>> thank you so this motion for or from the vice president is to deny the appeals and uphold the basis that the permits were profiler did understand under the code. commissioner fung. commissioner hwang is absent. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda. okay. that motions carries four to zero thank you. before we move on to group two i wonder if there's anyone in the audience for thorton avenue. since there's a commissioner conflict on that address and with that commissioner leaving for the conflict we'll only have

3 board members present i wanted to ask the appellant to have that matter continued so we'll have four board members here or have that hearing tonight with 3 board members. just fill out the picture. if there are 3 votes we'll automately hold it over >> step forward. >> at&t will leave this to the discretion of the board we'll be happy to have this appeal heard by the 3 members who aren't recused this evening and we'll be fine to come back, however, the board feels most

appropriate. >> so i think we'll just leave it and precede with group two this is the 1205 i don't work street and 1201 york street and 79 lions street we'll start with the appellant with 5 minutes to address this group. >> thank you. i apologize i'm going to be repetitive. all the 3 appeals have the same fact scenario i'm going to go through the finding that the hearing officer made wards to york street. so at&t submitted it's

application on april 5th the hearing was not scheduled for 7 most it occurred on september 13th which obviously violates the public's code requires the city take action between 5060 days. ms. fong told the hearing officer that the at&t application was in appliance with the public works code. at the hearing no persons testifyed in opposition to the proposed installation. at&t told the hearing officer that they conducted a box walk and no members of the community attended but at&t met with the arts commission the arts

commission have concerned concerns about the proposed location an alternative location was identified on york street and 24th street and the hearing officer was informed by at&t as that was in the other part of the cluster on lions street that this other alternative location was acceptable. the hearing officer recommended that both of those all 3 appeals be denied and he did it on the basis in my opinion it was feasible they could install this in other locates and recommended that at&t submit a new location on york and on 24th street. again, our position is pretty simple is that under the

estimate order the hearing officer did not have the discretion to deny the permits. his role is to make a recommendation based on the evidence as to what is the at least impact full location. steadfast of following the rules and doing what's contemplated in the process he simply recommended that at&t application be disapproved and they go back and start the process over implicit. at&t is asking that the department follow its own rules and under the s m f order the hearing officer can either approve the location or approve one of the proposed locations provided the applicant makes

changes. at&t disagrees are that the hearing officer has the discretion to disapprove applications. i have nothing more but will take questions >> why are there too boxes which appears to be right next to each other by address. >> they actually serve different neighborhood and it's a geographical way the boxes work in this particular location there's serving, you know, different parts of the neighborhood. >> so the radius in terms of relationship to an existing box didn't necessarily apply. >> those boxes have a technical

capacity to serve around 3 hundred households. they don't have an infinity load capacity so my understanding is about the situation is that, you know, anyone of these utility cabinets serve happening half the block and the other one was to serve the other half of the block but there was a box walk and there were easiest locations twin 1201 and the other on york street the department came and told the hearing officer those locations meet all the box location he could have approved this or held the hearing open

and asked utility to provide additional notice to get more information before making a decision. it's simple our position that the department is not following its own rules >> i have a question about your argument what happened from the time of the application to the decision. >> typically ma'am, vice president what's happening is at&t sends in an application and waits to get permission to from the department to do public notice. >> it was seven months from the time of the application. >> to get a hearing. >> so typically. >> but not typically i'm saying in totals for the 3 locations. i'm trying to understand your argument as to why you think the

60 day requirement was violated i'm trying to understand >> after at&t did the box walk is informs the department of public works we've done the box walk and given all the notice you've asked us to they see set a hearing and what's happening is the department is waiting several months to set a hearing. it's required under california law to act between 60 days >> i understand what happened in the seven months what happened exactly. >> for whatever reasons the department is not promoting scheduling hearings. >> so nothing was unhappy you're saying it was just sitting there. >> i don't want to suggest the department has resources they work with us everyday. >> okay. i just want our

impression as i don't understand why they may have a liability reason that's not at&t's doing according to dpw belief the average length from the box walk is one hundred and 47 days that's clearly not 60 days. >> your position you didn't content to this delay that's our position. >> that's absolutely our position we didn't content and there's no - and wait wait but how about applied content did you file anything sacrificing give me my hearing now, it's 60 days to my time running out did you file anything demanding that. >> we're not required so there's no evidence whatsoever

of applied content. >> donates why that's called applied content. >> that's why we're here. >> hold on a second. pilot content means that you don't affirmatively discontent but because of your lack of action you've applied content it did you file anything saying i want my hearing any 60 days is coming up i demand a hearing >> i know the code didn't require that. >> ma'am, vice president with your permission can you ask a quick question of one of my colleagues. >> sure no problem.

all right. so the answer to our question is that after werlg going there to process where dpw was consistently sitting on our applications we met with the department and asked them what's the problem why are you not scheduling our hearings so we did protest this with the department and tried to resolve this formerly before it came before the board of appeals >> when did this hearing take place?

>> it was about a year ago ma'am, vice president and a year ago. >> okay. thank you. thank you you've answered my question. thank you >> okay. mr. quan 5 minutes. >> commissioners. in this case again, it's very similar to the issue we continue to have alternative locations identified. in those cases the department agrees with the appellant how we're faced with the notification requirement we're faded with that issue in at least one of the situation online street at&t subsequentially applied for a revised permit and we've finished it and it was approved in this case so i'm not sure the

nature of that location to answer the question i believe i talked to staff one was fwor the high speed facility and they had another facility on top of off the pole >> was it underground there. >> i don't believe i know that at&t wanted to upgrade that facility to take out the poll. implicit like i said they're arguing over the timetable. the department i stated earlier those are the issues as scheduling in the hearing room and being able to hear all the hearing including tree removed and other hearing requirements as it relates.

it was from talking to at&t we created it additional hearing date in order to compromised them. i talked to staff about as it relates to those hearings is what i was able to ascertain we waited for at&t we did the box walk and scheduled it based on the available of the hearing. we've since changed that to schedule after talking to at&t to schedule those hearing individually as soon as we get feedback if at&t we'll continue to move the process forward at that slink the timeframe >> just to characterizations those the alternative location was identified during the

hearing as opposed to the box walk. >> it was presented at the hearing. >> could you speak to the hearing that happened a year ago. between at&t and dpw objecting to the slowness the process in general >> i'm it was a year ago i remember sitting in one meeting with at&t okay. where they stated, you know, that's taking sometime we want us to accelerate it we and tried to accommodate it we found resources trying to schedule the pun hearings. for the department again, it is at city hall those rooms are also booked so we've found on average were able to and were told at the hearing 5 he to 10

locations it depends on how many people obtain and how complicated the site >> i understand the resource issue can you any public comment? to the delay of seven months what air force going on >> sure like i said i checked with staff what happened was we had previously waited for at&t to do the box walk for them to tell you that, please schedule the hearing when we get 80 that information so there's two parts the delayed information. >> so the box walk was happening in this period it would that is kinds was sitting there waiting for a hearing. >> i just talked to a staff we wait for them to do the box walk - >> otherwise it's not a final

application. >> we'll do a box walk before so we can moved we were - there was a misunderstanding by scheduling the hearing early to try to reduce the delay. >> okay. thank you. okay. we'll have public comment on group two monument to speak on 1201 york street. 737 lion step forward, please >> good evening. i'm robert

i'm a resident of 747 lion. >> you can lift it up higher. >> better i'm robert i'm a resident of 747 lion street the house in front of where the box was to be installed i submitted a letter in advance to the board of appeals like most people we have our reigns why keeping you informed we obtained to the original locations having left hand to this preceding i'll talk about the process this seems like more about process. we did get notice from at&t with posters around the neighborhood and the directly mailing in the spring about the proposed location. several of our people that live

in our house as well as the neighboring neighbors put in an objection we had a box walk scheduled with at&t roughly that happened in june which feels in the middle of the day so people couldn't make that i work at home and i could make it along with a few other folks from the neighborhood. we did quack around with an at&t representative and talked about the particular location we - it was actually a tree box and worked out during the box walk a proposed alternative location which atf inclined to recommend and withdraw the original location. we then didn't hear anything for 4 or 5 months we thought we explicit know what happened and

sometime in november audio think we got a notice about a hearing on the original site i actually attend that meeting when i came up at&t did in that hearing kind of voice the proposed alternative location as the preference and intended to withdraw the original and at this point, i guess the recommendation we heard in the room from dpw was to reject the original proposal and apparently by process the argument made they had to adrenalin that i don't know anything about this i'm a bystander i'm jefferson inclined to agree what i've heard i think that notice should be given for the locations but not knowing what it means for

this appeal to go forward i'm concerned thank you >> i have one question the box walk how long did it take to schedule the box walk. >> i don't recall a lot of the negotiation i recall it being set here's the date and time when we were given notice and we have residents in our house i made arrangement my wife and i attended. >> i'm wondering if it was - >> it was announced this is when the box walk b will be we had lead time at least three weeks. >> thank you very much. sure >> any other comment online street or group two.

we'll start our rebuttal >> so i'm to briefly correct some inaccuracy from what dpw told you. they've consistently told the department not to wait on at&t to schedule the hearings and, in fact, under the s m f order the department is required if the director feels that a hearing is necessary to schedule the hearing within thirty days of the original notice on page a 7 of the s m f order anothers e-3 that says if the director determines the requirement is - they'll be a date no longer than thirty days of the notice that's not been happening here.

we wouldn't hold the department to thirty or 60 days sooner 6 or 12 months. i think it's important for you the board to understand as part the memoranda of the understanding at&t pays for the entire process we pay important the hearing officer and reimburse the city for the cost to do the review and if the issue is staffing the resources at&t is simply willing to provide the available resources to consultation the hearings. it's not a simple question oh, we have so many permits to overwhelm the department we are reimbursing the staff >> you're paying on a

percentage after it goes online or after pled. >> we're in the mou to pay for the officers time. my understanding this isn't simply at&t but common for publics to reimburse the city for all the costs with evaluating the permits but this is a whole schedule of fees that at&t is required to pay i'm sure the department can speak to >> mr. quan. >> evening john quan for the department of public works i've heard from the appellant that they do pay for the direct cost force the department i'll agree

it didn't pay for the staff time the issue is trying to schedule a room at city hall in many cases that's been the challenge for the department we'll be working to get the additional time on monday in those kind of cases. i'm not hearing really is the continued point to the order itself that based on the order upon the objection we have a southern timetable to process the hearing. what the challenge we continue to face this is also, this is in context to their mou of memoranda of the understanding that when we do a posting there is a 20 day posting period and it would come in on the same day for the posting to schedule the

hearing immediately is what their suggesting. when we do that and in consideration that at&t has stated they'll do the box walk to court reporter those opportunity for the hearing date of 20 days to the potential directors hearing of a week, week and a half i take it a challenge that at&t tried to schedule those during the daytime would that be a situation that at&t would say i'm holding a box walk on this day and time or would it be an effort to try to coordinate a meeting with all the objectives of the concerned citizens so

they'll get the best input. it appears what really at&t wants is for the department to to follow the process instead of looking at what they've agreed to doing the additional outreach to do the best available job they can and do you think staff resources will limit the time lapse here >> there are two things involved. we have staffing and we have the physical resource which is in those cases getting a hearing room to make it happen. we've tried to resolve that issue by having a specific dates on monday as i stated. we continue to work with to try to process in a timely manner we believe we are coming very close if not on in terms of of e-cigarette that issue

>> sorry so the length of time that taken in response is just primarily for services to be able to get the facilities and not staffing? >> the department is suggesting. >> they've offered free staffing. we can do the application in a timely manner yes, we can do a posting currently >> that's satisfactory the technical requirements. >> one of the step recently is there's a request and requirement for planning to review those locations and this is a delay on that but regardless of the situation the department can satisfy the technical review and provide feedback to at&t to do the posting and once we do the

posting if we don't know whether there's objections or not and that's outside the control of the department. >> okay. thank you. >> art will you i think that some of those concerns are not myself exclusive between at&t and the community and the department i don't think any of you have not to have repetitive hearings and notices and subsequent directors appeals and those occur multiple times everyone wants a comfort and the citizens don't want to go to two separate notifications on site. i don't think your staff wants to do multiple posting that