significant as well as the fact that the video shows some noise but it's unclear whether it's patrons from other facilities as well as the permit holders facility that's unclear to me. it's also i guess i'll note it's speeding it's an exceptional situation all over the city in terms of noise. i didn't see any contrary report on the sound emissions presented by the appellant to dispute the report presented by permit holder i don't see why the entertainment commission would deny it >> i agree with the vice president as well as commissioner fung once the

permit is issued the permit holder will be more responsible for the neighborhood compliance so i building that the e.c. anchored correctly in this permit and i move to deny the appeal and move on the basis that the entertainment commission did not error. >> okay. that's code compliant. >> yes. and great so we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny the appeal on the basis the entertainment commission did not error in issuing the code consistent. /19. commissioner honda. and commissioner fung is absent so that motion passed 4 to zero.

thank you. okay with the president's content we're going to hear the 21 appeals that make up the rest of the calenders as follows: the parties will first be provided time to present the board that argument that are for the 21 appeals and rubltd and the board will see what appeals are the patterns and time of the appeals will be provided for the groups if there are members of the public who wish to comment they should speak up and finally the board will hear 4 appeals because their fact patterns wouldn't fit into the group and

one appeal will be separated. time for public comment will be provided for each individual hearing and copies of what i've old are on the podium in case you want to see each of the groups. first, i need to run through all the addresses and a they are filed by the at&t and the subject properties are. 190 randal street and ralph street and buchanan and ralph street and 1157 church street and 31530th avenue and 1335 mission street and buchanan street and ann agree street and

1205 and 11 i don't work street and 410 scott street and 305 everybody else street all of them are appealing the permits to excavate phone number for the facility. we'll start with at&t who have 15 minutes to present their arguments. >> would we hold on one second. >> sure. >> please proceed and you have 15 minutes on the clock. thank you >> good evening councilmember

davis and the board of commissioner we're here because the board of public works is not following their applications in a timing manner by california law. i want to invent by giving a background and talk about the rule and the process that apply >> i'm sorry to interrupt you. >> i'm foster johnson. >> thank you. >> i represent at&t this evening. >> as i believe the board is aware at&t is currently in the process of upgrading it's fiberoptic networks here in san francisco. that upgrade has many immediate benefits for the people in the neighborhoods. it gives the san franciscan to high speed board band and a

choice of many i p services like voice-over internet protocol and an additional service at&t pace the additional franchise fees to the city. they have a statutes right to mrs. this equipment here and in san francisco that process is codified under the network it's common to all the appeals before the board is that the public works is not following it's on reksz how is this process supposed to work. it's a basic 5 step process i have in the first inhabit i've laid out and it's described in

the process at&t submitted a proposed application it gives the information required by the department it's a fairly detailed application. the second step in the process is that the department has discretion to conduct a site visit. the city goes out symbol fold along with a representative from at&t they go through the neighborhood and use the discretionary guidelines under the order and look to see if there's other alternative locations that might be less impact full. if the city conducts the site visit under the sf order there was been 5 days the department

must invite the utility whether, if any proposed locations in the neighborhoods are acceptable and second it should show how it prioritized a choices had k choice of the locations and third, the department will inform the utility in any locations need additional information and the department will tell at&t whether a public notice will be required. as a practical matter and under the sf order at&t can't proceeded to step 3 public notice hearing without permission from the the president. once an application it submitted the utilizes are to wait until they get an e-mail and it's okay

to go to the next step in the process and give public notice. at&t's extreme low committed to the process. so typically what happens in this process is that at&t provides public notice in underlings flyers and reached >> out to neighborhood associations and holds town hall meetings and does box walks with local resident. the purchase is to go out and get community input to people see the proposed location but the neighborhood is also walked to pick out alternative locates. during this period there's a 20 day period to put in written

objections. the hearing officer get input from the community and input from public works and at&t. one thing i'll pout one factor it's common to all 21 appeals mr. wong appeared and said it at&t's application was in corners with the technical requirement of the sf order. at the end of the hearing the hearing officer can do a couple of things make a recommendation or if he upstairs it's appropriate he can hold the hearing occupying open 20 days and take written protests and then at the end of the hearing period the hearing officer is required to make a recommendation to the director. under the sf borrowed the

hearing officer discretion is extremely limited he can do one of two things i want to read from the regulation it's at heart of the what the board about decide. under the s m f order in the report the testimony will be summarized and the director either approve one the locations from the facility or approve one of the proposed locations provided the applicant makes reasonable changes to the installation. i want you to notice what the hearing commissioner is not allowed to do she's not allowed to make a recommendation to deny all the proposed locations and that's for very good reason. that's not his role in the

process. once weigh arrive at the third step in the process the hearing officers job is to look at the various alternatives and make a recommendation of which vital is at least impacted. the director receives a recommendation from the hearing officer. at this point the director has to make a decision. but again, the directors discretion under the rules is extremely contained and with permission i'm to read the rule it's plain and a.m. bigs ambitions the directors hearing or any decision the department will notify the applicant in writing which one of the locations the director has approved and whether the decoration will require the

pamphlet to make reasonable changes to the installation of the facility. in other words, the director is required to go two things tell the applicant which locations has bone approved and tell me the applicant in any reasonable changes need to be made they're absent from the departments brief. that's nor good reason. the other regulation that applies here is the 60 day requirement of california law under the public's code that requirement requires the city to take action on permits within 60 days. not a single one of the 21 applications did the city act within 60 days we're not here this evening because they acted

on the 65th or 70th day the vast majority of those applications were noetd not heard for 6 months many up to a year at&t was told our permit is denied and start the process over again. that's not how this process is supposed to work. the language of those regulations are plain and unambiguous the hearing officer are to work together to choose the best locations for the utility unfortunately, the department has been xhifshlly breaking their own rules and violated did public utilities code by not taking action between 60 days of the permit application. the purchase of the board so to insure that the city agencies

follow their own roles unfortunately, the depended hadn't been doing that and that did not only prudentially at&t but every person that lives in the neighborhood that wants access to the service of board abandon network it prejudices all people who took the walks to look at locates and prejudices everyone person who took time off from work or family to give input. in essentially 19 out of 21 appeals people came and told the hearing officer there was at least one alternative location that the public was all right with. so those people were prejudice as well as bus the hearing and

director have not been following their rules. the department has broken it's only rules and at&t respectfully ask ask i reverse your decision. >> just so i understand what at&t wants from the board are you looking for a global decision. >> well, certainly the board would have very good reason to make a global decision for instance, the city was to act on the appeals in 60 days didn't act on one single one broke the public utilities code it's a fact that is common to all 21

appeals that the hearing officer and director experienced discretion they don't have. i'm prepared to address all 21 of those appeals in clusters this evening because many of them have essentially the same fact pattern i think some are more complicated and members of the public probably want to get up and talk the applications. the other question i have in your presentation you indicated the outreach program that you folks went through that didn't apply to the alternate sites did it? >> well, i want to be clear how the process is supposed to work and what at&t did.

so at&t provided public notice of the original proposed location. it then, you know, in most events met with the local neighborhood association and did mailings and conducted box walks with residents who wanted to go out in the field and look at the alternative locations. once again you move to the third step >> there's a couple of other steps in there. i believe that either people in the neighborhood or the public and the department can ask for alternative sites or point out alternative sites. so the prehearing then in some

of the incidents there have been identified alternative sites >> in many of the appeals the vast majority there reason alternative sites that were identified by the community either during the box walk or he hearing. >> right. >> and so once you get to the hearing stage again, the rules are pretty clear the hearing officer has limited discretion once, once he gets to that point so if the hearing officer had a concern that additional notice or outreach needed to be done what he was required to do was hold open the hearing for an additional 20 days and ask at&t to provide additional notice and the public has 7 days to write

in with protests the process closes at the end of that 20 days and the hearing officer will make a recommendation. the problem is in the vast majority of those what the hearing officer did not follow the rule that requires him to pick out the best alternative location he simply closed the hearing didn't have the additional 20 days and said well, i'm going to recommend a denial because while i recognize the public has told me there are acceptable locations and the department has told me that at meets better requirement there might be better locations out there so, i say denied as a matter of law the hearing officer didn't have that discretion the rules are extremely cut-and-dried. he can recommend one of the

proposed locates or recommended one of the location modifications. he didn't have the authority to recommend denials that's not his role in the process >> okay. thank you. >> i have a question. this is towards your outreach. what is - is there a required radius for required notice >> it's 3 hundred yards within the proposed location. the outreach is actually more extensive at&t did mailings in the neighborhood >> and your mailings are they done there a third party or from at&t directly. >> i'll - let me answer that. >> 3 hundred feet or yards.

>> i don't know the specific answer i don't want to say something that's incorrect. >> so right now the 3 hundred yard notification and you say you box wall as well do you box walk that 3 hundred yards as well. >> we actually box more than simply the 3 hundred yards within the proposed location. >> and how often is that one time or multiple times they go out. >> so the way the box walk works is that their mass mailings to everybody in the neighborhood with times for the box walks. so citizens who want to have input on the best location in my neighborhood attends those box walks. the point is to get citizen

involvement in picking out the lease impact full location in the neighborhood >> you're not aware of the mailings regarding the process. >> we have proof of the mailings the specific questions does at&t do the mailings them selves off the top of my head i don't know but someone can. >> i'm trying to get clarification regard the mailings process. >> i don't want to leave you with the expression commissioner president lazarus at&t has held more than one hundred meetings around the city for the build out and agreed part of the memoranda to reach out to the neighborhoods. again for at&t the technical

requirements those utility exhibits a can't go anywhere but within 3 hundred feet of an existing utility cabinet and >> we're quite aware of the 3 hundred feet from the cabinet but in regards to the notification and giving the public the availability to have proper notification in regards for the cabinet being placed at a location. >> one other thing i want to stress is that not one of those 21 dnldz was made on the basis that proper notification was not given. and len fong appeared at every one of the hearings and told the hearing officer that at&t's application was in corners with the san francisco works act.

so if there's no basis on the administrative record to deny those appeals because proper notice wasn't right >> okay. >> okay. no other questions we'll hear from the department mr. fong. >> good evening john fong from the department of public works. the argument from at&t resolves around the water and the second one is the timing for process i'd like to address the interrelation of maintaining facilities first. the surface water was written in 2005 by then director ed lee. as part of the intent for the writing of this surface mounting facility orders was to minimize

the impact upon the general public to minimize the natures that's put with that. at&t suggesting that in someways the department of is limiting in terms of the approval. let me go and try to address this some of elements. if we go to specifically the notice of at no time to submit which is after we received the package from a utility agree for the specific location we evaluated it to the tech merits as at&t second-degree murder. many lynn fong has stated again

and again it saved the technical requirements there's no blocking of the path of traffic no other technical issues. what is in question the aesthetics of the boxes and the impacts upon the community. one thing that's identified under the notice of intent if i may - under item c they say if the application is placed in certain locations under the appendix that's not loud even though the statements say shall not there are other agencies that are involved whether it's in front of the of a historical

site we'll forward that to the corresponding agency prior to continuing the processes. a second item that's clearly listed in terms of noticing one of the requirements is clearly states if their more than one location for the mounting facility the intent is as it relates to the order that when someone summit a surface water facility they've show two locations in at&t's case in every one only one location is submitted per package. moving forward as stayed as part

of the notification requirement the notification nicole is a 3 hundred foot neighborhood by posting required under the order to all effected people based on the location of the box itself. as part of their agreement do a mailing for 3 hundred feet one thing we must recollection this provides a certain community with the 3 hundred for noticing under the surface mounting facilities. what happens for at&t their location is not isolated at one location they can be 3 hundred feet away from a box. so 3 hundred feet in one direction and 3 hundred feet in the opposite direction you're

visiting two separate community and groups in those cases which is very problematic for the department as it relates to notification. the statement is at&t estates that in those cases if the alternatives identify at the directors hearing what box is identified at the directors hearing that the hearing officer must make a decision over 20 days so additional notification can be provided, however, the additional notification is 7 days it identifies a separate group of people as part of the notification. one thing that at&t did not point out is the workflow it's