i'm also a past board member of the ace valley association i agree with the comments from the recent speaker at&t identifiable active to make those boxes more acceptable to the community. the mou said they were going to get additional community outreach basically, they go forward the intent by nonresponsive attempts to find workable solutions to make those boxes more amenable to the neighborhood. ; moreover, when they were ordered to find additional sites they've failed to do that completely. basically, all the conditions you've found objectiveable for groups one and 2 apply for group

3 as well i hope your ventsdz result in the same outcome of your decision and i'd appreciate that greatly. just other points to clarify who we had our meeting we made it clear that most of the a team that submitted that protest work that's upper available for that the day they scheduled it for 11:00 o'clock a week day there's no attempt to get the real input. clearly as the gentleman from glen park the protest that were invited it seems straightforward you could send out an easy document are you available weekends there's never a perfect

time but there are ways to do this this shouldn't be the ability of at&t. those are some of the concerns just specific my experience are the walk i got to the 11 o'clock meeting probably 1110 or 1115 i didn't see anybody there thought they were running late and when i decided i missed that i called the number that set up the appointment and e-mail i was told i missed that the community turned out and they found angle alternative site and i could wait until the next year there was no attempt to schedule another meeting. those are some of the concerns i

have regarding that thank you very much for the decision >> any other public comment only group 3 appeals. seeing none, we'll have our rebuttal. 3 minutes >> so i just ma'am, vice president briefly would like to speak to our earlier question of the timing of little scheduling the hearings for randall street at&t originally submitted it application in january of he will 2013 it would ultimately a decision unify november 2013 that's a 10 month gap and through the similar gap for 210 randall. this was early in the process of at&t going out and, you know,

attempting to give notice and apparently what happened is at&t assumed that the department was going to comply with the s m f order when required that the hearing be scheduled within thirty days and inevitable we saw that the hamburger weren't being scheduled that's the point we that had the meeting that was talked about much earlier. for 336 randall street the >> what. >> 336 walter the application was filled in 2013 and it wasn't an ultimate decision for 10 months. it took days the application was filed in may and not a hearing

until november that's a 5 month gap and took 95 days to schedule a hearing after the box walk. again, i think the common point i'll make about the specific denials for all of those locations is that if you examine the administered record the hearing officers made denials that the s m f portion couldn't consider this is for raul street on the basis that at&t could conduct another box walk so parents and he walkers could identify additional sites. well, my time is up

>> okay. mr. quan. >> commissioners john quan from the dksz again. i think in many ways the time issue we've beat it to death i want to talk about the location for randall street the department received 12 objections based on that the hearing officer did open the hearing for 20 days. to evaluate proposals. during the hearing one the observe terse identified three locations and the department did receive at the end of 20 days at&t response was those locations are more than 3 hundred photo away from our cabinet and therefrom they don't

satisfy the requirement. the departments expectation was for at&t to meet with the obtain terrors to identify those additional locations in those 3 locations didn't satisfy at&t requirements to find a resolution that didn't happen. in relation to 33 of walter street we received a petition from 29 people observing to the placement and based on this on our hearing okay. we directed at&t with opening for 20 days to have a followup what walk and they do. i was reported to by my staff that 4 people showed up one was

by happenstance one person was in their house and conjugating so they came out and based on the evaluation the hearing officer and department didn't believe that was sufficient outreach or an at all times in those kinds of cases and finally on buchanan the department did receive a letter from rec and park department that they were against the placement of the surface facility that is in front of of the playground on the 6 hundred block and that's one the reasons to direct at&t to work with other to get a new location. as you heard from the retinas and the membership there was not a robust outreach and discussion

with that group as suggested. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> mr. quan actually rec and park they've shared the pain as the rest of our citizens the question is there was an interesting public comment made you know for a fact this radius still applies. >> we don't because technology continued to change and . >> i'm recalling in some of the wireless appeals we've heard that radius is much larger for those types of technology. >> you're correct what the department are not experts as it relates to the copper wiring and the copper facility. >> we should direct that

question. >> the commissioner is correct mostly balk to the at&t and engineering group. >> okay. thank you. did you want to - >> if you don't mind to the appellant i'd like to ask a technical question on your equipment radius which effects the location. >> commissioner fung to the best of my ability i'll try to answer the question my understanding is the effective radius is still, you know, 5 to 16 years later 3 hundred feet theirs serious landlines their signal strength problems and this equipment only works in this kind of input radius.

i apologize i don't have more technical information. i talked with miracle blackman from at&t this evening about this but that's what he told me the technology in the case of those utility cabinets has not dramatically changing changed. one more technical question do those things operate serially in other words do you have a have a series of boxess to connect up for the service in the area or - >> with our permission i think i know what the answer is but

hang on. so my understanding is this is it's a distribution network you know the fiber goes out and connects with the rest of the network. and but that does not softly solve the cabinet one limits on where those utility cabinets can be pleased they have to be placed within 3 hundred feet of the utility cabinets that are already there. you know the benefit obviously of moving from fiber to from copper to a fiber network is that it allows people s to have all the device working in an iv

platform >> thank you. commissioners the group 3 appeals are submitted. >> their subsequentially drift from the first 2 groups. i'll add with regard to the 5 will 85 issue i still feel that it's noted positive here i'm not persuaded by the argument of the appellant for the reasons stated in the dpw brief i don't think there's ann been a violation so i guess i'll have the same motion to deny the appeals >> okay. so for those 3 group appeals the vice president 0 denies the appeals for the

permits were appropriating denied sxhun. commissioner hwang commissioner president lazarus. and commissioner honda >> okay. so that motions passes 4 to zero. >> i'd like to take a 5 minute break. >> okay. we're going to take a 5 minute break. >> we're going returning and we're calling four cases. at the 1335 mission street and mr. george you have 3 minutes to present our case.

>> so i'll be brief so the hearing officer found that on december 4th, 2012, at&t submitted it's police station there wasn't a hearing scheduled for more than a year until january the 6 of 2014. i have taken looking at the status it says a local entity shall approve or deny an application within 60 days of ref the completed application i respect if you disagree with the hearing commissioners. there was an alternative site

identified on mission street rather than hold the hearing open and request that at&t do an additional? as the recommendation hearing officer was to deny the application and ordered the applicant to cooperate with the parking meter for the double parking meter for the s m f i assume on mission street. i'll point out i don't see any authority anywhere in the s m f for the hearing officer to exercise that form of discretion so we respect telling me fully request this permit application there be a reserveal and it be

approved >> mr. quan. members of the board of appeals i'm john quan with the department of public works. actually this one is interesting what happened i'm sure i've received a brief or a notification from the developer locked on 1335 mission streets as suggests that mr. president of this box is in conflict. the hearing officer determined that the site was most appropriate that in order for the fit to that site the most appropriate situation was for one the parking meters to be removed and put in a double

meter that's the best location available that's assessable for at&t and that's one of the reasons the hearing officer made that recommendation. if the suggestion is that we the department should not find and assist based on the description to find of the alternative possibilities then the department will reject the site based on the requirement of the entitlement for the better streets requirement as it was imposed upon the development team so at&t could find another location and restart the process >> is this 1335 mission. >> no, i'm talking about right next to it.

pretty sure in this case we believe what we're trying to do is follow a certain level of trying to accommodate in this particular case given the situation there's a major development going on for the affordable housing lemon for senior housing to assist both parties to find a salutation both at&t and the developer in this case. i'll answer any questions you may have >> thank you. is thrombin on 1335 mission? >> hi i'm katie we're the developers on the property on

1335 mission we received a notice from at&t that stated that they would place an s m f in front of are of our property you can see the building it makes sense we had several predicaments in place for street improvements and tree replacement and to revitalize the neighborhood so we received let's see - this is back in april of 2012 the first paragraph states through the better street plan the city is

trying to find more uses to kind of summarize to they're asking we keep the sidewalk clear and have allowed us to apply for a bold permit we get the permit approved and it's in this box where it's proposed. so it cannot be. we've think gone through the process with at&t the company proposed another location that's in front of a flat parking lot so it's a good alternative and it seems like with our conversations with at&t this had been september to going through the process and continually

playing all our imagess the new high-rise and the circus conflict we've gone through this process with at&t every time explaining why this can't be. thank you >> is there any public comment on this item. seeing none, is there a rebuttal? >> i just add again that at&t is perfect fine with the alternative that's been suggested 92 just now in terms of the location. i would point out that this is the problem for as a public utility this application was originally filed in 2012, we didn't get a denial until 2014.

everybody lives in the neighborhood of 1335 mission street who wants assessing access to board abandon internet or wants other services and at the rate the department is going they may not have access to them next year the at&t has a right to place those in areas and to pick out the best location the best process that's k345i789d by the s m f order is not supposed to telephone call take 14 months. it didn't make sense it have multiple hearing upon hearing

with the regress. the process is supposed to work like >> you have 30 seconds. >> getting input from the community and working with the officer and department to identify the least impactable location in each neighborhood that's simply not happening here and the prejudice is to the residents in the neighborhoods who wants access to those services. >> mr. quan any rebuttal. >> commissioners john from the department of public works i just checked with ms. your honor, there was a miscommunication with this location at&t didn't request a posting we believe they want to inform us which is a little bit different and this is much

earlier in 2012 from the process prospective again they were coming in with a lot of permits so there was some miscommunication but once we've figured out what type of we accelerated the process of the permit that's why the issue they suggested of the delay. >> sorry i didn't mean to interrupt. >> this is the situation again by moving this do you think there's an alternative location now we have to locations when a one was the suggestion of the absurdity location this allows the department once i'm assuming we'll receive objections from an alternative locations we'll have two to oxygen's of the less intrusive one i believe the

process is being followed by us asking to provide the correct next step. >> commissioners item number 15 is submitted. >> ideas? i mean what can we do here we've got to deny the permit? or accept the permit but that still requires notifications; right? >> we should probably be consistent, you know, the fact

that their might have been a kwifrn here the fact of the time i'm wouldn't be comfortable to grant this appeal and law the conditions so that the alternative site as mr. quan mentioned we do know whether they will obtain so i'm prepared to uphold the denial and . >> deny the appeal. >> deny the appeal and on the basis that department did not error and their decision was compliant. >> any other commissioners

okay. we'll take that as a motion so there's been a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal on the basis the permits were okay under the code. commissioner hwang sfdz and sfgovtv that motion carries and the next is item 167 appeal. so mr. george you're up implicit. 3 minutes. >> so that particular application was filed in june of 2013, the hearing was ultimately scheduled on january 14, 2014. as with the other 21 appeals the board has heard lynn fong of

public works said this application met all the guidelines and at the hearing it was reported to the hearing officer that during the box walk there had been an additional site on fell street unfortunately, that site didn't meet the technical requirements to install the box ambassador this particular appeal it was denied on that basis that at&t was unable i guess to install to the that location it's the reality of the guidelines of how those cabinets work there's not an infinity amount of places to be placed in the neighborhoods are the s m f has 22 different requirements that at&t has to

et that are stroem specifically like the facility shall not obstruct the pedestrian clear traffic path. and there's a substantial number of requirements there are also some technical limitationss on where the cabinets can go that's notary republic not is an unusual situations is there are be situations in some neighborhoods there's only one location where those will work for an infrastructure build out i'll take any questions if you have them. thank you >> thank you, mr. quan. >> good evening, commissioners