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. the vote before us today is 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: