my lawyer. >> hi, amanda.

the question is, i think, goes to a big picture issue about ministerial as opposed to discretionary. there was some discussion previously that we would not have to have something if we did not apply for a permit. we can debate whether these permits are discretionary. we did debate that. we decided to move forward and go through this process. we under state law, under 79 01, we have the right to occupy the right of way. under 79 01 0.1 have the right to regulate the manner in which we occupy the right of way so we, do not incommode the right of way, so, yes, you can regulate and where our utilities go, but you cannot prohibit us from having access. the state has decided that the right of way is free utilities should place their structures.

actually, there is a question before. the public utilities code, including 0234 just for the record, so you have the right. was that a direct enough answer? >> that is what my understanding of the at&t position was, and i am curious to know from the city attorney whether the city attorney's office agrees with that -- supervisor elsbernd: >> no matter what level of environmental review is done this is simply getting the permit that we are required to get.

there is no way you can argue that. there is still be -- the surface-mount regulation, so that debate as far as how it would go is going to happen anyway, right, so in the eir, which i could actually run through the checklist that the eir looks out, the only ones that are pertinent to what is proposed has been thoroughly reviewed, which is not -- it is an actual evaluation. other categories, agricultural, we are not impacting them. we are not impacting them. i can go through the whole list. we are not impacting any thing. historical resources, we never agreed that there was an impact.

looking to avoid the argument as to whether there was an impact, so no matter what level of review you do, you're going to end up with the same part. you cannot deny access to the right of way. what is required for review under ceqa has already been analyzed. supervisor chiu: any more questions? i just have one follow-up point. we understand that we cannot deny your access, but we could reject this categorical exemption, which means you would have to go through the process. >> yes, and i think that people will question. it is a matter of principle. your staff has probably found your staff has probably found that your staff has found 260