interest install the equipment but law the departments discretion when and where it the extremely limited there are 4 limitations i'm going to discuss. first, the department can only deny encroachment construction in a way of saying obstruct and second if the department denies a permit application it must do so within 60 days of receiving the application and third the departments exercise of the discretion must be reasonable and it is required to follow its own rules and the department has simply go forward each the 5 appeals that at&t is changing that evening that requires 80

this board to reserve. i'm going to briefly talk about those limsz and briefly address the departments brief >> i'm sorry is the department represent. >> yes. ms. short is representing the department. >> oh, okay. >> the departments authority to experience any permit in the process is from the public's code the statute makes a clear this is not on thinking limited authority to the department to deny permits the board has the right to say that the proposed obstruction will create a safety problem but according cots senate committee that laws for

traffic disruptions the department doesn't find in a simple incidents that any of the proposed locations caused a traffic or safety problem, in fact, the department found just the opposite lynn functioning the department of public works stated that atkins's applications met every one of the technical requirements the basis was for more preferable locations might exist now that they excited but a probability they might that's not say basis for denying encroachment permits the second authorize if all cases the department under section 85 of department of

public works has 60 days to deny the permit i'd like to during the course e directing your attention on the 61 first day the illuminates have a right to install their equipment in the right-of-way the legislation didn't want cities to sit on permit applications for years or months as a way of de facto way of denial navel that's what happened to the permit applications it took the city 2 hundred and 70 days to deny one application and more than 2 hundred days to deny the carl street and 7th avenue applications. now there's an expectation to the rule by the statute and

highlighted in here in section 5 parties what maturing agree to extend the 60 daytime limit but at&t has never agreed to that it has repeatedly told the department in phase to face meetings it expects the department to obey the law it was to find on the record at the hearing he had you personal knowledge including mr. blackman met with the department and told them that the city was not complying with the law and at&t expected the department to meet it's obligations under united states law. there's no hardship law to this

section this which is apparently what the department is trying to august and once more there is noting nothing to prevent the department from acting as mr. quan said in the last meeting it's not a lack of staff or resources under the law at&t pays for the entire process for the hearing officers and the staff in making the depreciations and why it can't schedule the the process the department has not been able to find a room to hold hearing that does not excuse the department from following the law. it is exercise of discretion must be reasonable the reason for the departmentalize was

there might be not that there might be some more preferable room. that's not a reasonable reason because there will be a hypothetical position that's not a lawful basis to deny the permits finally the last limitation open the cities discretion the city is required to follow its own rules which it has not been doing >> again, i'd like to a direct your attention to the overhead one of the sf after the posting in the community where those might go if there's an objection

the department and department determines a hearing is required within 10 days after receiving the objection the hearing will be scheduled no other reason thirty days over after the notice from the end of the posting period maximum the depth department is supposed to schedule a hearing within thirty days it's not come near to that the typical length of time and the actual hearing it townsend's hundreds of days more problematically the hearing officer didn't have the authority to recommend denials i spoke in great length last time he didn't have the authority to recommend accountability locations might exist the hearing officers job is to

propose the hearing and make the recommendation to the director that's the process that the city came up with and that's the process that it embodied by s and f broad and the city this if alternate sites were identified either ass at the box walk for the first two years the department held the hearing opened and ask at&t to provide further notice and make a recommendation for whatever reason the department didn't like it's on rules. accordingly because of the departments rules is in violations of california law and its rules at&t ask you reserve the laws and demand the department to follow its own

rules if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them that the board might have. >> okay. thank you . ms. short >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners carl a short department of public works there are two orders of the memoranda and to insure that a s m f has the least negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood i'll note the outlooks were received that's the subjective tonight's appeals. in order for us to do so the applicant should locate one

application plus so they'll choose among the locations which allows dpw to identify appropriate location for the proposal to require the public notice for the locations and 3 authorizing the hearing officer to choose the best of the locations. so the principle behind this is at the outset a number even if locations will be identified and sufficient notice for all neighborhoods for the proposals. the second function of the s m f order is to make sure that the residents and property owners can participate in the selection process. we say the at&t applications were correctly did understand did at&t proposes any outcomes

as attend by mou and in every case dealership alternative locations and dpw can't approve those without prior approval because they impact different residents than at&t's previous locations. i'd like to have the overlayed. i'll try to demonstrate how this might happen. you can see those cabinets have to be located in the infrastructure they listening to. if this is at&t's initial proposed location the thirty foot notification would effect this group of property owners, however, an alternative sites this is an entire group of neighborhood. the intent of the s m f was to

show that the offset of the locations for a hundred and 20 days notice for the resident and presuming the population of neighborhoods will be aware and a more limited noticing of that. so in 4 of the cases before you today, we assert? the failure the process alternative locations were not presented and this nullifies this because there's not multiple locations. the altercating other situation is the location where at the outset has chosen the least impact site at&t is also to look for private property locates. there was a partnership locations presented that at&t

rejected because they said it was a fire road it was only about 5 foot wide and can't accommodate emergency vehicles apparently, the hoa of the property is willing to law it and indicating at&t said it was in a red zone the red zone is to prevent someone from blocking a garage and at&t wouldn't leave an unattended vehicle so they seem to think hoa could prevent that to be a blockage to the garage they're not concerned. additionally at&t argues that dpw denials of the operations denies the state application we assert those agreements are not

before this board your job is to make sure that it is violating city code in any event dpw has the authority to make sure that at&t do not block the public right-of-way. the ethnic circuit construed the term in commodity to include aesthetics and that the city's consideration of aesthetics didn't conflict with the statement that quote municipalities shall have the control in which waterways and others encroachments are upset. the subject to inconvenience or discomfortable to now or inconvenience or to hinder

impede or obstruct any action. foreman we state that dpw has not violated the code the city must approve e.r. disprove a permit within 60 days of receiving the information the city doesn't have a application yet. thees vacation permits have been denied within days of submittal. however, if you interpret the puc to mean the s m f process at&t has agreed to submit the permit in scheduling the box walk and submitting more applications than we can process we process 5 applications we told at&t we'll do our best to

keep up with that. i will also note 2ke7 has set up a hearing today to accommodate it wasn't finding the room but space within the hearing because there's other items to be heard, however, we try to facilitate this and smooth the process and dpw has a special hearing set aside >> essentially we feel that at&t is trying to force the hearing officer because they're not submitting multiple sites and it's our belief the mou clearly suggests multiple sites should be presented and the neighbors are pitted against each other their told at the

hearing that site maybe appreciable and not given an opportunity to weigh in. the brief indicates at&t's willingness to install bulk outs but when suggested at&t refused to do so we believe that denver is not in violation of the rejecting the requests and ask for your denial of at&t and rebuttal 5 minutes >> so let me begin with the s m f order didn't request that at&t submit multiple applications people's 3 at the beginning of the process, in fact, at&t has never done that the department has approved over one hundred and 80 permits to date all of those were submitted in the at

the same time and the department ultimately paragraphed it the adapt has a changed it's mind about how to change the process and is not following its own rules and the process that the hearing officer didn't rely upon himself i suggest improper i'll make a couple of points the s m f complaints the parties have not submit more than one location go it is what it says to notice to the residents on page 7 of the s m f order if there's more than one acceptable location for the face mounted facility the locations will be listed well obviously there

contemplates on one proposed location as in one hundred and 80 permits the department has already approved. and second i understood respondent to claim that he e it would be improper to have the approvals and that's not contemplated the s m f order says where the site for the mounted facility without requiring a notice of intent to submit the application the applicant should notify the site thirty days prior to location in other words, the s m f order says there's situations in which

the at&t will make an application and after the approval there will be o a notice period again, the process that was set up if more than one location was identified either the box walk or the hearing the hearing officer can hold the hearing open and make a recommendation as to which location is appreciable the department in the morning wants to honor the at&t and in the morning wants to follow its own rules. the problem with the argument the respondent has made this evening is there's no acknowledgement of the fact that no findings by the hamburger officer or the director or ultimately the department any of the proposed locations with

impede the public should s it impede the right-of-way, of course, the department can deny the permit but there's no evidence in the record that supports that findings and no finding to the hearing officer. the basis for the denial of all 5 permits p there might be other preferable location that's not the proper gastro basis for denial under california law >> and finally to the 60 days the statutes are remarkably clear there's no hardship expectation saying if no permits were filed i don't have to wait 60 days the local entity shall

deny or approve the enrollment within 60 days of receiving the application. in every instance the hearing officer and lynn we want to bring to your attention noted it at&t police station was received more than one hundred days before at&t got a hearing. the 50 thirty or 40 days would go by the city is not obeying california law >> could you comment on the roll at&t is playing in the department brief on page 50 the date of the submission of the notice of intent the notice box walk ecchymosis of what american people's in the responsibility of at&t.

>> well, i would say that the respondents brief is a misleading on that plane commissioner president lazarus it didn't mention that after the submission at&t can't go out into the fold to notice but has to wait for written supplement in ms. wong once the notice is up there's 20 days for notice i said earlier if anyone objects the city has a hearing within thirty days and that didn't happy. what typically hams the department is scheduling hearings more than one hundred days after the notice closes and during that period at&t volley

conducted box walks to look at other locations but atkins's is conducting those box walks a has nothing to the with the hearing date >> why duo would you schedule a hearing date when the box walk is to happen. >> it's oppose when the city scheduled a hearing date at&t will schedule a box walk to explain at the hearing whether or not the community has identified alternative locations but at&t is not the party that's creating the delays in the process. that's the city. and both mr. blake man and the lady have been intimately involved and can give additional

testimony if interested >> thank you. >> thank you be short. >> thank you carla short of public works. i would as i stated earlier both s m f and the other mentioned the words repeatedly other locations it contemplated only one location. that might exist and i'm going to go to the overhead again, the intention if there are limitation that prevent limited location for example, the mta as surface mount facilities that are with the traffic signals the

notification will cover the effected neighborhoods there are only one possible location and therefore those neighbors with going to get sufficient notice. so i think we'll continue to assert the principle of the s m f order and the mou if there's accountability locations that be technically feasible they should be presented at the outset the the hearing will choose in between there's no purpose of the hearing we'll only approve and not have this hearing process. it's true it dpw staff at the hearing acknowledged the locations were technically be feasible but i dispute that the

finding in those rejections didn't talk about the right-of-way specifically i'll quote from one of the finding am alternative location has been identified by at&t and the community that may have less than an impact of the necessity in the vicinity and going on to name the location. so the process here is we're not denying at&t the right to install the equipment in the right-of-way but only sufficient notice to all effected neighbors and therefore suggesting if their innovate going to come to the hearing in advance that's properly noticed we may say there's other preferable locations and they get the

proper notice. we have communications with at&t they ask to hold-off on hearing to do the necessary box walks so the assertion that 0 at&t has not expended this rule is inaccurate we assert we have all the recreations within days of receiving the implemented application to we're in compliant with the 60 day rule and at that time preapplication process so we've not violated the puc in terms of the 60 day rule >> i have a question. >> sure. >> at&t a i believe suggested that somehow your process has changed and they've got an "x" number of applications went

through with a single location needed and our suggesting that your preference, if you will, is it have more than one locations identified before the hearing can you comment on that. >> sure i think there's have only been a couple of cases where the hearing was held open i believe two in the 7 day notification occurred there was numerous neighborhood opposition the people what only had 7 days to object didn't feel they were taking part in the process to at&t was asked to go through the full locations disclosure because a those additional locations were not involved the

process wasn't working so the process was codified and required multiple locations to be discovered in advance with municipality e multiple location identified so we don't have neighbors pitted against one another and then the next group is a very limited notification time. >> so i had another question. in the dpw order i guess on page 7 i think this was started by at&t when a department has approved the site without requiring the pertain to file the notice of stunt under a what circumstances would that occur wouldn't they also be to