the exemption determination from planning, i just cannot agree with it, and i am troubled by the fact that planning cannot tell us where there is a signal the impact for the city. the 10,000 is too much, but 700 is not enough. not having a set of standards or guidelines to not determined that, and everytime 700 boxes come to us, at what point is there an impact to the city, and that is a question that i have. i think there should be a full- court -- a full eir. i think it is important for us to have a full determination on the issue. also, pedestrian safety is one of the top issues for our office. it is something that is a huge issue in district 6. the residents even complain about the palm trees getting in

the way of many of the disabled and seniors that walk on the narrow sidewalks. it is also where we have the most vehicle-pedestrian injuries, and i think that really speaks to the impediments on our right of way, how they really do impact our residents, so, again, i just want to say this is not a statement on my feelings about at&t. i think they have done a tremendous job, and they support many community organizations, and i am proud to have them in the city and thank them for the good work that they do. clerk: president chu. president chu: i went to thank you, supervisor, and this has been a problem for me. my district includes the densest neighborhoods in the city about the use of are very, very limited public rights of way,

and i simply appreciate where at&t has come in forms of reducing the number of cabinets they are going to construct and the commitments they have made, but i think i have a couple of questions, and i think it is probably important -- appropriate for me to ask the questions of dpw. phthalate it states that at this time, at&t is agreeing to voluntaryism -- to voluntarily limit them, and then it states once the 495 cabinets are constructed, at&t will confer with supervisors and dpw before filing any additional permits for additional cabinets. to me, that language suggest that there will be more cabinets, and i guess the concern that i have is that i have always thought that with hundreds of cabinets, which really need to understand what the cumulative impact is, and that is what an eir will do.

in the public rights of way. i have had a lot of questions around whether there are -- whether there are alternatives that we simply have not analyzed, so, first, let me ask dpw. is it your opinion that this represents the future of hundreds of boxes that we can see? >> from the review of this memorandum of understanding, it appears that at&t is reducing the numbers based on the secret clearance from 700 and some odd down to 495 -- based on the sea " -- the ceqa clearance. >> john, from the city attorney's office. maybe i can handle this one, through the chair. the ceqa review that they did

was for 726 boxes. the letter that we receive from at&t agrees that there will be an initial rollout -- an initial rollout that would be limited to 495 and there would be an additional process to install additional boxes up to what was reviewed under the environmental analysis, 726 boxes, so the application is still 726 boxes, and theceq -- the ceqa review is for all of those. they looked at having the boxes in the city. president chiu: ok, so you are asking what we are being asked today is 495, but they would be up to 7 hotter 26 boxes at some later date? -- 726 boxes at a later date

could >> that is correct treat this is an initial rollout. president chiu: i do not feel comfortable that we have a full understanding of the cumulative impact of the utility's here and the various mitigation efforts it can have. i continue to wonder whether it is possible to place this equipment on public property and continue to wonder how this technology has been evolving. i know this has been a six-year alternative -- six-year conversation. and if forward to hearing from other colleagues. clerk: supervisor campos.

supervisor campos: i am wondering if we can have the city attorney's office explain this and requested additional boxes, what that process looks like, you could just say a little bit about that, because i think for a lot of us, the additional public comment or community input is a critical component of any process, so i am wondering if you can just explain that to the chair at. thank you. >> john from the city attorney's office. through the chair. the environmental review which is before you today and which is not being modified in any way is for 726 boxes. at&t, as a separate matter, has agreed in this proposed mou letter that you have received today to essentially do an initial rollout of 495 boxes,

relying on the environmental clearance. they have further agreed in this letter, at that point, they would undertake additional public outreach and process involving board members, involving additional procedural steps, kermit ridgeview, but it would not involve additional environmental analysis. that in our reanalysis is before you today for 726 units. if it ever wanted to exceed that amount, at that point, they would need to come in for additional environmental clearance. the supervisor: what is the community process with respect to any addition beyond the initial rollout? >> john, through the chair.

the letter add some additional process now to what would be the first phase, lincecum of the role of, where there would be some reports to the board that they would give about how the project rollout is going, but once they reach 495, what they are committing to doing, they would confer with the district supervisor in that the together district before they even filed the application, and the other instance is that there would be a lot of public notice. they would have to identify three different locations and work with dpw. there would be the internal dpw site inspection and review and potential hearing, so that would not necessarily involve board

member participation of fraud, and less and board member affirmatively did that, so what they are suggesting is there would be this engagement with board members. supervisor: thank you. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: that was not the answer that i was looking for. we would not have any more on the 495, is that correct? >> john, city attorney's office. i would not say that is correct. to any of the boxes, whether it is the first one or the fifth one, anywhere up to 495, working

with community and neighborhood associations, at&t is saying they will only build and locations where there is not significant community opposition, so there is opportunity all along the way for public court decision, for board member participation. i think what this is saying is that once they reach this point, there would be additional requirements for them to work specifically with district supervisor's. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, thank you. i am concerned about the delay of when our ability to extend to the usher what i think would be a proper -- proper monitoring or intervening system by our offices, and i am appreciative, as i said earlier, in trying to get us to this particular place,

but i am concerned, again, what i was hoping fourth was greater input in the initial rollout we do what i was hoping for. after the 495, 726. i would encourage if there is room, if this is pliable in some way, to return back to that question to have a degree of that initial role of bonne annee the case-by-case basis, which results in a lot of work for our offices. president chiu: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you.

i know that at&t has proposed -- president chiu: excuse me. mr. deputy sheriff? thank you. supervisor wiener: i know that there are two documents, the mou between dpw and at&t that has been described already, and then at&t has also done a separate mou with individual supervisors that perhaps has not been seen. as i understand it, it does involve the district supervisors and the specific sightings, starting with the very first box that would be sighted and would give great deference to supervisors' wanting to put it somewhere or do not have it in a particular

street or neighborhood, so apparently, the city attorney has not seen that, and that is not a criticism, just that that apparently did not happen. that is my understanding of the process separate from the general mou that the city attorney was describing. >> john, through the chair. that is true. what i was citing to was a letter from at&t to the department of public works and not to board members. dpw did inform me that they, when they received an application from at&t, they will also provide notice to each board member in the district of those locations, as well, but there is a separate member but i hear that additional -- the board members of received, as well. president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion?

supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: if a continuance, and i know that supervisor we're has negotiated many of those, i do not think this is quite ready in that regard, but i was hoping it would have been prepared and right before us today based on this conversation, it is not quite there. president chiu: supervisor, is that a motion? is there anyone else on the roster? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to continue for one month or upon from recess, whenever that is.

we're not going to be involved in -- we have, what? two minutes left? through the chair? president chiu: madam clerk, is there a date? clerk: september 6. president chiu: september 6. supervisor mirkarimi has made a motion to continue this until september 6. is there a second? supervisor campos? the motion continues on the floor. supervisor elsbernd: it is time to fish or cut bait. it is time to go. president chiu: any further discussion? on the motion to continue -- clerk: president chiu,

supervisor cohen, supervisor elsbernd, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor wiener, supervisor avalos, supervisor chu -- campos. there are five ayes, and six no es. president chiu: the motion fails. a roll call vote. clerk: president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor elsbernd, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor wiener, supervisor avalos,

supervisor campos. there are 6 ayes and 5 noes. president chiu: the motion is approved. [gavel] well, that was exciting. [laughter] colleagues, why do we now move to item 45? clerk: item 45 was for did as a committee report, a resolution authorizing the mayor to cast ballots on behalf of the city, over which the board of supervisors has jurisdiction, is subject to an assessment in the proposed renewed and expanded business improvement district, currently known as the jazz

benefit district, which shall be renamed. president chiu: roll call on this item. clerk: president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor elsbernd, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor cohen, supervisor mar, supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor wiener, supervisor avalos, supervisor campos. there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the idea is adopted. there are no 3:30 special items, so why do we not now go to roll call? clerk: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: none. clerk: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i have a

couple of items. before we began, so i do not have to do this during accommodations, there are a number of insurance in my office. i know all of us as members of this board have a tremendous group of individuals to volunteer at our offices and who really make it possible for us to do the work, so i just wanted knowledge might in turn is in the district 9 office. one who finished for work last week, kasey, miclee -- michelle, and others, and i especially want to single out kasey. today is the last day in the office, and she is a tremendous talent, and i know she will have a very bright future, and i want to thank her for all of for

contributions to our office and, again, thinking to all of the interest for everything that they do. i also would like to introduce an item calling a matter from committee that is vital number -- which is legislation that closes a loophole in the security organs, and i just want to make two points about this request. one, this matter, this item has been in committee for quite some time. the matter has already been continue to provide to accommodate the schedule of a city commission so that the item could be heard by that commission. we have heard extensive testimony, and we are talking about a very important issue that is very time sensitive, and because of that, i think it is

important to have the matter heard by the entirety of the board. i also think it is important to have the matter heard by the entirety of the board because we're talking about very serious legal issues, and i think that is important to have a full discussion of the entire board in closed session and one of the items that is accompanying this request is that we need in closed session with respect to this file. and the rest, i submit. thank you very much. clerk: thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor avalos? supervisor mirkarimi, would you like to be re-referred?

supervisor mirkarimi: debut, madam clerk. there is a problem that has been proliferating that has been caught in the nays, brought to the attention of the police department, the municipal transportation authority and others. it was not that long ago that i and others have been enjoying ourselves in the embarcadero area, where people at my party had decided to part get one of the grosz's at the port authority property, and we have learned that there had been people that were dressed as a tendency of those parking garages, but they turn out to be imposters, where they were taking the money from unsuspected customers -- dressed as attendants. it gave the impression that those people were parking their cars legitimately and legally,

only to the surprise that they would go into their cars and find a ticket of violation because they appeared to be parking near ely, not legitimate. this one particular individual who was the cost of the garage had been arrested for the same violation over one dozen times. they had all been deemed misdemeanors, but this seems to be a problem growing in its impact throughout san francisco, but especially in the port authority area. i am submitting a resolution that the stake holders of these parties work with this on what i think will be a negative impact on tourists, especially as we have the america's cup coming to

san francisco and other large public events. we want to make sure that the goodwill of those parking in the garages and those who are using our facilities, both public and private facilities, are ones that they can trust and that they are not going to be ripped off. this resolution requires that those stakeholders of the city's criminal-justice family and the city and the mta do what they can to determine a greater way that they might be able to have the correct course of action. next, i am submitting a letter of inquiry to the police department, mta, others, and our state assembly delegation, asking them, in reflection of the tragic accident that occurred on update you boulevard last week, which i had attended

right after the accident occurred, as discussed, and i was horrible -- horrified to see just how graphic that accident was with a shuttle bus that went through the intersection of octavia and oak, and it had collided with a big rig. a few issues. one, we notice that there are no seat belts on shuttle buses. you have to imagine the full weight of a person being ejected from the shuttle bus then to be injured and killed by the of the vehicle. we may need a re-examination of the law that gives this.

i think that seat safety devices should be required in the shuttle and in the public. it is something that if required for children on the shuttle buses, then there may be consideration that we do that four adults, too. just by the full magnitude of this accident in this area. octavia boulevard, as wonderful as it is, does, i think, have some unintended consequences. this would require an assessment, especially as traffic intersects with the arteries. there is the traffic that we directs itself on to the smaller streets and alleyways that tries to navigate around the arteries

because of how congested those arteries are, as people are looking to come off of octavia boulevard or go on as they are approaching the highway. it is important that there is some consideration for the residents and businesses in the area better starting to feel the full impact of traffic being redirected so that we have better traffic calming measures. second is the speed, the speed in which people are traveling is taking great notice, because in coming off of octavia and making pretty sharp turns, or from oh, turning left or right from octavia, -- or from oak, i think that speaks to a hazard that is not well check. there is a wonderful part the we inaugurated about four of 45 years ago -- four or five years

ago. if somebody was driving fast and did not negotiate that left-hand turn on to feld, it will go right into the playground, potentially. there is no fence. there is no buffer all along the perimeter of this children's playground, and what is worse is that there is a fair amount of brush and trees that eclipse were the playground and and where the story begins, so if a child or someone were to throw a ball out, they would not see each other. i think it is a hazard waiting to happen, and i believe it needs to have the review of both the mta, recreation and park, and our elected officials for this particular area. i have already talked to mr. ammiano. this is something the sacramento wants to take a look

like. why it is necessary or why not necessary, but at least at the very minimum, what we can do to make sure that these kinds of accidents do not happen again, even if they want to say that somebody ran a red light, and that is the cause of an accident, this is an area of our city that we inaugurated after dismantling the central freeway, which many of us were part of that fight, which i think is the right fight to go. but we also have to be prepared for these consequences that we may not have anticipated. next, i am submitting an ordinance that follows up on the resolution i submitted last week, which is taking the city's in print on prisoner realignment from state to another level. it certifies that the adult it certifies that the adult probation department would be