would want as many protections as possible. president chiu, would you like to add anything? supervisor chu: sure, given those comments. i need to reiterate that the deputy city attorney in city attorney have stated over and over again that we have strong arguments that will prevail in court. one can think of all of the possible things that could happen, but at the end of the day we had very strong arguments we believe will prevail. even if some of the arguments do not prevail, there are back of arguments. there are legal protections behind those. even of those do not prevail, we have a close to two wondered million-dollar fund to compensate tenants in the worst- case scenario. -- $200 million fund to compensate tenants in the worst- case scenario. the tenants who currently live in this space who will not have

to move until they have a brand new unit they can move into what otherwise see their capital improvement cost passed on to them, the rent go up, and because you do not have a list act protections, it is very likely that this developer have done that you will have parcels sold off without any protections in your units that have been in place for decades that are already deteriorating will likely be developed by others who will not be able to guarantee contract protections against the ellis act. we have discussed this before, and we have a difference of opinion. i need to say that these decisions are not easy, and the decisions we make here at the board we're not necessarily during for any reason other than what we'd think is in the best interests of san franciscans and the best interests of tenants.

i think those of us that support the project truly believe well it may not be the public show -- politically popular thing to do, it is the right thing to do for the future of the residence. i ask that we amend the resolution as i proposed and move forward. supervisor campos: again, we do have a difference of opinion here and i give you in the folks who have been working on this for trying to do as much as legally possible, and i think you have done that. it is just a question of is that enough? with that we have a motion. supervisor chu: if i could just ask, what would you have done differently? supervisor campos: one of the things that was suggested at one point was that we work with our state representatives to see if we could provide clarity in state law and actually have that

be addressed to get that level of certainty before we actually move forward with the project. that is something that i think we could have considered, and i certainly was in favor of going that route. supervisor farrell, did you want to add to that? supervisor farrell: i would say that we agreed on the project, and only thing i would say is that we do a lot of things here at the board and has a lot of laws and ordinance that do not have absolute guarantee that certainty. we do things -- some we agree with and some we object to, and that is fine, but to make a statement that we're only going to do things if it is one under 100% it is a bit of a fale standard compared to what we do on a a normal basis is a

bit of an anomaly. we certainly have not done this in the past, and i personally have objected to a lot of things in the past for what has been really pushing the limits. i would say that i do think we've done a lot and have had a bac a lot of dialogue back and forth. some of us disagree, but we'll we of done the best thing we possibly can. we have to take a look back and say what is in the best interest of the city? i do think in this case, obviously we're in thon the same page we have done that. supervisor campos: i appreciate that. i think you're right about that. i think that is not the standard we always follow, but the question was in the context of this case, what is the level of comfort for an individual supervisor? given the people involved, given

the testimony from so many of the tenants, for me, i thought we needed more assurance, but i think you're right that that is not a standard that we follow. i think at the end of the day you have to make your judgment on each individual case, and that is where i was on this. so we have a motion by president chiu. supervisor chu: is it better to say we disagree with the findings in refer to the second edition by this as embodied by the letter, or do we need to incorporate the text in the resolution? >> i do not want to step on the toes of the legislative analyst, but i think either purchased find. it is really your preference. >> i believe you can say and a corporate the findings.

that has been done in prior years. supervisor chu: the specific amendment would be to disagree with the findings and incorporate the findings of the administration has embodied by office of work-force and economic developments letter of july 13, 2011. just a quick question on that, procedurally to we have to vote in each finding, or can we take the boat collectively? -- vote collectively? >> also have to vote on the recommendation. supervisor campos: we have a motion by president chu. is your motion with respect to the findings only? supervisor chu: in disagreement with the findings for the reasons inc. and the summary that we have described, and then

we report that we also disagree with the recommendation. supervisor campos: if we could have roll-call on that recommendation, please. and >> roll call on the motion. supervisor farrell? >> aye. >> supervisor chu? supervisor chu: let me read read the recommendation. -- reread the recommendation. >> two in agreement, one in disagreement. supervisor campos: colleagues, any other thoughts or comments on this? again, i want to thinank everyone for coming out. with that, is there any other business before this committee?

>> are no other items. supervisor campos: meeting adjourned.

[beeping] voice: ready. ready. ready. ready. ready. announcer: it can be a little awkward when your friend tells you he's been diagnosed with a mental illness, but what's even more awkward is, if you're not there for him, he's less likely to recover. i'm here to help, man, whatever it takes. voice: ready. hey, mark. hey, mark.

hey. where've you been? i lost my cat. aw. that's not right. yeah. so i made this cat magnet to try and get him back. cool. does it work? kinda. [meow] nice. yeah. but that's not my cat. i gotta keep working on it. see ya see ya. see ya. announcer: anything's possible, keep thinking. get started on your own inventions or just play some games at... >> i have been a cable car grip for 21 years. i am a third generation. my grand farther and my dad worked over in green division for 27. i guess you could say it's

blood. >> come on in. have a seat. hold on. i like it because i am standing up. i am outside without a roof over my head and i see all kinds of people. >> you catch up to people you know from the past. you know. went to school with. people that you work with at other jobs. military or something. kind of weird. it's a small word, you be. like i said, what do people do when they come to san francisco? they ride a cable car. >> california line starts in the financial district. people are coming down knobbhill. the cable car picks people up. takes them to work. >> there still is no other

device to conquer these hills better than a cable car. nobody wanted to live up here because you had to climb up here. with the invention of the cable car, these hills became accessible. he watched horses be dragged to death. cable cars were invent in san francisco to solve the problem with it's unique, vertically challenged terrain. we are still using cars a century old >> the old cable car is the most unique thing, it's still going. it was a good design by then

and is still now. if we don't do something now. it's going to be worse later. >> the cable cars are built the same as they were in the late 1800's. we use a modern machinery. we haven't changed a thing. it's just how we get there. >> it's a time consuming job. we go for the quality rather than the production. we take pride in our work and it shows in the end product. >> the california line is mostly locals. the commuters in the morning, i see a lot of the same people. we don't have as tourists.

we are coming up to street to chinatown. since 1957, we are the only city in the world that runs cable cars. these cars right here are part of national parks system. in the early 1960's, they became the first roles monument. the way city spread changed with the invention of the cable car.

>> people know in san francisco, first thing they think about is, let's go