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

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

at the hearing lynn fong adhered and said at&t applications was in corners with the public works codeat 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 public