opportunity to go through spell check, but did anyone read it before they sign it? did anybody understand that when they signed it it would also completely destroy the home san francisco program? was that the intent of the measure? the author, who at least identified -- at least identified himself, a representative of the community, said the whole attempt was to stop the parkmerced project. but then we have the city attorney come up and say even if it passes it will not stop the parkmerced project. the you truly want to hoist this completely misguided piece of legislation on the electorate, potentially pass, have all these unintended consequences for an end and that cannot even be achieved? respectfully, i would think before a view that signed the various measures would jump all

over this amendment. it is the one saving grace. supervisor weiner is doing you a rope to clean up the mistakes that will otherwise be in the ballot. join me in my opposition to this relationship to table. supervisor weiner: i agree with a lot of what supervisor elsbernd said, but i also tried to be realistic. i am opposed to the three ballot measures. i think you and i need to just make sure we beat all three at the ballot and just move on. president chiu: any further discussion? i was told that if there are members of the public that wish to speak with regards to the motion to table the items, particularly with regards to the public hearing, and you are welcome to say few words. each member of the public shall have up to two minutes on the motion to table. >> ♪ does anybody really know

what time it is? does anybody really care about time? then you got time enough to do anything at all ♪ president chiu: in the other members of the public that wish to speak on the motion to table? if you wish to speak, please step up to the microphone. we cannot hear you. this is not general public comment. this is simply on whether we should table item 46. thank you. any other members of the public wish to speak with regard to the motion to table items 46 and 47? seeing none, can we take this motion without objection? apologies. roll-call vote on the motion. aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: aye.

supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. >> there are eight ayes and three nos. president chiu: motion to table passes. on item 48, supervisor weiner. supervisor weiner: that was interesting. colleagues, our ballot measure system and votes in california and san francisco is broken. we have too many items on the ballot, too much complicated public policy decided with a yes or no vote, as we have seen with some of the measures passed on the ballot yesterday without an

opportunity for the give-and- take of making public policy and public legislation. it is too easy to place things on the ballot whether by the board of supervisors or the mayor. we have too much ballot box budgeting. we have a ballot measure system that is far too easy to manipulate with money. of the various flaws that we need to fix in san francisco and on a bigger skill in california, this charter amendment addresses one of them. that flaw is that once a measure is passed, and we are talking about ordinance's here, policy statements, they are effectively frozen in time. no matter how much time passes, no matter how small or big a contemplated change, no matter how much consensus there is around a change, the only way we

can make the change is to go all the way back to the ballot and put another ballot measure on and write another campaign. we are the only state in the country that does it this way. california is the only state, of states that allow voters to legislate, that does not allow any changes thereafter unless it goes back to the voters. other states either allow changes by the legislature after a certain amount of time or with a super majority vote. some trade voter legislation like any other legislation as it immediately amendable or repeatable. this is a modest first step that takes a middle road to start fixing our ballot measure system. as i have indicated before, this ballot measure applies only to ordinances and two policy statements. it does not apply to anything the voters put on the ballot by signature. it does not apply to past ballot

measures. for the first three years after an ordinance or policy statement placed on the ballot by the board or the mayor is in effect, the board of supervisors cannot touch that measure. for the next four years, the board can amend or repeal the measure with a 2/3 supermajority vote. after seven years, the ordinance or policy statement becomes just like any other ordinance or policy statement, and it is amendable or repeatable -- repealable. this is a modest and common sense first step reform for our ballot system, to start getting it under control. i want to note a few things. first of all, i want to thank my colleagues and members of the public who have expressed opinions about this and who have made it a better measure. it initially included boater- generated signature drive initiatives.

there was a lot of concern that that was the core of the voter's power to take matters into their own hands. i removed that out of respect for the fundamental right of voters to collect signatures and put something on to the ballot. in addition, we made a perspective. a lot of people were mistrustful and thought i had a secret agenda or secret list of things i wanted to go after. that was never the case. i put my money where my mouth was by making this a perspective. i also want to address a couple of criticisms i heard that frankly i do not think are meritorious. one is that we are somehow disrespecting the will of the voters. this is only going to go into effect if the voters say it goes into effect. this is the ultimate respect to the voters, asking them what they think. if the voters say no, i would respect that, but we should give

them the opportunity. the second is that the board is going to start willy-nilly repealing or amending ballot measures. i think anyone who has been around this place knows that members of this board are going to be very ginger and conservative in terms of amending something the voters have passed. i think the power will be used sparingly. it is important that power exist. colleagues, i respectfully request your support. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. considering supporting this charter amendment was a difficult decision for me. i know there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue. for a long time, i thought it was important that we think about what it means to reform our ballot ordinance process. i do think it is important that

when supervisors do put on ordinances that we have an ability to make changes or edit in the future. i appreciate some of the changes. i also think it is important in the past that voters have voted in ordinances' thinking that if changes were made it would have to go back to voters. i appreciate that it only applies to the future. i did not support it affecting ballot measures this november, because there is still uncertainty given that we do not know the outcome of this measure, but from january forward. it is important to know we are the only state that does not allow the legislature to make changes. i think that in some ways this will be a check on supervisors as we go forward in putting more things on the ballot. i would prefer it if we had a longer, more comprehensive

process in terms of reforms which could make in general to the ballot initiative process. i look forward to it potentially doing that. i have heard from many a community advocates about how to put measures onto the ballot. but it is important that voter driven signature drive pellet measures are not included in this. this takes a tremendous amount of work for voters to get on the ballot, where as it is easier for supervisors to get an ordinance on the ballot. this would only allow us to amend our own measures. i want to thank supervisor weiner for putting that in and for going through a very lengthy process. i think it is important this go to the voters for them to make this decision in november. if they do not want to see it, they will vote against it. i do not think it is a confusing charter amendment. i think it will be easy for

voters to understand. it is fairly simple. it is an opportunity to hear what voters think. president chiu: colleagues, any additional comment? if we could take a roll-call vote on item 48. aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: no. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: no. >> there are seven ayes and four nos. president chiu: this charter amendment is submitted. colleagues, why don't we now go back to the items related to at&t, which are items 5 through 7? madam clerk, please call those

items. >> we have already called those items. president chiu: we had a little bit of a continuance earlier today because the department of public works was engaged in a conversation with at&t and four members of the board if there is someone from the dpw who could summarize your conversations? >> president and members of the board of supervisors, i am from the department of public works. the department has been reviewing the memorandum of understanding between at&t and public works related to additional commitments by at&t for the approval of a certain amount of facilities. at this point, we are happy with the proposed additional commitments from at&t. we will work to the best of our

ability to make sure this is followed in every submittal. at&t facilities should be -- should the ceqa declaration be upheld and the process move forward to the department of public works. president chiu: thank you very much. these items are in the hands of the board. supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: i would like to move forward item five and cable items 6 and 7. -- table items 6 and 7. president chiu: the supervisor has moved to allow the categorical exemption. further discussion? there is the opportunity today

for public comment. we have had excessive public comment in the past. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to pay the courtesy to supervisor weiner. i know he has been helping to facilitate discussions that at least allow us to get a prism from all sides on this particular issue. i have been adamantly against us moving forward for the last two years on this particular issue until there was compliance of particular conditions we have articulated over the last two plus years. those conditions have been related to a number of new colleagues, but in particular to supervisor weiner, appreciative of the fact that his leadership in trying to orchestrate some of that discussion with a number of partners, while at the same time maintaining our position in

making sure that at&t it hears the concerns of our constituents and residents throughout the district and city wide. one had perked up my ears, which i would like to hear a little bit of an affirmation on. some of that influence that would be afforded back to supervisors and elected officials for districts, being able to help set some recourse, if in fact these particular uverse boxes are not what supervisors and their constituents would like -- that is a particular component that i think is important, at least to myself, and i think others. that is a level of flexibility that does exist now. that is not something that existed before. i think that is important. if we were at a -- a particular juncture where we are saying all or nothing in this particular issue, we might be doing a

disservice altogether by just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. instead, potentially, we should figure out those parts of the city that would like to benefit from this, if that is a potentiality, and if there are other parts that they may not. i am looking for what that balance beam walk might look like. supervisor weiner, would you like to speak to this? i know that supervisor e lsbernd start this off, but i have a question to the chair to supervisor -- through the chair to supervisor weiner. supervisor weiner: as i understand it, at&t, in addition to community outreach, in terms of coming up with sites that would be appropriate for a given

neighborhood, and if there is sufficient opposition to not going into a neighborhood -- my understanding is that at&t has agreed when there is an excavation permit for any site it would notify the district supervisor at's office. that gives the supervisor and an opportunity to be involved or express an opinion that it is an inappropriate site. at&t has said it would honor that wish. in addition, if a permit were appealed, the supervisor would be notified to of the process. supervisor mirkarimi: in the information, through supervisor weiner, and if there is someone else who can speak to this -- i want to make sure the checks and balances are maintained in a way that is binding, so that if the

host supervisor has an issue with one box that is located at x locaion, what is unclear is the process that we are able to stop or appeal x locaion if we -- location if we feel there is substantial evidence to say the people do not want this, but giving whatever approval or process to proceed for y locations. none of the materials here speak to that. supervisor weiner: at&t does, i believe, have a proposed mou for individual supervisors and to enter into separate from the ceqa process. the two are unrelated. that is my understanding, that

that would be formalized understanding between at&t and a district supervisor when and if the permitting process starts. if it goes to the board of appeals, from my understanding, at&t tends to be very respectful of district supervisor the views on -- district supervisor views on siting. supervisor mirkarimi: this is an intriguing way to decentralize planning. in my years on the board, it has never happened this way. if we are trying to maintain our respective constituents needs, whatever the range those needs may be, and still allowing something to move forward -- i am trying to understand that, us as gatekeepers of this decision,

how legally we are able to do this. that is not entirely clear. this gives us the veto or umpire right. i would like to figure that out a little more specifically. supervisor weiner: i want to be very clear. there are 2 b was separate issues, the ceqa issue and the permiting issue. they are completely separate and independent issues. regardless of what happens with ceqa, which can eventually get to it permitting process. the law is that dpw will issue a permit. i think it will be sent to a hearing officer and then appealed to the board of appeals for the ultimate say. but at&t has indicated, since at&t is the one that needs to apply for a particular site, that at&t as a matter of respect would defer to supervisors in terms of selecting are not

selecting a site. i believe that at&t does have a particular letter of intent or mou, would everyone to call it. with individual supervisors, it would memorialize that in writing. supervisor mirkarimi: what piques my interest is if we reflect on the normal course of action that with an exemption does not require eir, when it occurs for one location, typically it is a ceqa response for all locations. i highly doubt that through any ceqa process there would be this sort of selective evaluation. i think that in effect is what at&t was trying to avoid in the first place. if there in fact is that backstop as a supervisor to say no, i think that is an important voice for us to be able to

memorialize, and that is a voice i am willing to support. it's the best of both worlds is we are allowed to advance in areas where we need to advance, but retain that particular right to exercise our power on behalf of constituents who overwhelmingly say no. i want to make sure that is respected. that is what i am trying to understand, that that is what is clear and binding. supervisor campos: i know that we have been dealing with this issue for quite some time, and i do want to thank everyone involved who has been very patient as we are trying to figure out a resolution here at the board of supervisors. i have to say that this has been not an easy matter to deal with. for one thing, you are talking about technology where the board

of supervisors is being asked to decide things where we really have no expertise in terms of the extent to which some of the technological challenges that are before us could be addressed. the question before us is whether or not there is a basis to reject the determination by the planning department. the ultimately, that is a question that rests on the record that is before us. there has been a number of comments, very compelling arguments on the part of the people who filed this appeal. at the end of the day, the question remains. does the question support overturning the determination? that is what i have been trying to struggle with. i have to say that i do not know that the record is there to overturn that determination.

i also want to say that with respect to the efforts that have been taken so far i do think that it does make a difference in terms of the implementation of this project that we are talking about a scaled-down project. i think the level of involvement that has been accorded so far or is projected to be accorded to the community is one that i think is really welcome. it is a difficult one because i think at the end of the day we have to go by what is before us. the record is limited in the sense that you can only go by what is presented to you as a board. thank you. supervisor mar: we had a lively hearing at the land use and economic development committee. supervisor cohen and weiner and i sat through this tremendous

discussion in the hearing. to me, i really appreciate at&t's efforts to do a better job with community engagement this time around. the flexibility of looking for 300 feet, finding an appropriate site with the public right of way -- this recent mou regarding the proposed location came down to 495. there are some districts that may not want the additional boxes in their neighborhoods. others want the increased competition and access that uverse and lightspeed would bring to their neighborhoods. there are differences within my own district. there is the planning

association for the richmond and a number of activists and an increase of 500 to 700 more boxes as an encroachment on the commons by a private entity. i know in at&t's letter from us, they challenged the notion that there is a misperception they are not paying to use the public right of way. there is a requirement set by state law. at&t is a private entity that should either be paying for the public use of space or are regulated very strictly. if they want to double that, even increasing 500, on the more

narrow environmental question about the planning department granting of the exemption i do feel that the addition of the boxes, whether it is 500, 700, or 100 could lead to a potential adverse impact. i think there should be further environmental review. that is why i plan to vote against the exemption. but i do appreciate at&t for the jobs and other benefits. i still bear on the side of environmental groups and neighborhood organizations and that feel we need to prevent more encroachment on a were public space. thank you. supervisor farrell: i want to echo some sentiments and think

supervisor weiner for his work. i know there have been heeded people on both sides of the issue. to make a quick comment, what got me over the edge was this self-determination within the neighborhoods. to me, siding with the neighborhoods, i do not want to blanket prevent this happening across the city. but a certain neighborhoods really do not want them, but as to it that way. i take at&t's commitment at their word. that is what got me over the edge. i commit to working with dpw, at&t, and my neighborhood groups to make sure that happens. supervisor kim: this has been a

very long discussion for the board. i know it has been going on for years even prior to me being here. this boat is not about whether at&t is a good -- is about is not about whether at&t is a good company -- this vote is not about whether at&t is a good company. it is about a huge complaint amongst many constituents in district 6 that there is only one company to pick from, and that impacts their rates. i just want to thank president mcneely from at&t and the members there about reaching out to the community in the process, with amendments including immediate graffiti removal, local fire, in gauging and more community processes.