are sufficient notification or we have no need nor a public hearing unless the tennis what to have the public weigh in they're n they're not allowing the public to weigh in we've following the intent of the mou and at&t has agreed to the mou they seem to recognize a public process but continues to submit only one location at that time, and we're not able to have the public robust discussion and this newly legislation will not allow proximity to schools. this is specifically considered in the legislation so i think that's worth noting f this may not be the best location >> why is that.

>> i heard at the last hearing there's a lot of traffic and when kids are running down the streets there's obstructs we want to minimize the impact and try to effect the impediment as little as possible and that's another debate what's on the sidewalk, however, in the application from dpw i presume like all city agencies the application spells out exactly what has to be provided as part of the application. >> yeah. we have a check list an application check list. >> what does it say about alternative sites. >> i don't know if it specifically says alternative

sites, however, i would state again that the s m f order and mou repeatedly referred to procedural locations and the hearing officer should be directed that way. >> misunderstands did the application also ask for the technical analysis from at&t why they sited. >> they have to provide he details that are verified by your staff as to the technical feasibility of the sites yes. >> which has issues of site selection recommended to where it commodities a pedestrian and well again, we're looking at the proposed site for the technical feasibility but if they were to submit multiple 0 proposal sites

we'll evaluate them at the process and issue them. >> actually i've never seen the application. >> i have an example. >> no, i have answered the two points i'm interested in. >> commissioners the matter it submitted. >> well, it's clear he think that the nobody wants to give into the logic it has to side with the legal ramifications and where effects i guess the overlay agreement and mou.

it's incongruous 7th if you look at the incremental effort to include a second site to do the notice for the two sites together is the incremental effort is very limited, you know, i don't understand why the practical is not being brought into this other than the purely legal and i don't think that the department is going to allow the sites to be automatically approved. >> i do also i don't know if - were you done. >> yes. >> i was thinking of putting the notice on those who are able to participate in the box walk

where another alternative site it seems strange when compared to the resources available to at&t to do in advance. >> plus we've heard the box walks were made inconvenient for the people most effected. >> those are therapists somewhat troubling. i've heard is that whereas at&t is trying to hold the department to its sort of the letter of the law the spirit of the law is not working in the way at&t with like to see it implemented and i mean, my after hearing testimony i mean, my inclination is to uphold the dependent on this one >> i agree.

and i think that more than likely since there's proposed legislation we won't have those long meetings any more >> that never stopped appeals. >> wishful thinking commissioner. >> i don't know why they don't bite the bullet somebody is going to be unhappy well never mind do you have a motion. >> i'll move to deny the appeal and uphold the basis the denial was proper based on the discretion of the department and it's finding it that as i heard on the appeal there was - >> discretion. >> yeah. error.

>> no error. >> not abuse of discretion it was properly denied per the code. >> yeah. so that motion by commissioner fung to deny the appeal and uphold the department it was properly did understand. >> commissioner fung. vice president is absent. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda >> so that motions carries 4 to zero and the denial of that permit is upheld. >> next item is item 13 at&t california vs. department of california the subject property on carl street again appealing lets excavation excavate in a surface mounted facility this is

application mr. johnson. >> thank you, ms. goldstein. a few points will this specifics of the permit application this application was irrational submitted in july of 2013 i'm going to put the original application up on the overhead those are the city's check list no requirement that at&t submit multiple location at the beginning of the process. despite the fact it at&t submitted it's application in july it couldn't get a hearing newly january 28th of 2014 is is in visitation of the publics code this department didn't deny the application until march

52013 that is that 2 hundred and 50 days after at&t submitted it's application are the box walk was conducted according to the finding on september well, let's see - . walking was conducted on november 11th commissioner fung asked why didn't at&t identify technical multiple locations at the beginning and tell the hearing officer to pick one of the locations at&t looks at this differently part of the box walk is to work with the community members to identify locations in their neighborhood that are most acceptable to the community where the utility cabinets go so

what happens in representatives from at&t come out and often a person from department of public works and whoever is interested in the community and what at&t is attempting to do is identify the least impactable location and work with the community that's why at&t agreed to do the community outreach and hold the meetings i suppose it is possible for at&t to say at the beginning of the process we'd like like one of those but that takes the public out of the process i don't believe that is what was contemplated and not an effective process with the public so at&t will notice a location it will meet with the community if there are objections attempt to identify

alternative locations so at&t went out and identified one alternative location was in front of a parking garage and get another proposed was on private property controlled by the homeowners association i'd like to show photographs that i think speaks for itself about this potential private easement that's suggested this is the first photograph i'd like to have put up on the overhead the proposed cabinet is roughly here i'm going to show you a close-up of that red lane. it clearly says red lane fire lane toe away and a second photograph of the same fire

lane. i think those pictures speaks for itself but at&t didn't feel that this location was in a appropriate place to put a cabinet seeing it functions for a fire lane instead at the hearing at&t testified there was app an alternative location identified i have it in front of the parking garage the hearing officer was presented with a couple of locations it met the technical requirements the hearing officer makes no mention of the fact that at&t and united states public identified this on carl street he denied the permit application on the basis that october preferable locations might exist and suggested that at&t should reapply for an

easement on private property in the vicinity of the fire lane. and in this case i was a curious is this the first one that has one site on private property that we've seen. what were the objections to it being in front of the institutional you structure like a parking garage >> at&t had no outlooks. >> no, no the alternative sites were coming up were there objections is the question from the box walk. >> with your permission commisssioner finkle the lady was at the hearing i'm going to ask her to address our question. >> over and over whether there were written objections.

>> i'll have to refer sorry i'm with at&t i'm going to refer to dpw whether there were written objections but i was at the hearing and what we found out on the box walk was that there was existing conduit that actually went underneath i believe the line and that we could put our fiber in this we could move the cabinet across the street i don't recall my objections but i do think there's a group here tonight from that area and that we worked with on the box walk so i don't want to speak for them i don't recall any. >> when you said the site across the street you're talking about not the two sites that the council prepared i'm talking

about the one in front of want i'm sure you're aware of. >> the one in front of which the circle last year garage. >> correct. >> communicating i want to add to answer our question there was written objections 16 written objections at the actual that were summarized in the dpw order then at the hearing people testified the basis of the medic record is that members of the community have not heard a response in terms of the easement and at&t representatives said they're happy about the narrow sidewalk and utility cabinet.

>> ms. short. >> just a couple of points to qualities it's noted immediately adjacent between the fire lane but between the buildings that's what hoa was supportive off at&t is not going to leave an unattended vehicle but at&t staff are simply having a vehicle to access the facility and the homework association is no concerned because the mou suggests that the locations should be identified on the private property. in terms of the objections to

the alternative locations there was not an opportunity to have it so they didn't get notification in at&t's brief she said there was no alternative location found for the location although they allocated here and communication in terms of delays they submitted their application in july but the box walk was not done until september so again, there's an explicit agreement to extend the application if the box walk takes place several months after the location >> we can take public comment on 398 carl street. >> step forward.

>> my name is representing the homework association. there are already some confusion relative to have i seen what the location was for the first which way to do i put it on here >> so it's facing you. >> this is 398 carl street you can't see from the picture by the sidewalk in f this area is interior 7 feet and 10 inches i'll show you this is a little bit of background so by the time this is placed in the area that's a 17 foot set back it

will leave approximately 40 inches to the edge of the landscaped edges and the bush come over a little bit we try to keep them controlled 0 so when we met with let me show you this picture. this is 402 and 398 carol the box was intended to be locked in front of this so the homeowners letting 4 feet from their doorstep there's this subsequential walk so when we did the box walk let me show you here. the location that at&t mentioned is not one that we discussions ever it's not one we would have argued to because it is even the aesthetics that's a fire lane. and the one that we had

suggested let me find it here. was this area right here. i'm sorry the picture is dark but between here and the curb and between the further most western building and the adjacent building adjacent to it there's an area between the two buildings we said why not take out the fence, you know, we'll be willing to put the box in this location and the next thing we've heard this is not possible >> you have 30 seconds more. >> this was not possible because it's a fire lane and that's the last thing we've heard until we not to the hearing and then at the hearing the location was denied. >> just a point of clarification. >> yeah. and park view is the

hoa they've been referencing in their testimony. >> yes. >> and the location you just showed us is not many any lane. >> no, it's not. >> and those are park view buildings the 20/20 you referenced and the last one i referenced that showed the shushes that's our property the building is a separate building that's adjacent to us. and it's not part of park view >> the property is ours it's that space in between the two knows. >> okay. >> we didn't know of the other alternative location across the street. >> please fill out a speaker card. any other public comment on

this? >> commissioner president lazarus and commissioners i'm a 40 year resident of san francisco and lived here the first time that the affordable housing project that the mayor's office of housing put out 24 years ago and i'm one the original homeowners, in fact, i live a few doors down in 398 carl street. it's the narrow it street in san francisco that carries a streetcar it's practically in my living room i can hear the conversation openless trains. it is the most heavily iced streetcar in san francisco so this narrow street gets an

inordinate amount of traffic in many cases the trains stop to all the passengers are pouring out into the sidewalk because the sidewalk is 96 inches in front of our homes as opposed to 8 needed as opposed to 15 feet like the sidewalks across the street they're wondering in the street that's so narrow in all the sites this is the one that definitely possess the greatest risk because the sidewalk is to narrow theres not room to house an insightly box and consideration should be given to the widower sidewalk on the south side of carl street or the

odd numbers of the carl street where the sidewalks are trice as large i haven't heard about the garage at and i think the other site is a great site there is no property owners and it will not impede the site so consideration to be given to the wizarder sidewalks on the other side of the carl so i urge you to oppose that and deny thees vacation permit. thank you. is there any additional public comment >> is there any further public comment on this item.

>> hello, again i'm here the last time i was here and as they pointed out they showed the wrong picture they showed the fire lane, of course, that's the driveway. >> i'm sorry can you speak into the mike, sir. >> they showed the picture of the fire lane and, of course, the fire lane when you come into the driveway and the complex the walk around was between those two buildings and there's lots and lots of space nobody would see that the kids wouldn't bother it and it's perfect then when you showed the picture across the streets it's a even more perfect so between those two i think at&t would be happy why aren't they happy to keep the boxes off the street.

i don't understand their reasoning at all. i hope and pray that you all come up with the conclusion either to between the two buildings or across the street. thank you. thank you >> do you care to state your name for the record. >> oh, i'm sorry i'm nick i'm vice president of the board on park view apartments. >> thank you. any public comment on that item? >> my name is like all previous i don't understand why at&t who says they're very willing to work with the community suddenly decided they should put the box

back because of legal issues onto the street where it will totally impact because i live on carl street also it's very narrow as the previous speaker said we gorge like a lot of people out on the street we've heard there was this conduit and they couldn't put it on the other side of the street we thought that sounds fine suddenly we were right back where we started and they want to put that in front of 3 hundred and whatever 98 and so i certainly hope you'll deny their appeal and make them look at one of the other sites because read

next to the parking lot there's not a lot of people that walk there because of the way the streetcars stop so even when they disgorge people there's on the lighter you sidewalk not even there by the parking garage. thank you >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, we have rebuttal mr. johnson. >> let me begin a general observation the department didn't have the authority to deny the permits open the basis that at&t will not install its equipment on private property. the reason the depended didn't have the discretion, of course, under state law at&t has invested promptful interest in

the right-of-way as codified if the public's code at&t has the right to place the utility in the public right-of-way and the city has the discretion of the time and access of the public right-of-way. as to the proposed private agreement again at&t looked at this and i have this on the overhead if it can be shown and the problem as i think is fairly observe is that atkins's access between the two buildings n is in a fire lane and a toe away zone that doesn't make that an appropriate zone for at&t's equipment. as to the issue of carl street carl street is is to narrow the property owners have encroached

into the public right-of-way that's why it's so narrow between the streets and neighborhood fingertip that said, however, at&t told the hearing officer at the hearing if i can again ask the overhead to be put you have u up it's identified an alternative location and at&t will be perfect happy to install its equipment at that location the hearing officer should have held the hearing open and ask at&t to renotice and made a recommendation i'll respectfully disagree with the board they have the discretion to reverse it and the department follow its own rules and make