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 in their

report the utility boxes are a part of the city >> mr. quan. >> thank you, john quan from the department of public works. the department acknowledges that at&t has absolutely right to place their boxes in a public right-of-way, however, the city can dedicate time and manner for the displacement of the facilities that's why we permit those and with a preprilt permit before we issue american people evaluation permit. one of the things that the public members pointed out was a tree identified at this location.

i did evaluate the pamper that was submitted there were several pictures of the location one showed a vehicle in front of the proposed site and another the proposed at&t box on the sidewalk. by what was sprooipz it didn't show a existing base because i went back there and checked with google map there's an empty tree well, i don't know whether it was an accident that at&t places the facility and masked it i can't speak to that but the bottom line is the city a established stormwater

management and the city is correct in regulating the enforcement as it relates >> out of the one hundred and 60 previous installations of as far as mount facilities are they on public land. >> one thing i'll point out if there's a private agreement with the at&t and the prove or disprove to place those facilities optional private property we wouldn't know about it the attempts must be made to identify with the prove or disprove where they'll entertain this on private property. >> do they have obligations to try to get into private

property. >> they have to reach out and based on topographic in cases there might be a block where 90 no properties have set back it's impossible to place on private property. >> can i ask a question of council? so let me ask a question of the one hundred and 60 how many are open private property >> i don't have the answer. >> can you ask them. >> my understanding is some of the s m fs have been placed on

private property and at&t sends out easement he letters to reach an arrangement to put those on private property i apologize commissioners i don't have the statistics and what have you done and outreach to guy the property we know you have additional cases before. >> my answer as to this appeal the department of public works found we've applied with the order and we're obligated to fund a location on private property. >> so what do you do when you are looking for private property you're interested in acquiring

our space. >> i apologize for being board is at&t sends outs easement letters to homeowners in the neighborhood. i apologize for not having >> as the public has said some people have received notification and i live within a surface mount and have not received either but i want to know have you an example of what you send out to the neighborhood with you. >> none of that was the basis of the dnld so no. perhaps the city will be able to answer your question better than i >> commissioners as part of the little package they have to

produce letters they've reached attest the public in those cases. if i can find this is part of the check list requirement if i may have the overhead this is the gesture form letter that at&t provides to the public for certain property owners as it relates to an easement >> okay. >> and as part of this they gives several addresses of purposes we've contacted and that's for at&t.

>> that's for at&t thank you for clearing that up. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i move to deny the appeal on the basis the departments decision was compliant. >> okay. on that motion made that i commissioner fung. commissioner hwang absent. commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda >> that motion carries 4 to zero we'll move ton to item 21 on scott street. mr. johnson. >> i don't believe there's anything particularly unusual about this appeal i'll try to be

very, very brief there's an 11 most gap and ms. fong again found that at&t complieltd with the requirements of the s m f. during the sidewalk as the hearing director reported two members of the community attend the box walk and at&t walked the neighborhood and found another site - my apologizes i'm reading from 100 furton street. what happened was about at&t offered to walk the site to review alternative site locations, however, the obtain terrors found no suitable area

and that's one of the difficulties that at&t faces because the way this process is supposed to work at&t works with the community to find the least impacted loeshgs but if the community won't identify any location then at&t appeal the specific denial was that the hearing officer saw the project maybe in conflict with the plan the at&t cabinet and recommended at&t work collaboratively with the neighborhood association and the only point i'll make is the hearing officer didn't have the discretion to make those kind of particular order >> mr. quan. >> good evening.

george quan from the department of public works actually in this case it's a very simple situation 410 scott street the mrrments of this box at&t is required to place what they've projected to place for positive and capital facilities in the next 5 year that's a piece of software and every city agency places their capital plans in this map. as part of submittal applied for an application in june of 2003 that was identified as the 5 year plan of march 2003 so when

at&t computed this information it identified a conflict and the project manager who hadn't this project wiggle there was an exception we've received information from the project team what's been proposed by at&t there be a conflict moving forward it appears to the department at least that it is not a situation outreach but a situation of coordination and make sure the facilities are placed correct so again, when we start moving forward and start the wiggle those will not be in

conflict with the city project you need to coordinate and figure out where it's most appropriate in this specific case >> you had no objections. >> there were objections but the primary wednesday, april 16, 2014, was the capital project. >> are you sure you meant 2003. >> no 2013. it was originally placed in there i'm sorry, i misspoke. >> any public comment on this item seeing none, any rebuttal. okay. mr. quan anything further then commissioners the matter is submitted >> i'll move to deny this this

is in direct conflict with the city's greening effort. >> okay. we have the motion by wanting to deny the appeal and uphold the dependent on the basis the permit was appropriating denied and with the cities greening efforts. >> commissioner fong. commissioner hwang is absent and commissioner hurtado and that passes four to zero we're on our last item on one hundred thorton >> commissioners, i have a financial conflict and within 5 hundred feet of the project and prior to me departing i want to

thank everyone for staying late especially my neighbors in the back. i think a lot of this at&t has consistently said the process is overly lengthy and unfair. at the same time this is a pretty good lesson that if at&t would do more outreach and identify additional areas that if 1, 2, 3 didn't work we wouldn't have this backlog of cases this is something we've discussed last time we we can only make the suggestion if they don't want to listen they don't have to that's my suggestion >> thank you, mr. johnson we

can hear your opening argument. >> we've been here what appears more than 5 hours i appreciate our time and at&t wants to say on the record we appreciate the input by everyone and thank the. this last appeal is much like the first cluster and it's problematic with what's gone wrong with the process at&t pilot for a hearing and there wasn't a hearing for 11 months.

the s m f map went out with the objection and the alternative site that work was identified at the 18 lucy street and then a hearing at which time it was reported to the hearing officer that the sites were not in inclines and there was an alternative location. it would work for at&t but the hearing officer could have done simple hold the hearing open for 20 days and have additional time to move the application process along that's what's contemplated unfortunately, that is not what happened. our position is what we began the evening with if you look at

the hearing officer position we think this is breaking california bay law we don't think that's too much to ask to fellow your own rules. it's observe the hearing officer didn't have the discretion to deny permits and it's supposed to work pick the best site and submit a recommendation thank you for your time and consideration of the appeals >> counselor before you start mr. quan you're less than halfway through our roll out on the ferries phase i don't want to see 2 hundred more appeals i don't think you want to be here.

>> 5 and a half hours. >> there needs to be a solution that incorporates some of the things. >> at&t completely agrees with you even though - >> even if you choose to litigate. >> unfortunately we're stuck now, when you have those applications that take more than a year. >> we've heard that. >> i apologize. >> thank you. mr. quan >> sorry. >> john quan department of public works one last times this is an interesting situation at&t is correct we did a posting in april of 2003 and at&t had a box walk ♪

i'm sorry 2013. it was they identified with the community that 18 lucy seemed to be an appropriate location i can go back and check that you turned out that at&t approximately a couple of months later applied for a facility on lucy street to begin the notification process. but what was sprooild during some point at&t stopped the positive and moved down this process as an appeal. the last corresponds was in october 2013 for the satisfaction of the postings we didn't have the second location which is what everyone agreed to

we have both locations whatever happens to agree hearing officer can make an informed decision between the location and the alternative location on lucy. what happened at&t requested us to stop the process they cited in this case put the location if to a undue postings but had this moved that or this would have been resolved and not before this board. that's all i have as relate to the history we depended on it for whatever reason if they continued the process we wouldn't be in front of this board a decision would have been

render >> we can take comment from the patient people in the back right now, please step forward. >> madam president, and ma'am, vice president thank you. i'm brian i'm co-author of a paper that was submitted to commissioner president lazarus. we did not obtain to another at&t s m f installation in the neighborhood open the location. i live there i have an s m f right in front of my house. there would be another s m f right on the side of my house we

did a box walk. we identified an alternative site. we just building that dpw shown good faith in the process by denying the installation site at the 100 thorton street and at&t cooperated worked with us until the time they filed for a appeal. we're not official parties to the suit we're tax paying citizens that are continual being negatively effected. we respectfully ask you deny at&t appeal number 14 dash 0 dash 2 >> thank you is there any

public comment. >> thank you, ma'am chair and i live on thorton avenue which is the first house next to the proposed s m f facility at one hundred thorton. i believe that this particular appeal would have been grouped with another group had it not been with a conflict of interest we subscribe to all the other argument in supporting the dpw denial of this appeal. at&t has skuds have said they wouldn't like to have been here

we ask why. at&t would appear to have changed course in a split second and decided they do not want to pressure the agreement we all came to this was documented 0 that they apply for an alternative will site i see that at&t did apply for an alternative site and possibly requested dpw to not go ahead with that site if that's the situation their tarnish transmittal decided to arbitrate the agreement where they arbitrarily decided to apply for an excavation and we've got to

explanation their b.a.'s their arguments on a false illegal presumption because most of them are rebuttal and in our letter which was referred we take issue with each and every argument they make in their brief but you have this letter as part of our package. i think in short that the hearing officer had every right to make the recommendations that she did which was to deny the original permit but to suggest that at&t go ahead and apply for a second permit and it reiterate they did that for lucy street we

don't know why i request the board challenge at&t to give everybody who was effected hundred and hundreds of us why they've broken >> thank you, sir i heard it slightly different from the department i heard they didn't finish the other application not that they didn't continue thank you i'm sorry what. >> i didn't hear the department say they discontinued the application for the lucy street site. >> i don't know because the entire process of applying for the lucy application we've heard for the first time. >> i'd like speak with mr. quan

after this. >> next speaker >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and boards of commissioners, i appreciate the opportunity to speak and thank you for your patience i'm one of the 3 authorize of the statements submitted to you on april 10th on the appeal i'm a citizen that submitted a protest an april 2012 i'm someone that went on a box walk and attended the december 18, 2013, dpw hearing. as the previous speakers in the parishioners have been explained we believe what's going on and

we've studied and read the relevant briefs and documents. we're not observing to at&t appeal on emotional grounds you have the 27 page belief but i want to say that number one at&t has a goal to install one in our neighborhood i quote we're committed to addressing the concerns the community and would like to work with you to find a suitable place for the cabinet we're saying the public has respond and it's been overwhelming for everybody the dpw outlines the process we the residents who represent the public right away are effected by the public utilities came in

theory can accept at&t's objective and willing to work in a cooperate active fashion at&t didn't follow the rules and i heard the claim there was an application for the lucy street in october of 2013 according to mr. quan, however, when i coordinated with the staff prior to the presentation on the 18 i heard there was not an application so there's miscommunication with regards to the appeal at hand i believe that the dpws action and the denial itself or the