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 meet 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 john quan from public works 533 buchanan in this case is actually a little bit different. what happened during the public hearing it was appointed that the area that at&t was prototyping the box was a landscape area and we must recognition under the streets better plan there's the city's policy to improve the public right-of-way for beautification that the part of the stormwater

management plan we're moving so the rain will run into the dirt and it will be reducing the amount of run off into the storm drain they don't want to repave over a landscape area look taylor's there's two specific policies that determines it's not appropriate for you to put the box and foundation and pave over an area that's landscaped it doesn't makes sense to the city that's why it was rejected. i'm here to answer any questions you have

>> so every homeowner puts landscaping in front of their homes and never mind. >> (laughter). >> is there any public comment on item 16, please step forward. >> hi i'm rose i'm the resident on the fell street and the proposed s m f was supposed to go outside of the side of my house there's landscaping and a trees in the area and on the box walk it became clear to dpw and at&t that the trespassing tree was there where did that come from that tree has been there

temple years ago it was fulfill permitted at the time it was why that location wouldn't work but with the box walk again, it was scheduled at noon on a workday difficult for us to be doctor there are 3 single-family homes and we've been trying to stay on top of everything i think what was interesting about that box walk american people alternative location was identified and we were told at that time that location load great and the walk was concluded so no one was given a chance to identify another alternative so the only

communication we got was that the hearing on january 5th at&t said, in fact, that location couldn't work because the 3 hundred feet radius so we should have been given another opportunity to identify a location. as i have a minute left i don't understand how at&t ever got to the hearing session by the way, when i have the s m f document there's a lot of prerequisites there they're trying to improve they have tried to secure a private land on which to put the boxes on again there are 3 single-family homes in the area and none of us were approached

similarly with the underground requirements we've never been given a true technical reason and finally down the block there's another at&t box they could go color together without trevor with the trees and landscaping present >> next speaker >> gail. board member of the neighborhood association. i did do send in an objection but couldn't attend the community walk one the points mark blackman mentioned at our transmission meeting that spent a large amount of time over the mr. president of the s m f is

asking for private property that will serve the same purpose and get them off the sidewalk or at least an alternative rather than an arbitrary process of moving around a neighborhood none of them in the group has expertise about the placement we've talked about one property a hud property directly across the street and in the case of 533 there's a large apartment building cross the street and potentially there are storage locations within the building that will allow at&t to use private property space. the incentive is $8,000 for skaes that's another thing that should be addressed for a prove

or disprove to want to do that as opposed to obstructing sidewalks. is there any public comment seeing none, mr. george if you have rebuttal you have 2 minutes >> i'd like to make two points for the record again lynn fong from public works appeared at the hearing and this is the hearing officers finding at&t, in fact, compiled with the technical requirements of the order. the other point is the proposed location is in the public right-of-way and at&t has a right to install in those locations and the city of san francisco revokes