how else to the neighborhoods have comments that if they work, and if there is just no way that you actually say ok, we will move on to the next one, we will not do it here, i mean, how do we get the confidence there? how do you address it? >> ultimately, before we even go to the permitting process, we have worked out a possible location for that. if we have got that, then, again, it will be a case-by-case basis. who is making the appeal? what is the grounds for the appeal? we will work that out. but ultimately, we are in a competitive environment. we are trying to be good citizens, and as ken said, to reach out to the community, and it doesn't make any sense to irritate our potential people. one year from now, what we have

built all of the easy ones, do become back and revisit them? yes, we can possibly revisit them, and we would try to do that and see what it is moving forward, but our intention is not to build if there is community opposition. supervisor farrell: i think we all understand that that is a leap of faith. you have got my number. .thanks. supervisor chiu: supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: someone who has been in it for a long time,

i know that they fight really hard, and that is a compliment. they are very, very passionate about their neighborhood and they are parts of this district. are you saying that if there was that kind of significant opposition in a particular neighborhood or a particular block that at&t under no circumstance would say, "we are going to go forward anyway, because we have to have the service around here? >> that is something in a neighborhood would have to take into consideration.

my boss will add to this. >> scott, you are right, yes. but also understand that each of these cabinets controls over 400 poems, so you as an elected official would have to help us make a decision. if they have a vocal group, do they truly represent the interests of 400 homes in your neighborhood? as i said, not one week has gone by when somebody says, "when is this coming to san francisco? they want the service. they have this competing interest. to answer a question, this is not interoperable. we can build out and turn out each individual one. is there is a problem, understand that that particular neighborhood will not have the benefit of that particular technology. supervisor elsbernd: and what i

already see is, if there was a community meeting, it would be ugly. and we have all seen it with the emails we have been getting. the people and think that this will be the end of san francisco if we do not get it, or it will be the end of san francisco if we do get it, and there will be these, and how does at&t navigate that? >> we have started a great relationship now by at least knowing who those are. as you said, to make sure that we cast our net wide and to look to you as policy makers to help make these decisions. ultimately, -- or not. supervisor elsbernd: to bring up

the undergrounding again, and digging up people's property, let's say planning said to you, "you cannot go forward with this," or dpw said, "you cannot go forward with this unless you keep this all out of the right of way," or "you cannot go forward unless you do not something else." leewood at&t proceed with the project? i ask this because for myself, and i assume for colleagues, it is a lot easier to decide that we either have the technology and clutter the sidewalks, or we don't have the technology, and there is an open question about what is feasible, and i heard

what you said before, but if that were put to you by one of the departments, how would you respond? >> i think he would be forcing the company to make a decision about whether or not it would build out the entire city of san francisco. the public works person stated, if you're talking about digging 15 by 15, it is not going to work in most of the cities, and it is going to end up with an above-ground piece of furniture that is in many instances larger than the actual vrad, so there could be parts of the city where that works, but in most parts of the city, that will not work, because you will run into electrical lines, sewer, and other infrastructure. and so the thought of building a 15 by 15 vaults still does not address the aesthetics, which is the largest complaint of the

appellant, because you're going to end up with a cabinet above ground which is in many instances larger than the one you put underground. supervisor elsbernd: and then my last question has to do with state law, and i would ask that we find whether it is appropriate for the city attorney to agree or disagree. in terms of the at&t legal position on this, if we require an eir, and we refuse to certify it when it comes back to us, which would normally mean the death of a project on a local level, can at&t go ahead and do this anyway under state law? >> i think you're asking me for a legal opinion, and i think i am wise enough to defer this to my lawyer. >> hi, amanda.

the question is, i think, goes to a big picture issue about ministerial as opposed to discretionary. there was some discussion previously that we would not have to have something if we did not apply for a permit. we can debate whether these permits are discretionary. we did debate that. we decided to move forward and go through this process. we under state law, under 79 01, we have the right to occupy the right of way. under 79 01 0.1 have the right to regulate the manner in which we occupy the right of way so we, do not incommode the right of way, so, yes, you can regulate and where our utilities go, but you cannot prohibit us from having access. the state has decided that the right of way is free utilities should place their structures.

actually, there is a question before. the public utilities code, including 0234 just for the record, so you have the right. was that a direct enough answer? >> that is what my understanding of the at&t position was, and i am curious to know from the city attorney whether the city attorney's office agrees with that -- supervisor elsbernd: >> no matter what level of environmental review is done this is simply getting the permit that we are required to get. there is no way you can argue

that. there is still be -- the surface-mount regulation, so that debate as far as how it would go is going to happen anyway, right, so in the eir, which i could actually run through the checklist that the eir looks out, the only ones that are pertinent to what is proposed has been thoroughly reviewed, which is not -- it is an actual evaluation. other categories, agricultural, we are not impacting them. we are not impacting them. i can go through the whole list. we are not impacting any thing. historical resources, we never agreed that there was an impact.

looking to avoid the argument as to whether there was an impact, so no matter what level of review you do, you're going to end up with the same part. you cannot deny access to the right of way. what is required for review under ceqa has already been analyzed. supervisor chiu: any more questions? i just have one follow-up point. we understand that we cannot deny your access, but we could reject this categorical exemption, which means you would have to go through the process. >> yes, and i think that people will question. it is a matter of principle. your staff has probably found that your staff has found 260 jurisdictions found that, and

they would ask why have we not done it, because ceqa is not required under the law, and to seek an eir

i realize, i think many of these cards checked the wrong box. let me read the final cards, jana, rudy rucker. and let me ask anyone else who wants to speak on behalf of at&t and the proposed project, you can line up for public comment. >> my name is matt regan here representing the bay area council, a public sponsored public advocacy organization with 275 member companies in the bay area. i think the fact that we're discussing this issue at great length is testament to the fact that while san francisco is progressive, it has problems with some progress. any city needs 21st century

infrastructure. we're 30th in the world in broadband access and that's the united states. san francisco is considerably lower down the ladder in terms of city standards. the type of small start-up companies in san francisco, the garage companies, the social media companies taking root here in the city require broadband access to be viable and successful. large employers also require broadband access in the economy where companies ask employees to work at home two or three days a week to meet environmental obligations and it's important for them to have broadband access at home. san francisco is not a theme park. it needs to keep up with the times if we continue to be a

viable place to work. i conclude by asking you to lock around this chamber. it is full of modern infrastructure and technology. it might offend the aesthettic sensibilities of some but i don't think anyone would argue that it doesn't provide a net benefit to those who work here and to the citizens of san francisco. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is tony harris, i'm a resident of noy valley and proud san franciscan and this is the first time i've been here so please indulge me. i'm not normally part of a group that testifies but i felt moved by this issue because there were four things i thought about that got past the typical political arguments. competition is important but with competition, also, is the

digital divide and making sure we bring everybody in the city up to the technology. many things now and almost everything that's being developed new in the future is going to require that kind of access, and we don't want to be dependent on one monopoly to provide that because then we're going to be the last ones to get any of the new innovation that comes out. we want to be the city that innovates. secondly, it's green because it uses and reuses some of the existing infrastructure in front of my house they're not going to have to dig up because i happen to live on delore street and utilities are underground so they can use what is already there so we're making good efforts to leverage the existing infrastructure with this particular proposal. the third one, i just went through a six-week class and

have newfound respect for our wonderful fire and police departments and we're what expecting them to do in the case of an emergency in my lifetime living here. unfortunately, i went through that after i signed my mortgage. the resiliency of this city, if you look at post-katrina and the gulf is very important. having two networks is better than having one. and for people like me that work at home and depend on that, that's economic vitality. [bell] president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening, president chiu. my name is neal bardac. i live in pacific heights. my concern is that the push for aesthettics will throw the poor and working poor under the bus. the problem you find in san francisco is the cost of cable. cable is not a luxury, it is a

necessity. if you drive through your neighborhoods tonight as you look in open windows, you'll see a flat-screen tv on the wall open to cable. you have shut-ins, stay-at-homes, working mothers with children looking to it for education and entertainment. $162 to $200 a month to a working class family is a lot of money in the budget and the only way you can lower that price is through competition and each of you have a constituent in your district that this is applicable to. it just isn't the poorer neighborhoods. this is all the neighborhoods. in today's world, $40,000 is working poor and that causes people to really pinch and if you don't believe me, i recommend all of you go down and stand in line on a saturday morning at comcast and talk to

the people there and their bills and what it costs and how many of them can't make payments. aesthetics are one thing. i lived in the city since 1967. i remember all the fights that came down about aathletics and you wouldn't have the bank of america building or the transamerica building today if aesthettics were the only considerations people cared about so when you deliberate and get beyond the rhetoric of aesthettics and the groups that care about it passionately and think about your constituents who have to have cable for their lives. it is a necessity in today's world, not a luxury. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> good evening, i'm a resident of corona heights in district eight. a couple of things i'd like to mention tonight. one is, our everyday life depends on technology and infrastructure that surrounds

us, the ability to talk to others, send information and watch important events on television. san francisco is known for its high-tech image and savvy residents. to keep that image, we must encourage competitive choice for cable in san francisco to bring high-speed internet, i.p. t.v. and advanced digital phone service. i've heard a lot about graffiti on boxes. where i live in corona heights, i have a phone box a couple of doors down from me and occasionally it is tagged with graffiti and at&t has been very response 95 getting that graffiti removed when i contact them within a couple of days, sometimes within 24 hours. thank you. >> hi, my name is ashley chang, one of the community ambassadors but i'm only speaking on behalf of myself as a resident of district 10. we heard a lot about cumulative

impacts and i'd like to take a minute to talk about economic impacts for our community. there's overwhelming needs in my community, especially the asian community in district 10, about digital equity. right now, comcast is the only in-line service provider in our area. as the area that is known for low-income families and residents, we really do need choices, thereby keeping the prices in check. because in reality, t.v., in many cases, are the only form of entertainment that the residents can afford. so please, if at&t were to install any boxes, please stop by district 10 and on a more personal level or professional level, i'd like to acknowledge that at&t is a very good corporate partnership and supporter for our community and

our phones are supported by the at&t, as a community ambassador, we thank you very much for the support. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening, president chiu. it's been a while since i've been here before the board of supervisors, and ladies and gentlemen, i, too, support this project. i have three reasons. one is because where i live, my reception is -- it's no good. i'm an at&t customer and sometimes when i'm in my couch and my phone rings, i have to go outside to the street to get bars. so that's one. two is because i, too, have at&t phone at work and i work at the

first reporter and sometimes our calls drop. so that's two. and three is, as the folks here from at&t stated, that if this goes through, there will be jobs and this is what san franciscans desperately need -- economy, work and a better way of living. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening, i've been a resident of district 3 for nine years and i am completely frustrated by the lack of options in the city with respect to cable television. as it currently stands, comcast has a monopoly on the city and treats customers accordingly. at a time when people are facing serious economic struggles, why wouldn't the board of supervisors support a project that would provide san francisco residents with a choice of cable providers and bring much-needed revenue to the city. residents of san francisco would be outraged if only one cell

phone service provider were available within city limits. why is cable television any different? allowing at&t to offer its services as an alternative to comcast only benefits san francisco residents and i therefore strongly support bringing at&t uverse to the city. thank you. president chiu: next speaker? >> good evening, president chiu and board of supervisors. my name is robert longer and i am here tonight to speak on behalf of the communication workers of america, c.w.a. we are the labor union that represents over 23,000 at&t workers here in the state of california as well as san francisco. our c.w.a. members working at at&t represent the largest unionized employer in the united states in at&t. they are highly skilled professionals who are devoted to their jobs. c.w.a. supports at&t's proposed

build-out in san francisco because it will mean hundreds of good union jobs that will be created at a time when our economy desperately needs it. these jobs will pay good wages and benefits. all positions will be filled locally by skilled union labor. due to our contract with at&t, we have good protections, good benefits and language that protects all employees that we represent. we at at&t have worked over the last six years on a national speed matters broadband build-out campaign to extend broadband to both rural and urban centers that need more competition and more access to local citizens and businesses. this build-out will expand access to high-speed internet as well as entertainment and telephony services while also providing critical local jobs in san francisco.

these local jobs will reinvest in their local community and provide a good standard of living for our members and those who are employed with at&t. i urge the board to consider at&t's permit application. with all due respect to the appellate's concerns over aesthettics and other issues, we can work through these. [bell] thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening president chiu and supervisors. my name is roland anderson, a member of the communication workers of america, c.w.a., local 9410 here in san francisco. i'm also an at&t employee and my job here is to maintain and install the existing network that we have here. i'm also a resident and a homeowner in cathedral hill neighborhood up the street from us. san francisco has had a long and

rich tradition of being a union city. "u.s. news and world report" recently showed san francisco as one of the top five labor friendly cities in the united states. the net effect, if you allow at&t to proceed with this build-out of the lightspeed network and exceed in video services, would be approximately 200 permanent full-time union-represented jobs in san francisco. the current economic climate, this would certainly be a welcome addition to the city. i believe i speak for all my brothers and sisters in the local 9410 when i ask you to allow at&t to proceed with lightspeed upgrade to the network at this time. as a consumer, i'm tired of being held hostage by the current monopolistic video provider in san francisco.

they're vehemently opposed to letting their employees enter into collective bargaining agreement. when their employees attempt to organize, they are systematically fired for their activities. by contrast, at&t has historically allowed work groups created by new technologies to join in the collective bargaining process. thank you for your time. president chiu: next speaker. >> representing bayview at this point. we want to make sure they do local hiring and we don't need nobody from another district coming from another neighborhood trying to get our jobs. all right? thank you. >> good evening, board. my name is calvin chan, a resident of the diamond heights area of san francisco. as a consumer and a resident, i'm ashamed that san francisco doesn't have uverse at this time when 260 other telephony cities

have made that investment in the future. i know my condo association has already designated a spot for our uverse box. i heard a lot of people talking about the aesthetics and as you know, the muni stations, the glass gets broken, there's graffiti but we deal with it when it comes up and i know that at&t will deal with the uverse boxes when there are issues with them but i've seen neighborhoods in other parts of the country and they're really not noticeable. once they're there, you forget they're there. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening, president, and board of supervisors. my name is anthony brewster and i'm supportive of at&t network