>> okay 5 minute break. >> welcome back to the san francisco budget & finance committee we're ready to call group one for the at&t public works this is item 1 ralph street and item 121257 church street and appeal next is 1503 jones street. which is 31530th avenue and 17 toil next is 752 aaron district attorney street and the next is

balboa street and as an carlos street and item next is 121 as an carlos street and the next is 305 elsie street and the next is 415 germany rad street we'll start with at&t. mr. johnson you have 5 minutes to present your case >> so the fact patterns for those eight or nine appeals i'm going to talk about ralph street. so in this particular application was submitted in may 2013 there wasn't another hearing for 8 most in

january 2014. at the hearing lynn fong adhered and said at&t applications was in corners with the public works code. at the hearing it was discussed and the hearing officer was told during a box walk an additional location had been identified in addition to the alternative location was on howard street. no members of the community appeared at the hearing to protest. the hearing officer recommended denying this permit application essentially on the basis that an alternative location has been identified as potentially feasible that may have less of on impact the problem is the hearing officer under the s m f order didn't have the discretion

but i want to point out the hearing officer had not option into in this permit application and in the rest the group and it's something commissioner president lazarus you asked what if there's a boxed walk another location would be okay. and the hearing officer could have done and probably should have done and the board ordered this evening it should have held the order open for thirty days and have at&t see about the other locations and taking take a written public comment from the public and made a recommendation at the thirty day

period. certainly one reasonable way for the board to deal with this cluster is simply require the hearing officer and department follow their own rules. that's essentially what we're asking for. that's what i have to say open this cluster i'll be happy to a answer questions >> a question is there anything that - so you've lead a box walk and the neighbors helped to identify an alternative side and at&t found at least some of the alternatives to the acceptable. >> yes. >> what's to stop you at this point from going out and noticing an alternative site. >> we're required under the s m

f order with our relationship to the department to get permission before we notice. >> how do you get permission. >> we have to contact the department of public works and request permission for renotice. >> there's 0 nothing from stopping you. >> when somewhere like that have been done in the past we've been notified by the department we're originally required to give notice until we get an e-mail saying you can notice a proposed location. so we don't have particle speaking the authority to notice the locations we want >> but you have the ability to notice that that will reduce the time that lapses on those.

>> that's exactly what is provided for under the rules. if there are additional proposed locations that the hearing officer should be considering under this this rule on your screen he holds up the hearing and at&t has 3 days to tell the hearing officer whether those locations will work >> maybe i'm missing here so going out on the walk you've identified an alternative location there's all the time this you might be acceptable rather than waiting from going back to a hearing officer what does at&t say we want permission to expedite this particular

location. >> you know i believe that we can probably contact the department and request workout some procure but again i'll point out the pro bono problem here that's not contemplated by the - >> it's in the prevented either. >> it's not prevented but as i think is pretty clear the department has not been following it's on realize and the hearing officer has not been exercising his discretion within the s m f order he's permitted to approve one of the property locations he's not required to request public no less but can he can approve with modifications or hold the hearing open. we suggest if you're not going to reserve the other appropriate

solution is to have the department follow the rules. if the hearing officer had concerns with better locations that would be discussed during the box walks held the hearing open and taken the written comments and made a decision. >> along those same lines are you saying that the hearing officer never made the suggestion for additional notice. >> in 20 of the 21 appeals the hearing officer did not hold the hearing open and the vast majority of the fact story it's exactly the same with the ralph street location one of two things happened one scenario was for the first eight or nine appeals during the box walk it

worked like it was supposed to so at&t and in some cases denver went out and kashgd conducted the walks to see g if there were less impact full locations the community would be okay with. >> i understand that the hearing were not open my question was related to whether or not the hearing officer suggested that additional notice was appropriate? >> he simply closed the hearing and denied on the basis there might be other acceptable locations which is not something he's allowed to do. what he could have done to hold the hearing open and if there's other acceptable sites that the public suggested or dpw

suggested that require at&t to renotice and give the public 7 days to provide additional protests or suggestions and follow the rule and make the recommendations. thank you for your time >> mr. quan from the public works once again. >> at&t has suggested in many cases the department should hold one of the possibility is for the department to hold it open for 20 days and have at&t notice those additional people based on a 7 day period. we've stated before that previously the original group was given a 20 day notice to

provide comments you're suggesting is for the department to accelerate it if it's the case would at&t stipulate or law to 20 day posting instead of 7 instead of agreeing that's what the order said the location can be far away from where the original box is proposed and they could be visiting a separate set of folks. after a notification period by the after we authorized the posting period at&t would have the box walk. we observe the number of people showing up or recorded as showing up are you significantly less than the number of people

obtained didn't appear to showed you that you have necessarily a true representation of the community there. i know there are discussions in certain cases what we identify there's been several situations where at&t is part of the hearing reported out they schedule a box walk and no one showed up it appears to the departments prospective that at&t may not necessary low be working the community as strongly as they could have to get more participation from the people that observed to identify possible locations which is more appropriate to the community and the general public in this case.

the good at&t continues to refer back to the order stating that the choices are limited for the hearing officer. that they must authorize a site. well in some cases there's only one site because no one shows up and at&t may offer no alternative site. which places the department in position well, you only have one site you must approve it doesn't seem appropriate in this case why would the department hold a hearing when theirs only one available site we believe there is a choice that we can suggest that this site is inappropriate and should be denied and they should reset and start over as under the workflow of the order

itself. i'm done thank you >> okay. we will take public comment on group one before anyone gets up i want to see a show of hands how many people want to speak. i want to do this by address so it will help the board to clarify public comment for each location we'll also take public comment at the end if there's mop that want to speak on ralph street. and again, if you have not done so, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk. so each speaker has 3 minutes >> so hello. thank you for the time to speak i'm mike smith the

treasurer at ralph our building spans one through 17. i'm certainly noted a lawyer on city code so i can't comment but offer up context how we perceive the situation we received an e-mail and we intended what seemed to be a heated community meeting that at&t came to we wanted to communicate with them trying to see the best way to resolve this. we at the present time, we spoke to at&t we offered to engage them in the box walk and offered up space in our basement we offered up that thinking that

might be a best option for the company at&t indeed came out and did the box walk with one of the folks and an owner across the street. as we understand as alternative was identified there was no commitment made at the box walk. at the same time, we filed a petition that alternatives had been identified. n role forward to the meeting in january one of our board members attended the week we heard not harder back from at&t the alternative was chemistry and we have no other venue to participate at this point. at this point we thought the issue was closed and at the

hearing our hoa board meeting was informed that we thought the issue was closed and accessed activity we got a postcard for this year hearing and didn't know the context actually, we showed up that's all i can offer >> who told you the alternative was selected. >> i wasn't the representative at the meeting i know that our representative was communicated to so he waited around actually f it came up on the list even if locations and was informed it had been resolved. >> thank you. any other public comment for 89 ralph. 1157 church street.

>> hi i live at 11 61 church street i have to say i find it ironic that at&t is stressing that we didn't follow due process in the city of san francisco when i feel they didn't fellow protocol this is the notice we received from at&t. i'm going to move it up and to me it's full of errors it has the wrong address and wrong scale and didn't give adequate information i don't know how someone could respond if the objection period was 7 days. let's just look at what they

sent to us. here it is again, the picture that they provided not showing the pedestal or the actual size so i put it more to scale to give you an idea how intrusive this truly is and how by sending out those noise perhaps people didn't know the scale and intrusiveness of those boxes. when it comes to due process i feel perhaps there is error on both sides through i don't know what the hearing officer job is. back to the original subject this is our home we like to put in a garage as most people in the city of san francisco to put in a garage with that box we

wouldn't be able to do that are the at&t representative on the walk through also stated it would be impossible to put in a garage with our planned entrance. that was at&t stated the box should not be in front of our house. this is what the boxes look like. so far as i can tell. when we're talking about at least impact i can't help but think people villaraigosa >>right. to express what goes in front of their homes and not allowing me to install a garage is considered at least impact.

we offered to hire an architect we did the walk through it took over a month and it was scheduled in the middle of a work day but we took the time off work and went. you can see there's surrounding businesses there are places for them to go that don't impede personal properties >> any more comments on church street? >> i also live on church street and want to show some documents that we received from at&t. >> would you like to state our name. >> i'm lisa.

in the first initial contact we received 55 e-mail about the walk through it says here we're committed to addressing the concerns of the community and would like to work with you to find a suitable location well, there's been no inform through with that we haven't heard from at&t expect to get the information about the appeals and what we received was this document. from the department of public works. stating that alternative locations had been found and also at the hearing was a representative from at&t who also agents that the alternative location was fine and suitable to at&t. so there's be a little bit of

conflict was to what to building i don't want this box in front of my house. thank you >> monthly for church street. oak 1503 jones. no one for 1503 jones. now the next one >> i live on this block since 1988 and here to support of hearing officers denial on this spot. i have a diagram here. showing the boxes of the

supported to be here attica do it and but there are many children running from the bus station on 30th avenue and california along this sidewalk to the middle school at the end of the block this is the presidio middle school and this is the box and this is the bus station and i took 80 a picture of this box and you can see it's all open space and the kids in the morning when the sun is in the south the sunlight on their face they don't see that well,

and some of them when we run fast and run late and they don't see in front of them. i see kids running into garbage cans on friday morning they don't see it their run when their late to i think some kids will definitely get serious injured if we allow the box on this location here. the neighbors are strongly opposed to this box but another alternative for at&t is on the sidewalk on california between 30th and 29th avenue and the box is two be in between the trees and not that many people walk on

that sidewalk and people don't even see that box that easily so i think this hearing officer by denying at&t that spot protected the safety of the students at the presidio middle school. thank you >> any other public comment for 315, 30th avenue. >> hi i'm beatrice. we are here to urge the board to uphold the hearing officers opinion to deny this on 30th avenue. to reiterate we believe those at&t box are a nuance furthermore, we express our concern over the safety of

installing an at&t box at the location if a box were to the installed that would create a hazard as bob my neighbor said this is a sidewalk route that is used by students. those students run to catch the one cool bus or play around with their friends they often look backwards at the friends. at&t has identified an alternative location around 6, 72 california street and the alternative location is a relatively quiet area that gets very little foot traffic. we therefore respectfully ask to

uphold the hearing officer decision and ask this be denied >> any other public comment for 315, 30th. okay 17852 ann district attorney. seeing none, 120 balboa. 303 as an carlos and 121 as an karlsz >> i'm joel becker the back of our building face where this box

will be our neighborhood and everyone on the alley put protests to the box and we met with at&t on the 5th of june and the representatives from at&t said it was a terrible location there's a cafe there's that's permitted by the department of public works and there's a significant interact of traffic problem we identified an alternative that location was further brought and app at&t was and i memorable to the location. it was mentioned that the 55 protests was one of the largest ever seen i brought a petition with more than a bosses distinct homes protesting the location at the 121 as an carlos and at&t is

arguing they believe this is good for the community and once approved the community has no weight we recommend that the board uphold the hearing officer decision. thank you >> thank you. is there another speaker for 121, please step forward. >> good evening. i'm andrew barnett. i'm the owner of a small business at the one proposed 121 as an carl street i have a cafe we're 2 hundred and 92 square feet we metropolitan met