was right in that area,

that access to the curb. we participated in a switch meeting [speaker not understood] included an open -- i'll skip ahead here. at&t agreed with us at that meeting that our location -- that this was not a good location because of the gardens and we all agreed. we met to determine another site, an alternative site, and we understood then after that meeting that at&t was going to withdraw the application. that's what they told us, for 3 mirabel and prepare a new application for 3 montezuma. they even gave it an address, a new fictitious address on the south side of the community garden at the intersection of

montezuma, mirabel and coso. so, this kind of corresponds to what the appeal -- what the objection was that they attempt, because then we realized we were going to have to reach out to the community again about the alternative site because we didn't -- we were only [inaudible] and the other people weren't given a chance to agree that this was a good alternative site. can i give her my minutes? >> you may. >> if you want to speak. everything anita didn't get to say was that we had expected some kind of communication about why number 3 was or wasn't going forward and when the new -- what the new one would go through. instead, all we got from anybody was that they appealed it and we had to show up for a hearing. so, it's kind of a sense of ill

feeling that there was an agreement or an idea and we never have heard why the alternative place was not accepted. so, i think we would just like to know what alternative -- whether the one we proposed would be a viable. if not, then what other alternatives be. if you have a picture she has put on her phone. it shows how the gardens are installed. the walkway is through and the box would sit on the walkway. so, i don't think that would work either. >> can i ask you to put that on the overhead and show that picture? sometimes we can see, depending on the glare. anita said the gardens came in after at&t. >> is it just a picture? oh, after the picture. >> [inaudible]. we did all that digging in december and then they came for the walk.

>> what are you showing us? it's a picture of the original site. >> so, that's the box that's currently there. and they wanted to install a box to the left there -- sorry. so, the box that's currently there. there was going to be an additional one right where -- >> behind the two trees? yes. so, those gardens, the whole sidewalk was opened up to install these gardens. and you can see there's a little walkway there right in front of that parked car, which is required by the city for access to the cars. >> he does at&t own the cabinet, the green one? [speaker not understood], too. >> okay, thank you.

any other public comment for 3 mirabel? 6202 california street? 392 fifth avenue? i think there's only one other possible public comment person. why don't you just come up and speak and tell us what address you're here for. yep, 30th street, thank you. my name is nancy barrett. and we submitted a letter also, but you should have extra copies if anybody needs any. our circumstances are similar to 3 mirabel. we did a box walk and then we identified two other suitable sites actually that could work, and we were under the impression that those, we would get notice about those and the process would move forward. i have some drawings. the building -- our building is currently under renovation. so, if i could turn on the overhead.

[multiple voices] so, what i'm showing -- i want to show -- yeah, let's show the before and after. so, the building is under renovation and our objection was that we hadn't identified where the access points would be. so, in the original drawing you can see here this is one of the access points that's on 30th street. but the post box is about somewhere right there. this is a fenced in back garden here. and, so, right out here, what's not on the drawing there is another at&t utility box. and if we turn this over, these are city approved drawing. so, what we specifically asked our architect to do was actually move the main point of access. this is a commercial base, that's a shoe workshop and a retail store front here. so, we had -- skew me? >> [speaker not understood].

it's a workshop so there will be some kind of deliveries and stuff like that. so, we specifically asked the architect to draw in a bigger door here so we could have delivery access. and then this currently, we don't have permits for this. this will be the third part of the renovation where this is a fenced in, should be a fenced in secure area with also a rear access to part of the building. so, this has yet to be drawn and permitted yet. all of this is drawn and permitted and approved and the work is currently underway. so, our objection is that we don't want one of the boxes to interfere with our ability to have commerce and deliveries for this site when two other alternative locations were identified when we did the box walk with at&t. >> and the second box, i can show you where the second box is going to be on these drawings. ~ so, i'm finished. and the last thing actually is this is an area where it's

our back fenced in area and it's going to be an area that we're going to need a gate so that we can bring in pallets because when i ship my shoes out, those pallets will have to be packed. and we don't want to leave them on the street. we can't leave pallets on the street. so, this area will need a sizeable door so that we can leave things, pack things, like, you know, take leather and deal with them outside so that we can bring them to a very small access point on the back inside. so, we need that space. we need that space for access. >> the box that you drew, the cabinets that you drew outside of that triangle or back area, it's the proposed -- the permit at issue? right. and they did note, they did have another one on 11th street that -- i mean 11 30 across the street that was another area ~. we would have no -- we have no

objection to that, so. that is an alternative site. thank you. >> so, would you state your name for the record? i'm frank benaducci. >> thank you. thank you. and i'm the own of the property as well. my wife is nancy. ~ owner of the property as well >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, mr. johnson, you have your rebuttal. so, this is an undisputed fact that we established in the record. the city has granted approximately 134 smf applications to entities other than at&t. not a single one of those sept its applied for multiple locations in its original

permit application. ~ entities i have with me this evening 31 smf applications the city has granted in the last year to a virginia right of entities, including pg&e, to degrini, and sf metro. ~ a variety i would request these be placed in the administrative record, and i'll explain. i attempted back in may to get the department to voluntarily provide me with these applications. the department declined to do that and told me that i would have to file a public records request. i then filed an immediate disclosure request under the san francisco sunshine act which required the department to provide these documents within 24 hours. all of these documents were sitting on their servers in electronic form because the department requires that you file electronically. the department granted itself a 16-day extension, which was after the date when i was

required to file my appeal. as of today, dpw is still not produced almost a fourth of the documents we requested under the sunshine act. they told me, and i have no reason to disbelieve them, that the other files we requested had become corrupted on their system and they're unable to produce them. but i would ask that these documents be included in the record. should the board decide not to include them in the official record, i still ask that the clerk take them so that a judge, if it's necessary, can decide that they were properly included or excluded from the record. and i'm just going to -- >> and i question before you before we discuss whether we're going to accept them into the record, is the timing -- i wasn't following your chronology. you made a request of the department just -- i made a request -- i contacted the department in mid

may to ask, could i -- i would like to see the other smf permit applications to entities besides at&t had been filed. >> the department said you need to do a public records request, and you filed basically a 24-hour turn around disclosure request and had a 15-day extension on that. >> the city, as it's allowed to, granted itself a 16-day extension -- >> which was past the time for filing your brief on this -- on this appeal, yes ~. >> okay, i'm comfortable accepting it. i'll be very brief. the city's argument that it made in its brief and that the department reiterated this evening is that all of at&t's

application in these appeals were denied because at&t in its original application didn't apply for multiple alternative locations. under public utilities code 79.01, the department is required to treat all entities the same in the permitting process. therefore, if it allows pg&e and j.d. da kaw and [speaker not understood] to file smf applications where they only apply for one location, and excavation permits are granted on those, the city is required to treat at&t the same way, which i think is plainly established that they're not doing. and, again, i'll simply offer i think a court is going to have a very serious problem with that and these are undisputed facts. >> if you mind, before we go on, victor, would you hold the clock? thank you.

those other applications that you are arguing should have been treated in the same way as or that at&t should be treated in the same way as those other application, were they applying for large cabinets of the same nature as at&t? are they exact -- are we talking about identical types of smf -- i don't know. so, my answer is that -- and the department can speak better to this than i can. >> you're making the argument. right. so, what smf metro applies for is to put in new shelters. they're substantially larger than the at&t cabinets. >> bus shelter, is that what you said? yes. when you see the bus stops, what an entity like jd de kaw

applies for is the kiosk outside the door i live n. >> what? this sell advertising they rotate out. they're like giant green -- they're all over the city. >> okay. there are so many -- >> what about pg&e? i believe that what pg&e is applying for are electrical control boxes. i don't know the size of them. my argument really isn't predicated on are at&t's cabinets bigger or smaller than the cabinets everybody else is applying for. my argument is simply this, that if you're going to allow all these other entities to apply for only one location and you're going to give them excavation permits, you can't turn around and deny at&t's permits on the grounds that we didn't do what everybody else

is doing. if everybody else only applies for one permit, we should only be required to -- >> are they -- did they have a comparable type of arrangement with the city through an m-o-u, the box lock that at&t agreed to do, the way in which at&t has agreed to engage the community to determine if there are alternative sites? are those things the other entities are -- have subjected themselves to? to your knowledge. to my knowledge, i don't know one way or the other what these other entities do. >> okay. i do know that all that the m-o-u required was that at&t engage in community outreach by holding meetings and doing mailingseses. and box locks, right? ~ no, that's not what the m-o-u requires. >> but you do do it. i keep hearing about it. we voluntarily hold box locks because we think that

that's the process that's implicit in the smf order. >> okay. >> when second locationses are in -- a second location with different addresses interfere with your notification process regarding the mailings that are required in the m-o-u? so, if your second location was not notified through the wired mailings that you establish through the m-o-u, that second location really wouldn't be a applicable, right? the m-o-u doesn't say anything about how the mailings were conducted. that's all set up in the smf order. and as far as notice on the alternative locations, what the smf order -- and please feel free to stop me at any time. i feel like i said this a million times. the process that the city originally envisioned was that entities would apply for a permit of one location and then they would engage after the

public gave permission through public notice, that's what was going to start the process. and then if anybody objected or people called at&t, at&t would go out and meet people in the community and look for alternative locations like everybody here has talked about, and then go to the hearing and at&t would tell the hearing officer their two, three locationses that have been identified, you know. all three of these satisfy the smf order. all of these we could build at. pick whichever one you think is least impactful. the city decided how its department has previously testified in the fall of 2013 that they were no longer going to follow that process. >> here is what i'm trying to understand to your argument that these records reflect and -- i mean, the records that you want -- the documents you want in the record are submitted. i understand to support your argument that at&t is being

treated differently than other entities that are subjected to the same, otherwise, code, correct? that's correct. >> so, what i'm trying to understand is where, if at all, are there any differenceses between the ways in which these other entities ~ are doing their excavations and their implementation of whatever it is, whether it's the bus shelter or oblusk or whatever they're called. i want to under why your argument works. if it does, it does. if there are differences that you're aware of or not aware of, i want to explore those. no problem. i apologize. this is the difference. you could look at all 31 of these applications. each one is exactly the same in this detail. they only applied for one permit at one location. all of them were granted

excavation permits. >> i'm sorry, but at those locationses? at those locations. >> so, they didn't have a problem with the primary location, whereas your permit evidently had a fault with the primary location. no, actually, i respectfully disagree. remember, the department testified at each of these hearings on the record in front of a hearing officer that at&t's application at the original location satisfied all 22 of the guidelines. the objective guidelines. >> we have people that came to testify today, members of the public impacted by at&t's boxes and the proposed permits here. and, so, i'm wondering if these types of objections were a part of the processes involved with these other 31 entities that you believe were treated differently. i don't understand, and i'm going to talk -- ask the department maybe to help me understand that better.