Buchanan in this case is actually a little bit different. What happened during the public hearing it was appointed that the area that at t was prototyping the box was a landscape area and we must recognition under the streets better plan theres the citys policy to improve the public rightofway for beautification that the part of the Stormwater Management plan were moving so the rain will run into the dirt and it will be reducing the amount of run off into the storm drain they dont want to repave over a landscape area look taylors theres two specific policies that determines its not appropriate for you to put the box and foundation and pave over an area thats landscaped it doesnt makes sense to the city thats why it was rejected. Im here to answer any questions you have so every homeowner puts landscaping in front of their homes and never mind. laughter . Is there any Public Comment on item 16, please step forward. Hi im rose im the resident on the fell street and the proposed s m f was supposed to go outside of the side of my house theres landscaping and a trees in the area and on the box walk it became clear to dpw and at t that the trespassing tree was there where did that come from that tree has been there temple years ago it was fulfill permitted at the time it was why that location wouldnt work but with the box walk again, it was scheduled at noon on a workday difficult for us to be doctor there are 3 singlefamily homes and weve been trying to stay on top of everything i think what was interesting about that box walk American People alternative location was identified and we were told at that time that location load great and the walk was concluded so no one was given a chance to identify another alternative so the only communication we got was that the hearing on january 5th at t said, in fact, that location couldnt work because the 3 hundred feet radius so we should have been given another opportunity to identify a location. As i have a minute left i dont understand how at t ever got to the hearing session by the way, when i have the s m f document theres a lot of prerequisites there theyre trying to improve they have tried to secure a private land on which to put the boxes on again there are 3 singlefamily homes in the area and none of us were approached similarly with the underground requirements weve never been given a true technical reason and finally down the block theres another at t box they could go color together without trevor with the trees and landscaping present next speaker gail. Board member of the Neighborhood Association. I did do send in an objection but couldnt attend the Community Walk one the points Mark Blackman mentioned at our transmission meeting that spent a large amount of time over the mr. President of the s m f is asking for private property that will serve the same purpose and get them off the sidewalk or at least an alternative rather than an arbitrary process of moving around a neighborhood none of them in the group has expertise about the placement weve talked about one property a hud property directly across the street and in the case of 533 theres a large Apartment Building cross the street and potentially there are storage locations within the building that will allow at t to use private property space. The incentive is 8,000 for skaes thats another thing that should be addressed for a prove or disprove to want to do that as opposed to obstructing sidewalks. Is there any Public Comment seeing none, mr. George if you have rebuttal you have 2 minutes id 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 rightofway 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 rightofway, however, the city can dedicate time and manner for the displacement of the facilities thats 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 t box on the sidewalk. By what was sprooipz it didnt show a existing base because i went back there and checked with google map theres an empty tree well, i dont know whether it was an accident that at t places the facility and masked it i cant speak to that but the bottom line is the city a established Stormwater Management and the city is correct in regulating the enforcement as it relates out of the one hundred and 60 previous installations of as far as mount facilities are they on public land. One thing ill point out if theres a private agreement with the at t and the prove or disprove to place those facilities Optional Private property we wouldnt know about it the attempts must be made to identify with the prove or disprove where theyll entertain this on private property. Do they have obligations to try to get into private property. They have to reach out and based on topographic in cases there might be a block where 90 no properties have set back its impossible to place on private property. Can i ask a question of council . So let me ask a question of the one hundred and 60 how many are open private property i dont have the answer. Can you ask them. My understanding is some of the s m fs have been placed on private property and at t sends out easement he letters to reach an arrangement to put those on private property i apologize commissioners i dont have the statistics and what have you done and outreach to guy the property we know you have additional cases before. My answer as to this appeal the department of public works found weve applied with the order and were obligated to fund a location on private property. So what do you do when you are looking for private property youre interested in acquiring our space. I apologize for being board is at t sends outs easement letters to homeowners in the neighborhood. I apologize for not having as the public has said some people have received notification and i live within a surface mount and have not received either but i want to know have you an example of what you send out to the neighborhood with you. None of that was the basis of the dnld so no. Perhaps the city will be able to answer your question better than i commissioners as part of the Little Package they have to produce letters theyve reached attest the public in those cases. If i can find this is part of the check list requirement if i may have the overhead this is the gesture form letter that at t provides to the public for Certain Property owners as it relates to an easement okay. And as part of this they gives several addresses of purposes weve contacted and thats for at t. Thats for at t thank you for clearing that up. Commissioners the matter is submitted. I move to deny the appeal on the basis the departments decision was compliant. Okay. On that motion made that i commissioner fung. Commissioner hwang absent. Commissioner hurtado. Commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda that motion carries 4 to zero well move ton to item 21 on scott street. Mr. Johnson. I dont believe theres anything particularly unusual about this appeal ill try to be very, very brief theres 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 im 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 thats 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 wont 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 ill make is the hearing officer didnt have the discretion to make those kind of particular order mr. Quan. Good evening. George quan from the department of public works actually in this case its a very simple situation 410 scott street the mrrments of this box at t is required to place what theyve projected to place for positive and capital facilities in the next 5 year thats a piece of software and every city agency places their capital plans in this map. As part of submittal applied for an application in june of 2003 that was identified as the 5 year plan of march 2003 so when at t computed this information it identified a conflict and the project manager who hadnt this project wiggle there was an exception weve received information from the project team whats been proposed by at t there be a conflict moving forward it appears to the department at least that it is not a situation outreach but a situation of coordination and make sure the facilities are placed correct so again, when we start moving forward and start the wiggle those will not be in conflict with the city project you need to coordinate and figure out where its most appropriate in this specific case you had no objections. There were objections but the primary wednesday, april 16, 2014, was the capital project. Are you sure you meant 2003. No 2013. It was originally placed in there im sorry, i misspoke. Any Public Comment on this item seeing none, any rebuttal. Okay. Mr. Quan anything further then commissioners the matter is submitted ill move to deny this this is in direct conflict with the citys greening effort. Okay. We have the motion by wanting to deny the appeal and uphold the dependent on the basis the permit was appropriating denied and with the cities greening efforts. Commissioner fong. Commissioner hwang is absent and commissioner hurtado and that passes four to zero were on our last item on one hundred thorton commissioners, i have a financial conflict and within 5 hundred feet of the project and prior to me departing i want to thank everyone for staying late especially my neighbors in the back. I think a lot of this at t has consistently said the process is overly lengthy and unfair. At the same time this is a pretty good lesson that if at t would do more outreach and identify additional areas that if 1, 2, 3 didnt work we wouldnt have this backlog of cases this is something weve discussed last time we we can only make the suggestion if they dont want to listen they dont have to thats my suggestion thank you, mr. Johnson we can hear your opening argument. Weve been here what appears more than 5 hours i appreciate our time and at t wants to say on the record we appreciate the input by everyone and thank the. This last appeal is much like the first cluster and its problematic with whats gone wrong with the process at t pilot for a hearing and there wasnt a hearing for 11 months. The s m f map went out with the objection and the alternative site that work was identified at the 18 lucy street and then a hearing at which time it was reported to the hearing officer that the sites were not in inclines and there was an alternative location. It would work for at t but the hearing officer could have done simple hold the hearing open for 20 days and have additional time to move the application process along thats whats contemplated unfortunately, that is not what happened. Our position is what we began the evening with if you look at the hearing officer position we think this is breaking California Bay law we dont think thats too much to ask to fellow your own rules. Its observe the hearing officer didnt have the discretion to deny permits and its supposed to work pick the best site and submit a recommendation thank you for your time and consideration of the appeals counselor before you start mr. Quan youre less than halfway through our roll out on the ferries phase i dont want to see 2 hundred more appeals i dont think you want to be here. 5 and a half hours. There needs to be a solution that incorporates some of the things. At t completely agrees with you even though even if you choose to litigate. Unfortunately were stuck now, when you have those applications that take more than a year. Weve heard that. I apologize. Thank you. Mr. Quan sorry. John quan department of public works one last times this is an interesting situation at t is correct we did a posting in april of 2003 and at t had a box walk im sorry 2013. It was they identified with the community that 18 lucy seemed to be an appropriate location i can go back and check that you turned out that at t approximately a couple of months later applied for a facility on lucy street to begin the notification process. But what was sprooild during some point at t stopped the positive and moved down this process as an appeal. The last corresponds was in october 2013 for the satisfaction of the postings we didnt have the second location which is what everyone agreed to we have both locations whatever happens to agree hearing officer can make an informed decision between the location and the alternative location on lucy. What happened at t requested us to stop the process they cited in this case put the location if to a undue postings but had this moved that or this would have been resolved and not before this board. Thats all i have as relate to the history we depended on it for whatever reason if they continued the process we wouldnt be in front of this board a decision would have been render we can take comment from the patient people in the back right now, please step forward. Madam president , and maam, Vice President thank you. Im brian im coauthor of a paper that was submitted to commissioner president lazarus. We did not obtain to another at t s m f installation in the neighborhood open the location. I live there i have an s m f right in front of my house. There would be another s m f right on the side of my house we did a box walk. We identified an alternative site. We just building that dpw shown good faith in the process by denying the installation site at the