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.

there is a reason why they're recommending that the threshold be lifted on formula retail locationses from 11 to 20, which we fully support. we think that that is an excellent recommendation that supports small businesses, especially local home-grown small businesses that might reach that level and then feel that, you know, the decks are stacked against them to try to go a little bit larger even though that's modest growth. really small businesses you can't compare small local coffee stores with a starbucks, and so on. and i feel like a lot of the rhetoric that's come out of this lately has really been to kind of demonize our local small businesses that are looking to grow, like people who love them when there is one or two or three, but suddenly they become like evil large businesses when they're 11 or 12, you know. it's just ridiculous. so, i really -- i would really encourage you to take the planning department's approach at looking at formula retail and coming up with legislation, you know, very seriously. and i think that supervisor mar's legislation, while there are some similar