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 with the representative for the box walk and our neighbors were told by the at&t representative, in fact, proposed site was not a good location and at&t would seek another location. i also explained at this time i was opening up a new coveting where the proposed box would sit in the middle of our outdoor seating and not allow to have the clearance from the table to the curb. again at&t representatives said they'll find an alternative location. december 17th we had a hearing and told there would be a

rendering from the commission on this. i'm confused why we're here tonight after this seems like i would think that at&t said they understood this is why we're having this hearing. i have an iphone photo i'll put it up this is a picture of our location our little cafe our outdoor seating and the proposed box would be in the middle of the property space on the curb and not allow us to have our outdoor seating we have a permit for outdoors seating from the public works and it's not viable to put this promoted boxing box

at this site >> other comment, however, elsie street. 15 germany rad street. please step forward and good evening ladies and gentlemen, i'm the owner of the house on germany rad street i want to dmrar any petition in mounting the facility at that place i won of the my objection the at&t cabinet would be an eye soar and attract bad things. the 415 germany rad street the

at&t cabinet will pose an undue burden on the prove or disprove. the at&t cabinet are inhabit the enlarging and existing at the curbside. the at&t cabinet will cabinet will change the residential air to a more commercial area. the at&t cabinet will disturb the function of the adjacent property. i don't think the big company like at&t should be louder than the minority. ladies and gentlemen, i hope you consider this situation and here's the copy of the letter i first sent to the at&t and

department of public works for your again to reference. please we see my statements and thank you very much. >> would you like to state your name for the record. >> and i less than lee. this is the first copy of the letter i sent to at&t and public works. thank you. >> okay. thank you. is there any other public comment for geraldo street go ahead >> i'm allen chow a few facts it says 415 geraldo street but no residents on this the box is in front of my mothers place which is the southeast corner of bacon and germany rad.

i'm not clear i want to ask mr. quan b >> but you should address the board. >> i want to know why the dpw stopped the vacation r evacuation or to dig up the necessary ground to install the box that they wish to place on the northwest corner of back on they agreed to move that from what it would have been a common box and that's why we observed

to this as a companion box we want this to go through we don't want them to come back and to place it where they wanted to originally place it to an exist box in front of my mothers place that's why i want the denial to be overturned. thank you >> thank you. okay. so any other public comment for germany rad street or any comment for group one any of those addresses. seeing none, we'll start with rebuttal from at&t you have 3 minutes >> so i'd like to make 3 brief

points the first thing. >> talk into the microphone. >> sorry commissioner president lazarus. i want to thank everyone who came out in this process because i think that the people make the point in a much more powerful way. what you heard over and over was the notice was given and there were box walks and the community said we don't think your proposed location works you should use this alternative place at&t agrees that location is better and meets all the technical requirements. then those people came to the hearing and they expected what was going to happen was the hearing officer was going to approve one of the location and

not worrying about this. the department won't follow its own rules everything here they are time is waste. at&t is not here saying give us the original proposed location at&t told the hearing officer yet there are multiple location and the community has identified as being less impact full and we're okay we think should be approved and naturally i understand why people are concerned it's not at&t's position we're entitled we want the community input precisely so we can identify acceptable location. the second point i want to make

commissioner president lazarus you said could we do additional notice. i want to tell you that at&t would be amenable for all the future applications to provide that kind of notice provided the board give the derivative to at&t and dpw and dpw felt that was in compliance what the s m f approve or disapprove >> you have thirty more seconds. >> the last point i understand people have legitimate concerns the public it supposed to be involved it's not true at&t didn't care the stories that was

appointed the original location didn't work and told the hearing officer as such. the - >> your time is up. >> i have a question though how could do hearing officer approve the location if you weren't given that alternative. >> it's precisely the scenario donates presented by appeals. >> where show me the language. >> so if you go to page 8 and i'm going to ask you to look at number 4. i'm going to read this because i have to apologize i've been trying >> i can read it number 4 page 8 what's the language your relying on. >> at the conclusion of the hearing the hearing officer may keep the hearing open 20 days

for other locations identified in the hearing. that's what happened >> that's may. >> the hearing officer may. >> has the discretion okay. thank you. >> i have a question dollars a reference in this group there will be two issues it took thirty days to notice the walk and if that notice needs to come from at&t that period of time is not contributing to expediting the permit and the schedule was inconvenient for people if you're talking about this why weren't they done after 5:00 p.m. after people get home from work or earlier in the morning. >> you have a two-part question commissioner president lazarus.

>> why it takes thirty days up to notice the walk? to even notice the walk could it be set at a subsequent most that's the month you're addressing on to get those permits approved. right if we worked out a process with dpw we were given additional notice if other sites were identified in the box walks there will be having to be supra times >> that's not my question. >> you're asking why it takes thirty days. >> from the submission of the application a box walk was asked for and took thirty days. >> i think it took 50 days because at&t has some of the same constraints that the department has which say we have

people b that conduct those box walks and doing them on a preregular basis i don't know the details. >> but you're willing to admit there's a constraint on our time too. >> there's constraint in our time but at&t is not the party that has create insures in which it's taking six months. >> that's not the question why are they done at 10 o'clock on a week day. >> but again, i'm sure the board derivative is that - >> okay. i'm not getting into directives. >> i've got a question someone in the party showed a visitation from at&t regarding the box so

the notification you're sending she showed an additional picture according to here is the original size of the box. so the notification you're sending is that accurate to scale you're sending >> i'm glad you asked that i need to point out two things the first is every one of the notifications that at&t sends out has to be approved by the department of public works we don't send out. >> i'm asking a yes or no. >> it's two scale it's to scale and i don't believe from the scale of the photograph that i saw accurately represents. >> hers was large and yours was small was on a accurate to scale. >> their accurate to scale yes.

>> thank you, mr. quan you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you george yawning u quan from the department of public works again. actually, i he was listening carefully to the public comments and based on volumes to the position of the department i believe one of the speakers on 1155 church street said it well those kinds of notifications in at&t is suggesting a 7 day review or a evaluation instead of the 20 she wouldn't understand and she was provided the notice for 20 days this speaks volumes we need to be able to provide that information to the people that are impacted. another one that struck me firmly in in this case all the

public speakers are the folks implicated by requested location they're saying i don't want it in front of my building but somewhere else is okay. we hear voices from a group of individuals but whatever the other group that's impacted by the mr. president and they get a voice in this case. that's a challenge that the department continues to face that's why we believe it's appropriate to deny the permit and have it redone. with the alternative locations there are two loeshgs we're forced to evaluate in this case it may not be the case that the property owners that came here now based on the evaluation the

less intrusive may fall back on their property but i know this is unlivable. it really depended on the notification in those kinds of cases. i think like i stated this is the point based on the public comment and based on what's been spoken here as it relates to the process of the notification. one thing i want to point out harassing as a relates to the photo simulation it shows the size of the box but it doesn't show the foundation along with the installation as part of the facility. so, you know, it gives a relative photo >> does the department approve the notice. >> we approve the verbiage of the notice of exactly what's to be on it.

>> but not necessarily the photo. >> no, it's provided from at&t and that minimum ice cream the size of the cabinet but not identify the alleged facilities that are polarized by at&t when they applied for the permit. >> yeah. i'm trying to formulate a question why are there 3 boxed on carlos that's only a block away. that's a good question i don't know off the top of my head, sir >> i have a question part of at&t's argument as i understand it one way to address identification of an alternative site doug a box walk would be to

keep the permit open for another 20 days but could another box walk courage during that extended walk period. >> i understand at&t is pointing out to the directors order. where if the hearing officer may open it for an additional 20 days and maybe it will possibly require an additional posting for 7 days for the potential locations what had not been contemplate by the department in 2005 how far apart those sites maybe from each other. what we normal contemplate in cases is traffic signal boxes and a at intersections then the

notification process will be one or two more properties that are impacted by the 3 hundred foot notification >> that is not applicable in this situation in regards to the time. >> we've heard from the general public the notification that was provide one of the citizens that was given the notification said it took a while to decipher it and provide feedback it was only 7 days so based on that information we believe that our decision so deny in order to have better notification to the public is more appropriate by rehearing by renoticing nicole. >> for the alternative.

>> yes. >> mr. quan, your staff does a site walk with at&t within sometime following the application. >> on request yes, we do. >> does your staff review with them alternative sites? is that an intaf or just go out and walk and come back to the office? >> at&t's position and our position is normally left to the public for the site location to the community if they ask we can

possible provide the technical information but really we need to remain that neutral third party because we're processing the permit. >> okay. thank you. >> unless there are additional questions the matter is submitted in group one. >> you want to start. >> no, go ahead. >> a couple of things one it's - if we were to any purely a global approach to the situation it would be one thing if we were to look at as we normally do each permit without looking at any other situation with altercating other permits that

are perennial in nature we'll get more information the appellant has not provided us with any information but optional a legal argument. the department has indicated their rationale which is prominently based on notice but didn't provide us any information from the hearings we have no idea of the totality of what occurred and be able to look at each individual case and make a determination. and i'm saying there hadn't been many particularly types of appeals and at the same time the issues were brought up the lack of submission of the site plans and lack of submission of

identification alternative sites so it's kind of difficult to look at it each permit and make a decision well, is this the best location reflected by permit. if he were to look at it purely on the basis of notice than the process they currently has is a little bit broken. if has commissioner honda said at the very beginning if you want to have a competitive and the departments wants to if you want to have a comprehensive notification process then at the beginning you'll have your primary desire site but our secondary site identified and notification it handled wound it may be a boarder area and therefore we don't have the

situation that the department is concerned about and we're also is that that you go to awning easiest site but never solicited whether they want it in front of their house all the people here don't want it in front of their house not the one down the block i have a problem making a determination if i have to look at each individual ones. if i do it collective one i'll support of the department and saying the notification should have been done for alternative he sites but the process needs to be tweaked >> i mean, i think my view a clear from my questions to the appellant.

i mean through the legal arguments are creative they're not the correct interpretation of the code and i agree the notice process needs to be improved but it didn't make sense that the hearing officer has the authority to deny the permit despite the fact there's been other location identified. they're very technical argument but they don't make logical sense so i'll feel comfortable treating all those appeals similarly because they were based on on the same argument and the appellants arguments doesn't make sense so i agree that the notice needs to be

tweaked i agree with mr. quan >> so commissioners, i agree with both of you and also i mean, the reason why we're here a mainly due to the notification we understand at&t is trying to expand their services simpleminded nobody wants a box directly in front of their home and i too agree i said this before when they were here last time there needs no be a better notification process and language needs to be add so the additional sites because a person on the additional didn't want it in front of their house there should be a better radius and better notification and

commissioner fung said there might be slight difference but looking at it as a whole i believe all the issues are hinge on notification and i think besides the additional language needed, you know, at&t needs to initiate or take the next step so this process didn't continue to happen. i agree that with my fellow expirations that the department was correct in their position motion motion >> i'll make a position to deny all the group you first cluster they were proper under the code.

>> 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