point i'd like to make is that the city's attorney suggested there might be some question about what ms. fong told the hearing officer i want to read the official statements from the 9 ralph street denial that's essential the same remarks. 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. a

particularly unusual about this appeal i'll try to be very, very brief there's an 11 most gap and ms. fong again found that at&t complieltd with the requirements of the s m f. during the sidewalk as the hearing director reported two members of the community attend the box walk and at&t walked the neighborhood and found another site - my apologizes i'm reading from 100 furton street. what happened was about at&t offered to walk the site to review alternative site locations, however, the obtain terrors found no suitable area and that's one of the difficulties that at&t faces because the way this process is supposed to work at&t works with the community to find the least impacted loeshgs but if the community won't identify any location then at&t appeal the specific denial was that the hearing officer saw the project maybe in conflict with the plan the at&t cabinet and recommended at&t work collaboratively with the neighborhood association and the only point i'll make is the hearing officer didn't have the discretion to make those kind of particular order >> mr. quan. >> good evening. george q

ms. fong told the hearing officer that the at&t application was in appliance with the public works code. at the hearing no persons testifyed in opposition to the proposed installation. at&t told the hearing officer that they conducted a box walk and no members of the community attended but at&t met with the arts commission the arts commission have concerned concerns about the proposed location an alternative location was identified on york street and 24th street and the hearing officer was informed by at&t as that was in the other part of the cluster on lions street that this other alternative location was acceptable. the hearing officer recommended that both of those all 3 appeals be denied and he did it on the basis in my opinion it was feasible they could install this in other locates and recommended that at&t submit a new location on york and on 24th street. again, our position is pretty simple is that under the estimate order the hearing officer did not have the discretion to deny the per