george if you have rebuttal you have 2 minutes >> i'd like to make two points for the record again lynn fong from public works appeared at the hearing and this is the hearing officers finding at&t, in fact, compiled with the technical requirements of the order. the other point is the proposed location is in the public right-of-way and at&t has a right to install in those locations and the city of san francisco revokes in their report the utility boxes are a part of the city >> mr. quan. >> thank you, john quan from the department of public works. the department acknowledges that at&t has absolutely right to place their boxes in a public right-of-way, however, the city can dedicate time and manner for the displacement of the facilities that's why we permit those and with a preprilt permit before we issue american people evaluation permit. one of the things that the public members pointed out was a tree identified at this location. i did evaluate the pamper that was submitted there were several pictures of the location one showed a vehicle in front of the proposed site and another the proposed

as with the other 21 appeals the board has heard lynn fong of public works said this application met all the guidelines and at the hearing it was reported to the hearing officer that during the box walk there had been an additional site on fell street unfortunately, that site didn't meet the technical requirements to install the box ambassador this particular appeal it was denied on that basis that at&t was unable i guess to install to the that location it's the reality of the guidelines of how those cabinets work there's not an infinity amount of places to be placed in the neighborhoods are the s m f has 22 different requirements that at&t has to meet that are stroem specifically like the facility shall not obstruct the pedestrian clear traffic path. and there's a substantial number of requirements there are also some technical limitationss on where the cabinets can go that's notary republic not is an unusual situations is there are be situations in some neighborhoods there's only one location where those will work for an infrastructure build out i'll take any questions if you have

the hearing officer found at the hearing lynn fong of dpw presented a application stating the applicant was in compliant with the works code and the technical merits of dpw order. so all 21 appeals and that's what's strange about the process the department came and gave input and told the hearing officer that the location met all the elements of order and certainly, if at&t had not been following the process and given proper notice i'm sure ms. fong wouldn't have showed up and told them many times at&t complied with the rules. i'll point out not one denial did the hearing officer say that at&t was not given notice and it's not part of the administration record and cannot have been the basis for the denial. the second point i'd like to make is that the s m f order was clear at&t is not required to propose more than one location as it's initial application. and makes sense as to why it is because the point of this process is to propose the location in a neighborhood and get community input and input from the department of public works. by for instance, i want to be clear about what the or

many lynn fong has stated again and again it saved the technical requirements there's no blocking of the path of traffic no other technical issues. what is in question the aesthetics of the boxes and the impacts upon the community. one thing that's identified under the notice of intent if i may - under item c they say if the application is placed in certain locations under the appendix that's not loud even though the statements say shall not there are other agencies that are involved whether it's in front of the of a historical site we'll forward that to the corresponding agency prior to continuing the processes. a second item that's clearly listed in terms of noticing one of the requirements is clearly states if their more than one location for the mounting facility the intent is as it relates to the order that when someone summit a surface water facility they've show two locations in at&t's case in every one only one location is submitted per package. moving forward as stayed as part of the notification requirement the notification nicole is a 3 hundred foot neighborhood by posting

at the hearing lynn fong adhered and said at&t applications was in corners with the public works code. at the hearing it was discussed and the hearing officer was told during a box walk an additional location had been identified in addition to the alternative location was on howard street. no members of the community appeared at the hearing to protest. the hearing officer recommended denying this permit application essentially on the basis that an alternative location has been identified as potentially feasible that may have less of on impact the problem is the hearing officer under the s m f order didn't have the discretion but i want to point out the hearing officer had not option into in this permit application and in the rest the group and it's something commissioner president lazarus you asked what if there's a boxed walk another location would be okay. and the hearing officer could have done and probably should have done and the board ordered this evening it should have held the order open for thirty days and have at&t see about the other locations and taking take a written publ