Approved maybe eight permits already approved, and a couple are under instruction. Are they all in residential neighborhoods . Typically, yes. Thats why were doing this. Okay. I had a question. Im not sure you really get addressed questions about that neighborhood. We did look at quite a few alternate sites and we looked at 4875 17th street. Both locations are at the street corner. Placing at t wireless facilities at either intersection with little street cover would only increase the visual impact of the facilities, but more importantly, the city has designated those streets as excellent, as opposed to good, which has a different level of review and our specially protected under article 25 in order to prevent obstruction in those areas. I think you meant views not trees. Im sorry. Okay. Yes, we did. And weve done those two alternatives and we have two additional alternatives that also didnt work. One due to height, with lower profile, we wouldnt be able to get up over the houses where the antennas need to be to have a clear line of sight. And i mean, i can give you those specific if you want. Four in total we considered. One is on an mta pole and we dont have agreement with mta to go on mta poles. I have another question. Im not sure where it is in the appellants brief. The visual that was put on the overhead that you said was grossly out of pro porbgs. Portion. Yeah. Which i think was to toe shopped. Can i get a reference to the exhibit if your brief of the visual that was put on the overhead . Photoshopped. Can i get a reference to the exhibit if your brief of the visual that was put on the overhead . Or you can just put it on the overhead and talk about it. Im looking at exhibit 8 in your brief. Whats on the overhead right now . That was what the additional photograph. And then exhibit 8 is a box or is it the one underneath. What is in exhibit 8 is currently existing . Correct. That currently exists. Can i get at ts i forgot your name, im sorry. Teddy. You like me to leave that . Yes. tha bg you. Thank you. If you could address why this is grossly out of proportion . Well, first of all its not our box. And number two, its taken about probably its zoomed in. Its taken about a foot from i mean, its their box and theyre misrepresenting it so maybe getting the correct dimensions from them would be what would it look like . Lets do it this way. How different would the box that youre proposing for your permit, how would it look different from this one . Im not implied this room or this living room, so i cant speak to that can your technical people . Perhaps commissioner hwang, i believe the dimensions of the box, but she didnt indicate the width. If you want to take this box and compare it to this photo, you need to use is this the same . Yeah, can you blow this up a little bit . What exhibit number is it in your brief . Do you have the exhibit in yours . This particular one wasnt part of the brief. Mr. Rudich and i went back and forth a bit and these were his suggestions as for as rotating the equipment towards the street and lifting it up and then also i suggested we could move one of the boxes off the pole and he said that would definitely be better. Thats the battery box. Its 22 inches wide. We can put it across the street and impact other people. You can see i cant see. I dont have that exhibit so i dont know if its a vacant lot, but right behind the pole right there. Uhhuh. Until somebody buildses one. And i dont know the impact of that on the corner units of tp one to the left. Im wondering if it putting across the street is just going to have a consequence for others that are not in the room. It could be lower on the pole and facing the other direction as well. What do you mean . It could be turned around on the pole. That was just the suggestion was to put it up that high, but you could turn it the other direction and lower it. Okay. Should we hear from the department, yes. Thank you. Before you start, do we need to talk to it about the flickering screen . We have. Theyre working on trying to replace these monitors, but i was told the Remote Control you have on your desk there might be usable to stop the flickering. You dont see it, but on these monitors here theyre flipping back and forth. We have to use the overhead. I dont know, maybe next time we have Media Services here we can ask them. Good evening. John from the department of public works. I listened to the appellates presentation and it appears there are three items theyre bringing tpwo rt. Forth. The first is the necessity theyre questioning. The second one is theyre questioning whether it was appropriately decided by planning. And then i believe the third one was related to proper notice in this case. Obviously department really cannot speak to the level of necessity in this case because ultimately the size of the facility is dictated by the Business Plan of at t, however, based upon equipment being are provided based upon their needs, it does fall under tier three requirement, and thats why we consider tier three necessity. The applicant is correct that this is an considered a good view. This was sent to planning and planning made a decision on august 12 of 2013 stating that it was approved with conditions. Some conditions was to put these facilities in line with the pole to minimize obstructions, that it needs to be paeupbtsed to match the color of the pole and finally, that they need to work with the Property Owners to determine whether they can install a tree to do additional shielding and masking to ensure this can happen. I believe at t is working on that aspect of it. We do not believe that in this case that, by suggested by the appellate, there was anything done in error by the department because these are planning conditions and this was part of the conditions of approval that the Department Department established as part of the tentative approval. Finally lets go to specifically the question of noticing. As part of the notification process, we do have an affidavit from an individual stating that the mailing information is correct and it was properly sent and also we did receive we did provide the appellant with an email notice for a directors hearing in november, which in this situation where the appellate was an active participant. There were certain questions, i believe, that the board asked to the height of facility and maybe i can go back and explain good evening john from the department of public works. I want to talk about the presentations the first one is the necessity theyre requesting questioning and the second whether it was appropriately decided by planning and the third one was relate to proper notice nicole. Obviously the department cant speak to the level of necessity in this case ultimately the size of the facility is delicate by at t but based on the needs and equipment it does fall under tier 3 requirement so we consider tier 3 necessary. The applicant is correct this is in a kourlt of law a good view and planning made a decision on august 12th of 2013 some of the conditions were to put the policies in line to minimize the protrusions so it is to be panted to a match the color of pole and theyll need to work with the Property Owners to see if at the, put in a tree and also to work with the upper forestry to make sure this can happen and at t is working on that aspect of it. We dont believe in this case that as suggested by the appellant that there was anything define in error by the department those are planning conditions and those were part of the approval processes. Finally lets go specifically to the question of noticing. As part of the notification process we have an affidavit from an individual that the mailing information is correct and properly sent and we also received and did provide the appellant with a notice in october for a directors hearing in november in this situation where the appellant was an active participant. The question came up over the height of the facility will maybe i can explain that. The city requirement must be 8 feet off the ground on the situation part and 4 off the groin on the street site so people wont hit those boxed with vehicles and at t based on their requirement put it significantly higher. There were questions about the box that was photo showed up i believe that box maybe a comcast battery back up unit ill see in the sunset their nooems we recognition that they were up to 3 feet in width. And right now we believe in those kind of cases the Health Department made the approval based on the approval and there were certain requirements that at t is required to a follow. During the public notification we did a public hearing and some of the issues related to the relocation of the facility was discussed at the public hearing and ultimately the director made a decision this was an appropriate request and we granted the approval and it was sent to the board. Im here to answer any additional questions but i dont think there are any board questions the department holder states in their brief and weve heard argument the alternatives that were proposed by the appellant were not appropriate due to the views would you agree on the alternatives proposed for placement . If it is correct that the alternative locations put the facilities in a higher corridor ill have to rely on the Planning Department whether there are additional conditions so thats planning okay. Thank you. Will it be placed inside the tree canopies. Its a good question i will have to rely on at t to answer that i do know commissioner one of the biggest observations is the battery back up its very, very big and hayek thats one of the biggest complaints. Whats the size relative to the com cast box. I think the comcast box doesnt quote me maybe 3 feet by 2 and a half and 3 feet. Whats the dimensionss. 20 by 22. 10 inches. Is there any Public Comment on this item take rub89sz from the project people. City for listening to our appeal. This is has been a learning can i ever on behalf of all of us we didnt mean to depict anything thats not it is pretty close 27 inches. With regard to what was discussed by at t we appreciate at t discussing the issue. The permitting process has been going on for weeks and months ease, in fact, i had a telephone conversation with at t about the alternatives we appreciate that and if the board is going to grant the permit we i would ask that it be granted with those conditions its important to put the box across the way but to emphasize in terms of the alternative sites we are especially suggesting this by us weeks and months ago we didnt hear any reasons why at t turned us down it was denied saying its not viable we doesnt know why they were not viable we didnt find out the reasons they were not viable annihilate at filed their brief last thursday we tried to find conditions and i believe as mentioned there are a couple of places but those discussions should have been had weeks and months ago we shouldnt be he hearing here, you know, wasting our time in terms of coming up with alternatives that he he feel there might be alternatives and were willing to work with at t we understand there are street ratings that could interfere we understand there are trees in the areas that maybe blocking any windows and the final point at t mentioned that one of the reasons they picked this particular pole the house is low and steve and dianes house therefore they would have a problem at t would have a problem so i submit to the board those discussions should have been had a long time ago ago ill submit theres other polls that are less instructive not in front of windows but we appreciate the suggestion of the box across the street and at t indicated its a vacant lot not to block any windows or Something Like that okay. Thank you. You have also 3 minutes good evening commissioners ted why with at t. So i think we have a permit thats been granted by dpw weve shown that through our California Public Utilities Commission we have by right the ability to be in the public rightofway. We prefer to work with the community to find a solution that will be amenable. Those are tough areas to get coverage we admit that its a challenge for us but it doesnt mitigate the fact the net is there. Weve love to operate tier one but we have the frequency we have and we have many of them the customers are riffling on the frequencies and we have an obliteration to make sure those r gaps are minimized. We have a permit brow. We do ask you support dpw in that but were willing to take on a condition to move the equipment. We do not have any additional alternatives theyve been achieved. We ask you support dpw in their decision this evening. Thank you sir anything further . Commissioners the matter is submitted the Planning Department we reviewed the aesthetic of the nature did they look at those. I dont have much talk on those but i spoke with our wireless planner and he reviewed the previous approved proposal and the revised proposal and buildings those satisfy our requirements. What do you mean the revised proposal. The one that was proposed as an alternative. That was submitted by your department. He asked us to look at other antenna types there was another appeal that was looks like an extension of the telephone pole i believe and they indicated that was not feasible because of the property for the antenna thats what i was told by the gentleman. Thank you. You know weve been mitigated so many times ill trying to remember whats for us to discuss. Im wondering if your interested in considering the alternative design their i maybe another permit needed it would be something to consider. May i respond to that and if i may typically, it had a Wireless Company 3 wanted to put up separate proposals, however, in situations where the condition is persuade by the Planning Department or rec and Park Department required a relocation or a back up situation for the pole we understand thats a condition to require an additional permit so we normally try to issue one permit to identify both facilities. And looukts the proposed alternative to sort of split the equipment youre saying a no new permit would be required. Weve identified both sites as part of that permit. Okay. May i just alert mr. Quan and the commission maybe mr. Quan can respond. The notice for one hundred and 50 seats under the proposed location so we you should consider whether or not a new notice maybe required if anyone is caught in the new envelope youre right well have to show the City Attorney but if theres a change based on the City Department if it what happened before as part of the conditions of approval well need another permit. Well, what how many days notice would be required . Im not sure. Do we know up here robert whats the variance notice. The notification period is 20 days. 20 days and with the proposed split equipment people in 9 room might have a problem with that okay. Does that make sense to continue this. Im leading that way the reason being weve had similar cases in the past when the notification has in question and the alternative location has also been in question so i think if the parties are willing to extend and that notifications on the second pole maybe it will have viable alternatives. Im not sure im going to agree with that for the following reason the ability of our board and planning to address the issues of a lot of those types of installations is primarily limited to aesthetic types of concerns. I dont see how switching a huge box like that from one side to the other changes the aesthetics of the situation. Im bothered by the fact that we would be guessing that the people on the one side of the street would have no issues less objection. Im wondering if theres a way to craft this time period. One of the things when the appellant was suggesting there might be other poles obviously no one wants this in front of of their window. Im sure people who have the permits wouldnt want this in front of their windows. I live in an area right in front of my house i have at t ill put that out there i dont have what i need from at t. So but i think one of my problems here is and id like to get creative up here theres a way to provide the notice and i wonder in we can provide anyone the opportunity to weigh in and insure villaraigosa the notice of the possibility which an alternative location. It may not be in our capacity to do that but to work with the people for the community i dont agree to put that in front of someones house i san diego are that alternative one of the alternatives is to provide the permit and ask them to go back out. I also am disappointed that the corporation with enormous resources not to be in conversation and talking about alternatives sooner than on the way over here. I dont especially appreciate that given the resources available. You dont have the team and the resources to do that mates one thing but under those conditions if under those circumstances they should at t came to the Department Just now proposing the alternative conditions i want to im going to turn it over to at t. I dont know if this helps