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 present 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 equipment and facilities in small structures.

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 a