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. thank you for your attempt.

if you could -- you can continue with where you stopped. or where i interrupted you, i should say. mr. pacheco, you can start the clock again. thank you. i just want to make one last point which is simply this. that what happened here was the department decided at a certain point that it was going to substitute unenacted legislation for legislation that supervisor wiener said got passed for an enacted ordinance and written rules and regulations that the department had decided it was not going to follow them. that's simply not proper under the law, and i've heard the department say before that, well, we don't think there is any case law that says we have to follow our own written rules and regulations. here are some courts that disagree with them. the supreme court of the united states in a line of cases beginning with u.s. versus akardi.

every court of appeals that's ever settled this issue and california courts of appeal, they've all said in the administrative context, if you have written rules and regulations, you have to follow those. you can't decide one day you're not going to do that any more. of course, you can always change your written rules, regulations. you can issue new rules and regulations, but it violates the california constitution and it violates due process to have written rules and regulations that an administrative agency just decides one morninging it's not going to follow any more ~. and that's for good reason, because the public entities, businesses, everybody relies on those written rules. so, they he expect that they're going to be treated under those rules the same way that everybody else is. and at&t's fundamental problem with all of this and the argument that i've been making for weeks is that it's improper for the department simply to quit following its own rules because it decides it doesn't think that the process is

working any more. and i feel bad for everybody who is here this evening because in many instanceses, i think what you're hearing is correct, that alternative locations were identified ~. those people who came to the hearings expected the department was going to approve one of those and said the department started denying all of the permit applications. people, i understand, will be very confused about what's going on now. sorry in this situation we're in now. i have nothing to add unless there are questions. >> based on your argument ~ you don't think the department can exercise any judgment. we'll just have to follow the rules, as you call it, strictly without any type of exercise of the other information it gets from the process in an effort to engage the community. so, there is a disregard and i consider that -- if i'm hearing

you, and i might be just miss understanding you, those other process he don't matter. they're irrelevant and, so, in my view, why would you even engage in something that doesn't matter? i guess i would say, commissioner hwang, it's not my personal viewpoint that when a department issues objective criteria and a permit applicant demonstrates that it satisfies all of the objective criteria and then somebody from the department shows up and testifies at a hearing that, yes, indeed, all of the objective criteria are met, that the permit has to be granted, that's california law. for good reason, which is, of course, city agencies have discretion. i had never taken the position, nor have i ever encouraged my client to file appeals, where i thought the locations at&t applied for either violated the

smf order or violated one of these guidelines, or inconnoted the public right-of-way in any other way. the discretion that the department has under california law is pretty limited. >> is it your position that the department does not -- is not permitted to interpret what inconnote means in a manner from your clients? no, my view is the commission is bowedction by the 22 guidelines. ~ bound if you satisfy all 22 of your guidelines you're entitled to the permit because otherwise -- >> my understanding is it might be incommodious to the department by the public's view. i'm not sure that would -- i'm not sure what that would mean because if the city doesn't have to follow objective guidelines, it simply means that the department would then have complete discretion to grant permits when it felt

like it, deny permits when it felt like it. i'm not sure what the standard would be that the city should apply. >> the definition that you've been stating for weeks about incommitting the public right-of-way. if your client's view is different from what the department's view is, then you're right and it's wrong. they get to determine and interpret what that means on their own, in my view. i mean, that's -- like you said, you're going to take the court, judge rule in a different venue, but i'm trying to, again, under and follow your argument further here. i think that the legal issue is actually a little different, which is this. at&t and the department agree upon what constitutes inconnoting the public right-of-way. so, the department agrees that if you satisfy all of the

objective guidelines, you're not inconnoting the public right-of-way. one of the guidelines itself is that the proposed location will not have a pernicious esthetic effect on the neighborhood, for instance, very broad discretion for the city to say, oh, you don't meet guideline 17 on esthetic reasons. none of the appeals this evening did the city take the position at the hearing that the locations would inconnote the public right-of-way. and there were no findings that a hearing officer or the department that any of the locations, the original ones would be alternative inconnoted the public right-of-way. the city denied these effectively on procedural ground that don't exist in the smf order. that's what i think is improper. >> okay. >> is the time up? >> oh, yeah, it's been up. i was just asking questions. thank you. thank you.

>> ms. short? >> thank you, carla short, department of public works. i think there are a couple points that we would like to sort of dispute the representation that was made about the department's position. first of all, i would like to say that we have issued over 200 permits to at&t for excavation permits for these smfs where there were not objection to the location of the permit. the reason that these cases have gone to the departmental hearing in the first place is because we agreed that they met the objective criteria and based on the objective criteria, we said okay, go ahead and do your public notice. then the public had the opportunity to be notified. they determined that it was incommodious to them to have these. they appealed and that's why we

ended up at a hearing. i think it's not legitimate to say we did not find these were incommodious. we said based on the objective criteria it seems to work. however, the neighborhood, whether it's incommodious to the citizens of the public right-of-way is the public notification. it and it was after that public notification that there were objections ~. that's what led to the hearing. i would also like to make the point, we are not denying at&t because they didn't include multiple locations in their initial application, in their original application. though i think it would make the process go a lot smoother if they would. we denied these because they didn't then follow proper notification procedures for the alternate locations identified at the box walk. in those locations where there was no objection to the initial original location, which is always a single location, then the department issued permit. so, it appears that the at&t is trying to use the process to

have the director review and approve their chosen location rather than to use the process to focus on finding the best location, which is the least incommodious to the community. i would also say i think what i heard this evening from the members of the public that testified was that they expected -- and one of the members of the public even stated, we knew we would have to then do outreach to the other neighbors because they weren't at the box walk and they didn't have the opportunity to weigh in on whether or not they preferred the alternate location. i believe i heard from one of the other members of the community that they expected to then get notification about those alternate locations. so, i don't think that the community was under an ill yoution that they would simply -- that we, the department would simply approve an alternate location without ensuring that that -- that those members of the community also had the opportunity to weigh in ~. even if you got the original notice, you might not have

objected if it didn't affect you directly, but if at the box walk, the proposed alternate location then affects you directly, you need to have that opportunity to have that due process and that public notification process. so, i think those are the key points i wanted to make on that. the last thing i would say is i don't know all of the documents that were submitted, but i will say we did communicate to at&t that those files were corrupted. we produced all the other documents. we have e-mails from our it department asking them to try to fix these files. so, they are corrupted. and it is standard practice if there is someone who is requesting information for the purpose of a board appearance or a court appearance, that we always follow the record's request. that is standard practice. the review that we have done of these other cases is that they have, i would argue, not been

treated any differently. in many of these cases there are no objections and therefore the permit is issued. in some cases where there have been objections, the applicant has reached out to the objector and in the case of sfmta, the objection was through the objections, i agree, now that i understand all the factors, i agree this location is the best location. some of the other item that were cited by mr. johnson have not been issued through the smf ordinance. there are different processes for transit shelters. for example, for the j.c. de coe, those are not issued as part of the smf ordinance. the j.c. de coe is the advertising kiosk. and in some of the other -- there have been -- some of the orders that were cited had to do with wireless facilities and there is a separate wireless ordinance, although they have also been told to work with the

community in those cases. so, the department, i believe, is not treating at&t any differently than we're treating other'ly can'ttion. at&t is separate in the fact there seems to be more substantial community opposition to their proposed smf locations. and then i just wanted to note what the m-o-u does state, that at&t will voluntarily mail notice required to [speaker not understood] to property own owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed locations, which is plural in their own m-o-u. and they state this is consistent with at&t prior commitment. they will also conduct a pre-application community walk site for each cabinet location which to me suggests there will be multiple locations. and at&t will meet on-site with dpw and any other member of the public who has concerns. to my knowledge, to your point,

none of the other people who have applied for smf permits have an m-o-u like this, but we have had commitments from pg&e and they do install smf to do community outreach and we have not had the kinds of objections to the locationseses, whether it's manage to convince the neighborhood or they had sufficient outreach to identify the best location before they apply, i don't know. but we have not had those issues. thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. short, among this pile of documents, is there a j.c. de coe information in there? >> i think it's likely that there is. and we, you know, the j.c. de coe advertising kiosk is one of the documents that we produced. so, i presume -- >> do you know when that occurred? >> when it occurred? >> yes. >> i can look it up. >> i know when because i was at planning then. it occurred in the early '90s and each site was vetted.

>> right. so, the city has a contract. >> j.c. de coe wanted many sites, of course because they're advertising. every site received notice and they didn't get all the sites they wanted. i don't know why these things are being thrown all together, you know? >> agreed because those were not done through the smf ordinance. >> if there was an actual contractual agreement. >> that's right, it was a contract with the city. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. the matters are submitted. >> go for it. >> i feel and i appreciate the level of engagement on the discussion. i've been educated here and i appreciate the members of the

public coming out to speak and help me understand what's going on in these various processes. i don't feel persuaded that there is any basis to overturn the permit and i would, based on what i've heard and the evidence submitted, the board reject the appeal. >> i concur with my fellow commissioner. i do not think that the department erred in their judgment. i think that the second location or third alternative locations would require notification of that 300-yard radius that at&t volunteered to. so, i think that would circumvent the notification process. so...

>> member of the commission? okay, i will move, then, to deny the appeal on the basis that the permits were in compliance. >> so, these are denials? so, you're denying the appeal and upholding the department on the basis that they were properly denied? >> right. >> okay. >> thank you. and just to be clear, this is de novo [speaker not understood], just to be clear. mr. pacheco? >> we have a motion, then, from commissioner hwang to uphold all nine denials on the basis that they were properly denied. on that motion to deny, -- to uphold the denial, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> vice president is absent. president is recused. commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 3 to 0.

these denials are all upheld. thank you. >> if there is no further business, we are adjourned. [gavel] (clapping.) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ i think we have more companies anywhere in the united states it's at the amazing statement we're not trying to be flashy or shocking just trying to create something new and original were >> one of the things about the conduct our you enter and turn your your back and just so the

orchestra. the most contrary composer of this time if you accountability his music you would think he's a camera come important he become ill and it was crazy he at the end of his life and pushed the boundary to think we're not acceptable at this point for sure it had a great influence he was a great influence on the harmonic language on the contemporary up to now. i thought it would be interesting because they have e he was contemporary we use him on this and his life was you kill our wife you get poisons all those things are great

stories for on opera. i was leaving behind a little bit which those collaborative dancers i was really trying to focus on opera. a friend of mine said well, what would you really want to do i said opera what is it not opera parallel. why isn't it are that i have the support now we can do that. i realized that was something that wasn't being done in san francisco no other organization was doing this as opposed to contemporary we are very blessed in san francisco to have organizations well, i thought that was going to be our

speciality >> you create a conceptual idea for setting the opera and you spear ahead and work with the other sdierndz to create an overview vision that's the final product felt opera. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> i was very inspired to work with him because the way he looked at the key is the way i looked at sports looking at the daily. >> so much our mandate is to try to enter disis particular work there's great dancers and theatre actresses and choirs we've worked with and great video artists is a great place to collect and collaborate.

i had a model they have a professionally music yes, ma'am assemble and as a student i benefited from being around this professional on and on soccer ball and as a conductor i'd be able to work with them and it's helped my growth i had a dream of having a professional residential on and on soccer ball to be an imperial >> it operates as a laboratory we germ a national the ideas technically and work with activity artists and designers and video all over the on any given project to further the way we tell stories to improve our ability to tell stories on stage. that's part of the opera lab >> i was to investigate that

aspect of renaissance and new work so that's why this piece it is important it was a renaissance composer. >> there were young people that are not interested in seeing traditional opera and like the quality and it's different it has a story telling quality every little detail is integrated and helps to capture the imagination and that's part of the opera how we can use those colors into the language of today. >> so one of the great things of the stories of opera and story combined with opera music it allows people to let go and be

entertained and enjoy the music instead of putting on headphones. >> that's what is great about art sometimes everyone loves it because you have to, you know, really great you have to have both some people don't like it and some people do we're concerned about that. >> it's about thirty something out there that's risky. you know, disliked by someone torn apart and that's the whole point of what we're drying to do >> you never take this for granted you make sure it is the best if you can. >> ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> on december 28, 1912, san francisco mayor stared into a sea of 60,000 of constituents that gathered at geary. the berth of the first publicly owned transit system in the city, the san francisco municipal railway. >> good afternoon. and welcome to san fra*rns planning commission regular herebacker hearing orb june 26 20, 14. i would like to remind people from the audience, we do not tolerate any disturbance at all time, please silence any electronic devices, i would like to take roll, commission president wu. >> here. er >> vice-president fong ?frjts here. >>