So a permanent. Yeah. Legal but nongreen zones would be wiped out. So the green zone is directly in front of the of the pharmacy. At this point but actually, the appellant is hoping to have it negotiated to have it moved away not part of this appeal but, yes their adjacent to a green spot. It enables customers to come in and out of the business . Yes. Assuming theyre available thats true. There not available at this point, because from after 4 and before 10. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. We can hear from the permit holder now. Thank you, mr. Johnson for appellant at t with all due respect to my colleagues who got up and auditor hes got a lot of the facts about the appeal wrong im going to attempt to correct the record. At t employed for a pilot in the vicinity of the neighborhood at t conducted a box walk as mrs. Lee confirmed in her brief she was at the box walk during the box walk mrs. Lee identified a couple of locations those locations on the northeast location of gerrero and Caesar Chavez im going to pickup truck up a faithful so the board can look at that. So at t agreed during the box walking it would send at t field representative to cite this location to see if its appropriate. At t did that. Unfortunately, when the Field Location are person got out there she saw the same thing you see on the screen the appellant proposed two alternative locations one in the back of this heavily trespassed area thats on private property owned by city unfortunately, thats not a technically feasible site for at t to install our cabinets require 12 and 6 foot cleaners that could only go in there if we cut the trees down the city wouldnt allow that. That election is on private property not the rightofway so the only way at t could install in the city gave at t an easement the city is not interested in granting easements and rejected the need for easements. The other alternative location that the appellant suggested perhaps on the sidewalk in the rightofway we thought that was a possible location, however, not ada requirement requires 48 inches of clearance and this violates guideline 2, 3, 5 and 8 and 13 of the place of Employment Guidelines which require that a minimum 4 feet of pedestrian clearance shall be maintained at all times and that the surface mounted facilities be set back from underground structures and set back 5 feet from the crosswalk areas so that alternative location is not techly feasible thats what at t record and donates in the dpw order and the hearing officer was told the alternative locations didnt say work. At the hearing it was suggested there might be an alternative location in the vicinity on gerrero street its on the other side of the street. The hearing officer correctly then held the hearing open for 20 days and asked at t lynn fong asked at t to investigate whether or not those sites would work. At t submitted reports to dpw which are in the brief im going to briefly place them up on the screen. So if i could ask the overhead reflect this exhibit. So this is one and im going to put up the alternative site. What at t representative found what was recorded to dpw was neither of the alternative locations would work because one of them violates guideline 7 the sf m f the facilities shall be set{for fire hydrants and other stuff they be sorry about that 40 inches from above ground structures. As i understand the argument shes arguing you should refers the public works in order so the at ts cabinet be placed in other locations which is impossible for at ts cabinets. The Department Found that the proposed location met all 22 sf m guidelines as you see from the refrigerates its not a correct it would block the drugstore entrance and theres no bays basis in the record to reverse the department if you have any questions, ill be happy to answer them where is your brief . The departments submitted a brief we did not. Can you go back to the diagram you had on the overhead. Sure. All right. So can i ask that the so this is a technical fielding let me ask the question and okay. When i looked at the discriminated i see your commits, however, no analysis as to the specific site and why is it those are not appropriate technically. You know, i see a diagram of certain box certain trees and driveways but no idea that in the engineering notes the statement that is technically not possible i cant tell from the diagrams with your permission im to put an email from neil dana that was forwarded to the department that ive read into the record. So the hearing officer when they held the hearing open they asked that at t evaluate the sites and tell them if what is technically feasible to install on the other side. The analysis that at t did that was rejected visually in those inhabits that are attached to the cities belief is that its not possible for instance, i dont know how well you see those are driveways and the sf m order requires a 5 feet of clearance from driveways so theres no place to put the combnts cabinets in that who violate from 14 hundred to 4 r will 1440 gerrero my colleague is more familiar with the guidelines. Im sure he can provide further observations the other question when you have staff that go on the box walk well, let me back up. Did your staff is that was an acceptable location . Nobody from our staff would have told the appellant during the box walk that the alternative location was acceptable in the sense if i mean yes, well apply for the alternative he site. What they told mrs. Lee and mr. Blackman come up if you wanted to hear further testimony well send a field engineer to see if tests possible to this alternative site as you know from the other many, many appeals ive argued in front of you at t did that on a routine basis if they feel the order contemplates we attempt to identify with the alternative sites and tell the hearing officer we identified two or 3 and pick one that is the least unimpactable site the unfortunate thing there are not other sites that are feasible to install. Under the sf m f theyre required to grant the permit so i disagree with the appellants that at t representative indicated that it was an acceptable site and you i believe said a theyll study it; is that correct . Yes. I disagree with the assertion thats an inadmissible hear say. Mr. Quan. Good evening, commissioners john quan from the department of public works once again. As noted i heard both the appellant and from the appellant and at t and i ask honestly say the brief was clear and concise subjected statement were said there was a box walk between at t and the appellant. That the northwest corner of Caesar Chavez and gerrero it was destruction between the representatives of at t and the appellant. That based on the objection urging the public hearing at ts representative at the hearing stated for the record that that site doesnt satisfy at ts technical replacement of the surface mount preempt in the northwest corner. The appellant suggested a possible alternative location in the immediate area that was one of the reasons why the department and hearing officer held the hearing open for an additional 20 days so attica evaluate that 0 block of gerrero street to see if theres alternatives in the immediate facility that was based on suggestions that the areas in the immediate area during the hearing i did go back and listens listen to the hearing one the intents to it look at the site and at t reevaluated it and reidentified no other locations that can be reasonable place along the 14 hundred block of gerrero as established under the border or at ts reminders. The palace part of the brief suggested that the surface facility be placed in the medium number one or in this case it was too close to the return creating possible obstructions. The placement of those kind of box will create a significant hazy suggest as it relates to potential obstructs for traffic. The box itself is placed the proposed mounted facility is placed 50 feet back from the intersection that shouldnt propose any kind of hazard to vehicular traffic or potential not see people crossing the street from Caesar Chavez. As stated by at t during the hearing the alternative hearing being proposed cant be done technically and no other viable alternatives identified for this location thats why the department accepted the location and made the recommendation that be approved ann and anes vacation was approved. We request that this board uphold our position if you have any questions, ill be happy to answer them same question. Did you look at this diagram . Yes. Is there some secret nomenclature i dont understand. I cant see it shows the entire block as not being acceptable because i see no clarences no zones drawn in there all i see is an engineering note saying its not feasible commissioner if you look like it theres matrixes identified theyre identified the intersection of gerrero and Caesar Chavez a 0. And as you go from right to left is the first driveway. I see that. And my evaluation the driveway to the first cut trees is 10 feet. In order to place the mount facility it leaves less than 5 feet so its to the possible to place the box at that location they did identify ail the potential obstructions on the sidewalks to determine that keep going down. Driveway 1426 to 28 next to that box is 20 inches. Thats correct. How about the next way past the driveway 1414 and 1420. Okay. Thats not an appropriate site . The driveway between 1414 and 1480 from a 92 to one hundred and 8 feet is the distance thats relatively clear. Theres an at t box so they cant unput it on top of that that leaves 16 feet theres an entryway in front of that area based on the diagrams thats the way to read this. Yes. And okay. Thank you. Commissioner honda do w you have a question. Question mr. Quan dont at t have the specifics. They have the order with the minimum requirements or separation and Everything Else at t will figure out how to match the requirement of the constellation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you any Public Comment on that item . Please step forward. Hi im vav i cant think lee. Im sorry youre the appellant here so your time to speak is when our attorney u or you can share with our attorney. I have an opportunity on rebuttal. Okay any Public Comment on that item . Seeing none, well start with rebuttal so ms. Lee and this is your time theres 3 minutes so if you need to shire it; however, you wish. Thank you very much. Ms. Lee wants to appointee hearing, in fact, that was no explanation just a flat blanket statement of that site will not work regarding the Caesar Chavez area. There was no discussion no technical issues mentioned nothing whatever. Consequentially when they in the hearing her and a neighbor subsequentially proposed something nearby the area near the city owned property it was the clear understanding of those present that was the area that was going to be surveyed along with the corner of grer restraining order for the surface mount box. No one its suggested going up grer restraining order through if theres a place thats wonderful but not suggested at all and the hearing officer took it upon himself apparently, it was not stated that was the order that we give gave at that at t to investigate all the way up to the corner in fact, theres a at t surface mounted facility and it immunity ada coded because it would be an equal distance to the curb so im not understanding the ada issue at all. Also i would point out that the dpw stated theyve, of course, have no way of recording what was stated but what was stated to ms. Lee was absolutely that they saw nothing wrong with the site and they would have it investigated by at t. We never saw the results of that we never gatt got a communication shes heard nothing from them about it so if they investigated that where is it i have nothing to argue because i dont know their evidence that it would not be client to the rules and regulations. The other thing i want to mention is the driveway noted in the diagram you have at the late driveway at the 1440 o grer 0 restraining order street its not unlawful they were informed it wouldnt be lawfully for them to park there because of the traffic on gerrero and Caesar Chavez is so heavy okay. So they dont use it for anything at all. Im just guessing i think when they talk about the ada issues the clearance between the back of the sidewalk is probably not the required 48 inches. Again, the one. Let me finish and that box from the curb is also set thats all im guessing so the question you have this pharmacy you have a parking lot . There so this is your department of labor supermarket parking unfortunately, the demeanors Office Closed and the parking lot was closed theyre not allowed to use it anywhere. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Johnson could you just ask this exhibit be put down on the screen. You can see the old cabinet that cabinet has been there are inform decades and grandfathered in the ada laws it doesnt have the 48 inch inclines problem and substantially smaller than the cabinets that photograph that the appellants proposed so to speak as to why this is not appropriate site. Again as i pointed out the trees will have to be cut down and the city wont be allow at t to do that thats not possible. The harveys officer held the hearing open he ordered at t to look at alternative sites which we did and provided reports along with the documents that youve seen at t also provided a report which im going to read into the record it said at t investigated the alternative sites and brought forgot the following it appears the alternative sites from 1414 to 1440 is not assessable acceptable it will violate exhibit b of the facility it should be set back 40 feet from driveway and exhibit b 89 manifested shall be set back not specified her in so the essential problem you know see given the appeals at t has a right to place the cabinets somewhere in the rightofway. The problem in this neighborhood none of the alternative locations that were suggested comply with the sf m order. The proposed location meet the guidelines which means theres no evidence it blocks the rightofway which is what dpw told the hearing officer and at t decisions. I simply dont know what else we can do in the situation given its constraint by 3 hundred foot radius of the existing box if you have any questions, ill be happy to answer them does that 40 inch requirement thank you for the dining room a thats the first time weve seen them at the board of appeals. A proposed location you have for your new box is that 40 inch clearance from that box to my other mailboxes or at t box existing box has to be 40 inches . So guideline number 8 says that the surface mounted facilities should be set back a minimum of 40 inches not otherwise specified not limited to other set back the cabinet is 40 inches from the two trees you see in the photograph. But your predicaments shows im assuming this at t this 4 by 6 box is your new box and thats the location you want. Those drawings are actually from across the street at gerrero. This is not the new location and well, its not the old the overwhelming applied for location thats near the drugstore on grer gerrero street and this is the corner of Caesar Chavez and gerrero. Well, theyre all technically on some corner of Caesar Chavez and gerrero street because the streets are like this. So youre saying this diagram is not the location of your proposed box. No. That diagram is what we submitted after the hearing officer held it open for 20 days and asked at t to look at the maeflt of alternative sites which at t did and submitted the reports. If at t could have submitted installed stalled it across the street it this diagram is she or he our proposed site its not 40 inches its much closer and i can answer that. Im sorry mark recreational Vice President of at t. I think whats confusing im presuming youre looking at the same diagrams im looking at the. It shows 14 hundred to 1440 gerrero. Im looking it past that the corner of Caesar Chavez and gerrero where the pharmacy is located. Screen please. Overhead and no, im not looking that im looking a drawing. Is that the construction notes the document. The top of the construction notes. Oh, this one. Or the one before that but its the same thing. Okay. So indeed this is put that on the overhead. I want to make sure theres one before that . Commissioners is that the same document. Its the same. What was your question . Is that does at t box theirs a designation of 4 by 6 is that the proposed location. Yes. Okay isnt that a mailbox and a an at t box next to it. Pull that up. Theres a mailbox 40 inches back. Not based on this diagram. But it will be 40 inches ba d