after the box walk i'll could be and give the statistics. >> i need the timeline that's great. >> what is happening in all of those appeals after the box walk and congeniality outreach is concluded that dpw for whatever reason is not scheduling the timely meeting is violate the california law and the statute a extremely clear this is supposed be a 60 day process if it was a 80 or 90 day process that's one thing but a 12 month process does not provide the services that the people in the city that they want i'll take questions.

>> i'll ask a question in the stance on wall street alleging at&t gave twenty-four hours notice of the box walk which would not be very much time and proposed an alternative location it didn't agree with was this neighboring neighbors wanted and the walk being conducted during non-business hours or on the weekend you're trying to hurry up and it's at the cost of the public to not weigh in. >> i'm gladly that you asked me that question commissioner president lazarus. one of the things at&t has exercised they've tried to schedule the box walks at the

night and they get a lot of complaints that essentially the utility is trying to do this under the cover of darkness. we also get objections what at&t is doing is cutting into family time. it's a additionally a problem to schedule on night or on weekends the department can't be there. so i don't know what the solution is whether or not those are scheduled during the day or in the we've gotten protest >> you're asking inform twenty-four hours later if that's correct. >> so something else i wanted to answer often those box walks are scheduled after people file protests so when you see there

are multiple box walks if someone calls in and protests at&t was not doing during the beginning but now we expedite the box walks. i'm have to confer but one person says i have a problem with the location can at&t do a box walk with the person that's protesting >> it seems like that's for the box walk and it was educatoring to the box walk i said there is no perfect time maybe you have to do it twice. >> many, many instances we've done multiple box walks and you've heard the people who were go enough to come her this evening what is typical at&t did

come out and try to identify alternative locations that worked for the community and presented those alternatives to the hearing officer. >> thank you. mr. quan 5 minutes >> at&t continues to talk about the president involved obviously, i'm not familiar with that aspect, however, i have staff that have worked on scheduling the hearing i'm happy to bring forward my colleague to talk about that. repelled to say some of the other elements that were

mentioned that appears their suggesting the department if they're after hours or non-business hours the suggestion that dpw was not available to attend but i'll make the availability we'll accommodate in those kinds of cases. i want to ask ervin to come up and explain from the time of the box walk to when we schedule those hearings >> thank you. i'm arian i want to address the concern about the timeframe between the box walks and scheduling the hearing i'm the person who scheduled the hearing to the best of my ability the time delay at&t is

referring to say not quite to simply the way that previously the way the appealed locations were being considered the way that the process is going not necessarily towards the order at&t was scheduled a box walk and conduct their outreach and they'll thrills that timeframe when at&t conducted the box walk and, yes the site is ready to go to hearing was often one or two months that timeframe so that accounts formal some of the lag between the end of the box walk and the beginning of skementd the hearing. we have extremely limited scheduling i'm the only person that works on that i speak to

the fact we have completely saturated basic 2013 saturated the dpw hearings system with s m f orders we were only able to schedule two hearings a month because we needed space for the other items we have trees and blights that need to be on the agenda so every single opportunity has been completely saturating the schedule and that's been since remedied because now what we're doing as soon as we receive an objection to a location i automatic low schedule it we're not take into

account when at&t scheduled a box walk as soon as that hearing comes in like mr. quan said been amended we're holding exclusively s m f hearings on a completely different day and that's not been done before. thank you. i'm happy to take questions >> thank you. >> as mr. urban has stayed it's not a situation we take our down-and-outs lightly we do everything to find alternatives to try to work with at&t to insure that they get a timely

response. so i'm available to answer any questions you have >> what's the ratio of hearings to application. >> virtually one to one almost. >> i haven't heard a situation when we provide an notification we get an objection. >> okay. thank you. okay. we can take public comment on group 3 is there anyone that wants to speak on randell a street step forward >> good evening, commissioners i'm nicholas stuart. thank you i want to take the opportunity to testify. i'm the vice president of the glen park association on randell street still both of the parks they're on the same street a few hundred photo from each other if

you don't obtain i'll talk about them at the same time. i'd like to discuss the ridiculously inadequate public outreach public outreach is what i do for a living when i look at the way they did is they're trying to minimize the amount of attraction with the community. those those particular boxes i don't remember the notice. in order to get into a box walk you've actually got to file an objection you have to so there's a hurdle right away. we went to the without objection balk the box walk took place in the early afternoon on a week

day in september or october. and only two of the immediately effected neighbors were able to attend other were not able to so straight away people were excluded. the notice has it says there's going to be an opportunity to discuss the engineering and one of the person that came was the external affairs person 0 none of them could answer the question in that realm. we gave them a slew of questions

by the time of the appeal we received questions to answers to all of our questions but most of the answers fell short of what we needed to know. essentially it's set up you're not going to be able to go unless you get off work and it was like 7 days notice. i was lucky. i think this was all of boxes walk i'm running out of time so thank you very much >> thank you. any other comment on 210 randall. >> good evening and thank you very much for holding the hearing i'm bruce i'm that will

with the glen park association. i'd like to talk about a few things a followup on the information we did we forced at the box walk on this particular site in dealing with about 12 questions some of which were technical and some had to do with policy. as nicholas indicated they didn't get back to us until a week from the hearing many weeks later and the responses they give us were often referring us to their pr website. we did a spreadsheet and gave to you as part of the information we provided for the earlier hearing that was continues because we were on our earlier agenda and i decided to move it

on. i wanted to make the point it was completely nonresponsive and there were a lot of technical questions they didn't send anyone that could answer those kinds of questions that has proven to be the case at the subsequent meeting. they have a 3 hundred foot radius for their equipment. this limit was established in 2005 i believe at the time that process was set up it's electronics it's not 2014 so we're 9 years later and still using the same distance for their technology limitations and i would says there's things that

have changed especially in technology firms but i guess they probably have a little bit more leeway than the 3 hundred photo they rely on. glen park has a lot of limitations that other neighbors don't have most neighborhoods have sidewalks of 15 feet and other in excess of 20 feats and glenn parks streets a 8 feet very, very few are greater than 9 feet we're looking constantly for sites for those boksz boxes that are off the sidewalk we found out one near the bart station it was greater than 3

hundred feet so clearly the 3 hundred foot limit is a little bit if i didn't when at&t wants to to be >> any other day public comment for either randall street address housh how about ralph street. buchanan >> good evening. i'm lisa i own and occupy 620 buchanan streets which is the address of s f m. if i was given a proper notification of the intention to put in the box i didn't see it i know other got it.

my first intention was brought to the fact that the facility might be put in in front of my building when i got the appeal notice when at&t was appealing the denial of the surface mounted facility permit so i dropped off and it was heard in this room on january 15th so i wrote any letter in support of the denial and dropped off any leveling copies and came to this room it turns out that hearing was dismissed because there were no denial of an application for a permit so the board was not in the jurisdiction of it was not within the jurisdiction of the board to hear that case or to rule on that case.

i'm still not really sure why how at&t came to an, an appellant in a case they didn't, in fact, have any denial that seems like a waste of everybody's time including yours. so since then my neighbors were also here to offer their voice at the hearing and learned that the box walk that i missed that we thought was everybody else could thought was going think fine and the neighbors were going to be heard and all of a sudden this hearing came up and we had no idea of what happened to that box walk. it seems at&t is walking the walk but when it comes to the

people that aren't showing up their circumventing some of the process. there's a deadlines in the process but at&t is adding to the problem. as you've heard with the hearing not to lump all the cases together and answer them all at once in favor of at&t even though the process may not be working properly but all the voices are heard. i want to make an observation that at&t wants american people upgrade but that's an expansion >> there's no public comment on buchanan. >> i'm one of the board members of the hayes valley association

we've been in contact with at&t ever since we saw it posted on a post we've been if contact with mark who's also been working with our transportation committee to maintain the details of how this impacts our neighborhood. we did a box walk and even if there were 18 objections. the issues that we see from a point of view of the neighborhood association as well as been a neighbor is at&t point of view is the only point of view. what we see as neighbors the box walk is a charade to provide

information they've fulfilled the mou and didn't consider the neighborhood concerns the box is 40 cubic feet and numbering number two it's stages steel and can't be painted they have to have 3 hundred and 60 degrees walk around you can't put it up to a this so you can't fit there this into a plan but in alleys they'll be perfect for fortune are furniture because the limitation of the 3 hundred and material on the box and absolutely no flexibility in painting or putting murals on

those boxes to make them fit into the neighborhood. that's my concerns in terms of of the community outreach is perceived by the neighbors that accelerates the objections >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi i'm jim. 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