the smf? it's blocking people, how people cannot get in and out of their car, and then do you see that big truck parking there, the post office truck is always in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening, it's parking there to unload their stuff and this is -- they always have double parking. it's busy enough for anything to add on. and then i heard that the [inaudible] street is not enough space to put -- to relocate there. there's a sample on 9th avenue and kirkham. you can see that there's a bus stop, a red zone and also an smf, it's very obvious. things can be -- the smf can be relocated. the distance between there is about 6 feet between the bus stop and the smf. there's another example, 22nd and -- the same thing. that's all i want to say. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners, thanks very much for such a hearing, my name is william mui, i used to live in sunset district, and i still go there very often and i don't think that, you know, the location t

had we been notified, we can point out the various flaws in placing this smf at the location where it currently was. at&t fell very short in its notification procedures and following through with its own procedures, during negotiations that at&t had with mr. yee was fond of boasting that they don't negotiate with anybody, so since at&t apparently has unlimited resources to handle matters like this, perhaps it could have developed and done a little bit more to make sure all of the affected residents and property owners of this very busy commercial area would have been notified and had the opportunity to object. moving on to the merits of the matter, whether or not the location of the smf as it has been placed was a good or a poor location. apparently, this was the second site for this surface mounted facility. the first location was across the street at the 22nd and irving market and the owners there objected to the location because it was a busy loading zone. and so the at&t sought to have it relocated across the street. the very rational for which at&t agreed that the first location

was a finding that there is no evidence in the record that there was a more suitable location for the smf, so that leads me to believe that there was some consideration of other suitable locations, counsel for the permit holder has stated that there was an extensive search in this area for a more suitable location, but because of the requirements of the technology, this was the only place where it could be placed, so i actually don't see anything wrong with this permit and i would actually vote to uphold it based on dpw's findings in that order. >> i would tend to concur with commissioner hurtado. >> as may have been noted from my questions, i don't think just speaking to the concerns raised by the appellants on note, i don't think there's a notice issue here, this is a de novo hearing and we haven't had an opportunity to hear everybody including the appellant. on the question of what commissioner hurtado raised and i appreciate commissioner fung's concern with respect to the process and i wanted to find out and i heard from the department that in fact this was the best preferable site, s