thank you. >> my name is brian webbster. i'm a resident of san francisco and chief of staff at instituto -- the workers resource center on 16th and cat. i'd like to read from a letter we emailed to the board of supervisors. dear board of supervisors, our 30-year-old community-based institution is well known in san francisco as a resource center that defends the rights of the working poor. we provide free service and enforce california labor laws and operate financial education empowerment program focused on reaching the poorest and hardest working people in san francisco. we have an expanding working media program that provides internet access and web videos to tell stories related to issues in serving the needs of

the working poor. we would urge you to deny the appeal of the planning department's ruling that at&t does not need an environmental review to place utility boxes in public spaces, on sidewalks and next to buildings to upgrade the broadband network in san francisco. the planning department said in its ruling, "although the project is not without opposition controversy, opposition, controversy do not themselves institute significant environmental impacts. we respect the work and advocacy of the few community-based organizations opposed to at&t's plan but we disagree on this issue. we believe that the environment and quality of life will be improved by expanding broadband access in san francisco. we believe it is good for education, economic empowerment and good for all kinds of sustainable jobs. we believe it would be good for both our local and national economy, it would be good for competition and choice in the broadband hdtv marketplace and

broadband access is essential for a sustainable and green world. we believe there is an economic fast lane and economic slow lane and i hope that -- [bell] president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. my name is adele and i've been a resident of san francisco for 57 years and my daughter and i have been waiting for uverse service for years in the sunset district. and i voted for a number of you and i'm hoping that you'll consider voting yes tonight. thank you. >> how you doing, board of supervisors? my name is eric butler representing district 10 and i'm here to ask you to don't take our rights away from having

prominent professional technology in our neighborhoods because my children use computers and they're more computer literate than i am but as far as being a parent that has to afford to pay for the internet, at&t seems to have the best package deal that i might need to be able to not have my children at a disadvantage for the future. thank you. >> good evening, board of supervisors, president. my name is rodney hansen jr., district 10 resident, vice chair of the san francisco workforce collaborative. with more choices, consumers benefit from competition as you know. as providers working to bring more channels and applications to san francisco, we all will be able to see the latest technological advancement in these services. i would like to have a real alternative to cable, one that can bring me more and faster internet speed, integrated digital phone services, hdtv programming and on-demand

movies. i personally think we should embrace private investment when we have the opportunity. at&t is ready to invest in san francisco and provide work opportunities for our residents. their network upgrades can benefit residents by bringing more options and bringing more union jobs into the city and we are craving that in district 10 so we can be self sustaining. lastly, i hope you will choose to block the appeal rather than block employment opportunities as well as at&t. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker? >> good evening. my name is cordele coleman. i am supportive of the planning department idea of at&t's new high-speed broadband network. we want to help the choice of choosing which high-speed network we want. just having a choice will bring

affordable t.v., cable and internet and it will provide jobs which these jobs are very much needed and it will help the economy. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening, i'm latasha beadsly and i'm here from district 10. it is crucial to remember that by denying today's appeal you are not approving any specific boxes in any part of the city. at&t will still be required to work with the neighborhoods and they have made a commitment to do so. so stop the process today would be unjustified and unnecessary. thank you. >> good evening, i'm earnestine chester. i'm a supporter of the planning department's environmental determination so please let the san francisco residents and

communities choose whether they want at&t uverse and the benefits of the new high-speed broadband network. thank you. >> i'm tiffany gage and at&t is almost the largest union and the largest in san francisco and we need these jobs in our city. thank you. >> hello, my name is constance harris and i'm a resident of district 10 and i feel like comcast, you get two bills a month from comcast. at&t, if they can do anything better, i feel like it's good, we need the jobs. i mean, i have little kids that do need technology also and, you know, you can learn from television nowadays. so we need something to, you know, put us prosperous and make us have more jobs because we're out here struggling and we need something so, thank you.

>> chamika laurier and i'm proposing at&t so we can have better jobs in our community and district 10. thank you. >> good evening, supervisors, i'm desmond tan. i live in san francisco. i'm formerly a c.w.a. member and currently a local 6 member. i live in the bayview district. i have family in the tenderloin district and i am a voter. i'm a taxpayer. i work in san francisco. i'm a homeowner, supervisors. we voted for you. and you are our representation to vote yes to allow san francisco to have more choices on quality high-speed internet. scott, thank you very much for responding to my email. and this is to improve the quality of our lives in san francisco.

this is to generate income for san franciscans and for those who work in san francisco and this is to help increase the city's operating revenue because the majority of my family, relatives and friends rely on high-speed internet access in order to work at home in san francisco. their children also rely on high-speed internet disos do homework in san francisco. the group opposed to give san francisco high-speed internet access do now represent our voices. they do not represent san francisco. san francisco wants better and more choices on high-speed internet access. vote yes for at&t to invest in san francisco and vote yes to improve the quality of our lives, and by the way, ugly san francisco is not caused by the cabinet, it's caused by

social problems. we need to address the social problems. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen, my name is susan finnegan. i live in parkerside -- parkside and i suspect i'm representative of a lot of people in san francisco. i'm a single parent, renter, single income, and even with a good job, i still live paycheck to paycheck. one of the gentlemen earlier mentioned that internet and cable is a necessity these days. and it truly is, especially if you're raising children, especially if you're a giants fan. that's a necessity. and if you can't even see a home game, you know, without having cable, i think that says something. i would love for comcast to have some competition. perhaps to make pricing,

packaging options better, certainly content. it's sad when you have 60 or 70 channels and there's nothing on unless you want to watch "legally blonde" for the 40th time or "16 and pregnant." i would love to see competition. i think it's really, really important. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> i'm janita townes. i think by approving this project it would bring more jobs to san francisco and a better network. please approve the project. thank you. >> good evening, my name is niema. i've been a resident of san francisco all my life and you guys have proven this will be a great impact on my community as a low-income person, i can't afford comcast, internet, telephone and cable. it's very expensive and i have

four young children who love the internet and we do a lot of research and i feel like without the internet and being able to afford it, it's cutting off a whole broader world to us and we can't see it because we can't afford it and bringing at&t to san francisco would really make a big impact on my community as far as jobs and for better internet. thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is michael colin and my partner and i own a home in diamond heights. i love san francisco. we love a debate. a constituent of one has a loud voice here and listening to all the arguments tonight it's easy i think to get confused with what the real issue is and i don't know this is about aesthetics, i don't know that it's about graffiti, i don't know that it's about anything but technology. we represent, in san francisco, probably one of the most

proficient workforces, technologically proficient workforces on the planet and it's a travesty that we're underleveraging that workforce, not providing high-speed access. that's what i'd like to see and as a constituent of one, i've told the folks at at&t i'm willing to mobilize the 399 other folks on my grid so scott, when you say you want people to bring on an argument, i'll bring it on because i want uverse in my neighborhood. >> mary liz de young and i live out in the avenues. one of the things i missed most when i said goodbye to the cable company and got my satellite dish which is i don't have public, educational and government channels. i'm sure you miss the fact that my franchise fee isn't coming to the city but i've enjoyed listening to this public

government action and by having uverse, i'll be able to do it again because the peg channels play on the at&t but they don't come on satellite. so, yet again, another reason to get uverse as an option for san francisco citizens. thank you. >> good evening, my name is eric batteauxbahoe. 40 years ago i was an immigrant to this country from the philippines and i was fortunate to land in san francisco. many opportunities have opened up for me and i believe for today's immigrants, the young immigrants to this country, technology, access to technology would provide them the best opportunity and it's hard for me to believe that san francisco would deny that, especially for a city that has a large immigrant population, so i

encourage you to consider allowing at&t to provide that opportunity to allow technology to be useful for our young immigrants. thank you. >> good evening, i'm terry knight, an employee of at&t. i'm a uverse technician. i know the aesthetics has been an issue and there's been a conversation but i've seen far worse things in san francisco streets since i've been working over here. the boxes are there, you can barely see them. the graffiti, you have graffiti everywhere and as a lot of people have stated, it would bring jobs to the city, taxes to the city. it would bring a lot of good things to the cities of san francisco and one of the biggest things it would bring would be a good competition between comcast and at&t. but i believe at&t will rise above and will offer a lot for other people. you go out and buy a car, you

have a lot of cars to choose from, not just one. this opens the door for people to have more than one choice. thank you. [applause] president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in support of at&t? at this time, why don't we hear back from the appellate who shall have up to three minutes for a presentation. >> hello, again, susan brand holly for the appellates. getting back to the question before this board, which is whether the categorical exemption is supportable, we all agree that a key question is presented by the exceptions to categorical exemptions, so basically, the class -- without parsing class three, it's not applicable if there's a fair argument before you that the

cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time may be significant. so that's really the question before you. your staff told you that cumulative impacts, after a question i think from supervisor kim, that the cumulative impacts, you only look at the present project and future foreseeable projects and that's not really the standard. ceqa guidelines section 15355 provides that cumulative impacts are defined as the incremental impact of a project when added to closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable similar projects so that even individually minor projects can become significant, so it's true, you have to look at the existing street furniture in the right-of-way, the other boxes, the other problems with graffiti, and the cumulative impacts. you've heard from your staff, they don't know how many there are currently present so how can

you assess whether they'll be cumulative impact from the addition of 726 additional. i -- the person sitting behind me, lawrence rosenfeld, gave me a map. he spoke to you today and he's here to confirm what i'm saying, that he met with the at&t representatives in the last week and they showed him locations of two potential sites in one block so there's at least one situation and we can only surmise there may be many, many others in which they are going to place or propose to place two of these new utility boxes on one street which staff said it was not aware of. the question before you is not whether your staff has a reasonable opinion that there may not be significant impacts, but whether there's a fair argument before you, and i'd be delighted if i was asked a question about the case law on the fair argument standard as it relates to aesthetics, general plan and consistency or pedestrian safety. but clearly, if there's any reasonable opinions based on

facts, which can be the person's location in san francisco, their knowledge of the current situation with these boxes and opinions, subjective opinions about what it might mean, that's sufficient. beyond that, i think you have in your packets, planning commissioner miguel has given you an opinion about massive impacts from this project. you have former supervisor mcgoldrick who spoke to you and many supervisors tonight, if any of you presents a fact-base opinion about the impacts, that meets the fair argument standard. any questions? president chiu: colleagues, any questions to appellate's counsel? o.k. at this time, colleagues, unless there are any other questions to any of the parties involved in today's hearing, this hearing has been held and is closed. supervisor wiener? commissioner wiener: thank you,

mr. president. i first want to thank everyone who took the time to come out today and for those who were here earlier and couldn't stick around, and i say this at every hearing, but it's true, that you-all have things to do in your life and jobs and families and t.v. shows to watch on comcast and i do -- it shows a commitment to the city, with everyone's opinion, that you spent many hours here today. as i've learned and as i know my colleagues have learned recently, there are unbelievably strong opinions on both sides of this issue. and it's a really -- seems like a really big divide but i think the divide actually is not as big as it might seem. i think there's probably broad agreement that we want this

technology in san francisco. but i think it's pretty darn important that we have it here as competition to comcast as a new product. and i think there's also broad consensus that we don't want blight on our sidewalks. so if this is going to happen and, you know, the reason i was asking the questions about state law is, it's really unclear to me that even if we unanimously wanted to stop this that we even could stop it, and i haven't really heard anyone dispute that. the appellates really didn't present even an argument that we can definitively kill this even if we wanted to do that. so i think a good outcome -- and i was very, very interested to hear what at&t had to say about

the permitting process that i had not really heard it at that level of detail before, and if that's real, if there is going to be true community participation so that people who want it can get it and neighborhoods that don't want it don't get it and that neighborhoods that want it but want to control where it's going to go are able to do that, if that is real, then that could be a very good resolution. but i think that at this point it's unclear to me that that process -- how that process would work and how real it would be. so i would like -- i do move to continue this matter for four weeks and the clerk can let us know when that date is and if it's a bad date, so that we can give ourselves time to work with at&t, to work with others who

are interested, the appellates, anyone else, to make sure that the protocols around these installations and the locations would actually be strong enough so that we don't just have to rely on at&t's word that communities would be respected and so that would be my motion. i don't know if the four weeks is a good -- if that's a good -- president chiu: four weeks would be the day that park merced lands back here so we could do it that day or five weeks to june 7. commissioner wiener: why don't we say june 7. president chiu: that's also treasure island? i thought treasure island hits.

commissioner wiener: three weeks might be sufficient. president chiu: i got to tell you, every week is looking super busy. there are four special orders on may 17. we don't have any good dates. i would suggest may 24, four weeks, unless people think we can get it done earlier. commissioner wiener: that's fine. that's my motion. president chiu: is there a second? seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, any further discussion? supervisor mirkarimi?

supervisor mirkarimi: i support supervisor wiener's motion and we haven't had a chance to do this but i want to extend a compliment to at&t because there was only three of us on the board then when this came before us a little more than two years ago and there had been a dramatic shift in at&t's demonstration of outreach to neighborhoods throughout the city and county of san francisco, a much better, i think, effort had been extended over the last couple of years. that's noticed, even with neighborhood groups that i know are opposed to this as well as groups that didn't even really know or care about it had been touched by at&t. and i appreciate that effort very, very much. but i also want to say, in recognition of the fact that the city still plays it safe and will continue to do so most likely on questions of cumulative impacts and while that may not be as relevant to this particular thread of

discussion, i think that the best possible option that we have here is, i think, an option of working with at&t nord get them to have enforceable protocols so that if there are neighborhood groups or swaths of san francisco who do not want these boxes that somehow there has to be some obligating mechanism to make sure that is respected. otherwise, this is all just sort of a blind-faith discussion and i'm afraid it would almost be completely unenforceable. so along those lines, supervisor wiener hits the nail on the head for a few who are concerned about a lot of gestures that may not amount to the kind of deliverables we would like. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president, and i appreciate the desire to continue and try to find common ground. that said, i find myself in a place of really trying to do

what we're supposed to do here which is simply interpret ceqa and the issues in and around ceqa i think are crystal clear at this point. the issues desired for discussion over the next few weeks are unrelated to ceqa and unrelated to whether or not the categorical exemption should apply so while i wish everyone luck in their discussions over the next three weeks, i'm ready to vote on the categorical exemption and affirming the application of the catax today. i don't think there is need for continuance. president chiu: further comments? >> i want to present a slightly different perspective. i have to say i'm still undecided with regards to the ceqa issues. i do think there has been a lot of question on what cumulative impact is, whether this fits

into a class three category, and i do understand and appreciate, though that, where we are, i think, many of our colleagues feel that the either/or decision we could be faced with right now is not where we want to go in that we all know we want to build a 21st century technological infrastructure and we all know we want a beautiful city and if there are things we could do in the next couple of weeks to move that forward, i would be happy to be part of that conversation. i think supervisor wiener articulated one issue around ensuring there is a neighborhood-based process that respects our neighborhoods. i also think there have been issues around ensuring that we're maintaining the existing right-of-way infrastructure and questions that have been raised about past providers and historic performance in being able to address this and i want to make sure some of those issues are dealt with but we have a couple of weeks hopefully to resolve this in a way that i do hope we'll be able to capture

all of these different interests but clearly to members of the public, there is a wide diversity of opinion on i think what we think of this appeal and what we think of this broader issue and i want to thank all of the members of the public and i want to thank at&t for your tremendous patience in this very long hearing and in working with members of the board in the coming weeks to hopefully see some good resolution by april 24 -- i'm sorry, may 24. so with that, colleagues, do we need a roll call vote on the motion to continue? roll call vote, please. madam clerk: supervisor chu? aye, cohen, ii, elsbernd, no. farrell, aye, kim, aye, supervisor mar, mar, aye, supervisor mirkarimi, mirkarimi,

aye, supervisor wiener, wiener, aye, supervisor avalos, his avalos, aye, supervisor campos, campos aye, president chiu, chiu, aye. there are 10 aye's and one no. president chiu: motion to continue passes. madam clerk, are there any in themmiums today? madam clerk: today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individual on behalf of supervisor campos on behalf of the late sandra ravety chiu ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.