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 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 publ