there are discrepancies in what happened between conversations between agencies. discrepancies that are valid not to revoke the permit. thank you. >> aside from the scientific value, i have a middle school down the way and kids go buy it every day. i would like to see that out of the way, more high -- higher and more discreet. >> thank you. any rebuttal? >> the white house, a couple of times. that is out of our control -- the height has, up a couple of

times. that is out of our control. we do not have any flexibility over that because pg an &e has a standard meter. regarding the aesthetics and the underground, that is a longer conversation. in general, you look at what is going on in the neighborhood. this neighborhood is not an underground area. there is equipment, when you are evaluating the impact, you look at the facility. planning has approved a much larger facilities than desperate we have much larger facilities throughout the country. -- planning has approved a much larger facility. we have much larger facilities to allow the country.

sometimes it can be smaller, but for this technology, it needs to be in a box of this size. that is one of the more -- is one of the smaller ones out there. it is only 2 inches wider than it would be to be a tier one. president garcia: what is the meter that is 6 feet 8 inches off the ground metering? >> a that is pg &e's meter. that is their standard. it is me during the power. president garcia: of? >> of the pit -- of the equipment on the pole. president garcia: that is how they built you? -- bill you? >> if you look at any of the

utility poles with the comcast battery supply, you will see the meter at 7 6. all the comcast meters are at 7 feet 6 inches as well. president garcia: comcast meters. >> if the box is separate -- is on a separate bracket, we could. when we put the box is higher, that was interfering with second story of views. we kept them lower in order to not interfere with second story of views. >> the internet itself, is there are recent there cannot just be one -- and the antenna itself, is there a reason there cannot just be one antenna? >> in order to get the coverage,

there has to be two of them. there are other locations that only have one, but you have to try to meet the demand so it can pick up the signals from a certain area. it is not particularly large. the antenna is put in itself -- is put into a round shroud. fairmount to gather at the top -- and there are mounted together at the top. this was the intended that was needed. we looked at a lot of other ones and they were a lot taller. these were the smallest available about -- available. >> would you put this -- would planning approved this? >> planning has approved this configuration on many good an excellent view streets.

this was part of our building out of the network. i think we have about 20 of these configurations are around the city. they have all been approved by planning with the exact same configurations. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. the comment from the applicant -- i mean, the appellant. as it relates to as fedex. they can be addressed in this -- as the relates to esthetics. they can be addressed in the future. planning will need to evaluate and make findings of this facility upon renewal. when they renew under article 25.

planning might impose additional conditions. we do not know that at this point. moving forward, it is possible. as it relates to the confusion, it appears the letter dated august 25, 2010 refers to one antenna. at some point, between august to january, unchanged from one antenna to to antennas. -- a change from one antenna to two antennas. the second case was also appropriate. that is where the confusion lies. right now, the permits were issued under administrative code. upon renewal, up one falls under

article 25, there'll be additional reviews from the plant -- from the planning department given that it is in a residential zone. unless they change equipment, the health department has reviewed and determined that it is correct and appropriate. it has satisfied the fcc regulations. the department will go back and verify the height given the concerns of the appellant. that the appellant has expressed concerns of people hitting it by jumping. we will try to work to make sure we find a way to possibly move it higher if that is the case. i am available to answer any questions. president garcia: it would seem like redwood is giving off that

color. >> [inaudible] >> could be required -- could be required that they painted some color that would match? that is a lot to absorb all once. they have a low height on the base. something that is not yet painted. they have that natural look to the wood. bat is creating some of the problems having to do with aesthetics. is that possible to work and to some tort of -- some sort of regulation? >> the department will require that they painted the equipmente

color of the existing put to the best of their ability. we will verify that the requirement. right now, -- the permit was suspended, said they had to cease operations. that was one of the reasons they were not able to move forward. president garcia: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president garcia: something does seem a little unfair. i live in an area where all the facilities are underground. and i think there was a time when, if you lived in an area that was and, if you got together with your neighbors, you could achieve that. i do not think that is being allowed right now.

that seems a little bit unfair. i would agree that the esthetics are not great. it seems as though the department of public works is going to do what they can about that. i am sincerely confused as to why so many people who have backgrounds in sciences, pier and have thus think that perhaps week -- come up here and have us think they perhaps we do not know what their needs to be -- i cannot go out independently to determine that. i have to hope that fcc and dpw -- i have to think that they are giving misinformation. having said all of that, i think you know where i am

leading. i intend to uphold. >> i am troubled by the aesthetics and the fact that for some reason, we do not have underground in this neighborhood. we heap on more ugly utility or antennas. this street already has a lot of wires. i think we can do better on the antenna that is on top of a poll. -- pole. i would lean towards denying the permit.

>> i guess i did not see any basis for overturning the permit at this point. i certainly sympathize with the concerns regarding this fedex. i do not see any evidence -- esthetics. i do not see any evidence, and i've read some information in the past about these particular antennas. they go up all over the city. they have gone up in my neighborhood as well. i did not think there is any basis that conclusively shows they are dangerous or that they are posing a risk to the public health. i think the process is going to

be different going forward. there will be an opportunity for due process when this permit expires and has to be reapplied for. that will be the forum for this neighborhood and these appellants to bring these concerns into a due process hearing of some sort. i do not see any basis for overturning the permit at this point. >> i do not have a lot to add. i would echo the sympathetic position that we have. at this time, i do not think there was anything improper done in the issuance of the permit. president garcia: i would move that we all pulled -- uphold and

denied a permit because they are compliant with all codes and regulations having to do with installation. do you need more? >> we have a motion from the president to uphold this permit. president garcia says on the basis that this permit is compliant. president garcia: correct. >> on that motion -- the votes is pre-one. this permits is upheld on that basis. thank you.

>> since item seven has been withdrawn, there is no further business. >> thank you, good night.

president chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the board of supervisors meeting. please call the roll. supervisor avalos: present. supervisor campos: present. president chiu: present. supervisor chu: present. supervisor cohen: present. supervisor elsbernd: present. supervisor farrell: present. supervisor kim: here. supervisor mar: present. supervisor olague: here. supervisor weiner: present. >> all members are present. president chiu: ladies and gentlemen, could you please join me in the pledge of allegiance?

colleagues, can i have a motion to approve the board meeting minutes? without objection, those meeting minutes are approved. >> there and a communications. item number 1 is a motion adopting findings and approving a conditional use authorization on property located at 1111 california st., subject to conditions imposed by the board of supervisors on april 3, 2012. president chiu: roll-call vote. mayor lee: ah -- supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye.

>> there are 11 eyes. -- ayes. item two amends the code for adjustment in writing of a proposal or bid of a california corporation for a competitively- bid city contract. president chiu: same house, same call? >> item 3 urges the mayor to launch a summer jobs campaign to increase the employment opportunities for san francisco's disconnected young people. president chiu: same house, same call? >> item 4 authorizes the department of emergency management to accept and expand eight grant in the amount of $35.50 million, amending the annual salary ordinance, reflecting the addition of zero any -- of one of grant-funded position in the police department.

president chiu: this ordinance is passed on first reading. >> item 5, appropriating salaries and fringe benefits in the fire department budget and reallocating it to overtime to meet projected increases. president chiu: same house, same call. >> item 6, re-appropriating funds in the police department for overtime to support projected increases. president chiu: same house, same call. >> item 7 is an ordinance appropriating $320,000 in salaries for overtime in the public utilities commission. president chiu: same house, same call. >> item 8, appropriating surplus revenues and expenditures and general fund reserve to support shortfalls in the department of

public health for the fiscal year. president chiu: same house, same call. next item. >> and 9, resolution authorizing the department of public works to execute an amendment to the executive structural engineering and consulting services by increasing the not-too-exceed amount -- not-to-exceed amount for the seismic improvements project. president chiu: without objection. >> item 10, ordinance changing the official sidewalk width of portions of golden gate avenue, polk street, and redwood alley. president chiu: same house, same call. >> item 11, a resolution approving for six months designation of six temporary selling spaces for street artists certified by the arts commission, exempting said spaces for regulations of the police code pertaining to the

display size. president chiu: this resolution is adopted. why don't we go to will callbacks >> supervisor -- roll call? supervisor farrell: today, i am introducing legislation to extend our san francisco film rebate program through 2014. since the program was created in 2006, approximately 1135 san francisco residents have been employed in productions using the program, bringing over $12.50 million in wages to san francisco. last year, production spent an estimated 56 colors million in labor supplies and other items. this body recently passed legislation i sponsored to bolster our phone rebate program by adding documentary's and

programming, and to lower permit fees. the film and television industry is one we cannot afford to lose. many are great union-wage jobs. it diversifies our economic base. it reinforces civic pride when we see our city on the big scene. i found this astonishing. my office had our budget and legislative analyst do is study on the film rebate program. it is a net profit generator for our general fund. we take in more sales tax, hotel tax, and permit fees from these productions than we give back in the rebate program. it is a net money generator for our city and general fund. the margins are slim in that regard. it is not a lot of money. as our budget and legislative analyst suggested, other states

and countries throughout the u.s. and internationally have very aggressive film rebate programs we compete with, ranging from zeroing out there permiting fees to regrading all police officer fees. if we want to compete in san francisco, we cannot just rely on our city's good looks. we have to do something about it. i want to thank those who worked on this legislation with me, especially our film commission. i want to thank my staff and members for the controller's office. we spent a lot of time putting together a solid economic forecast. finally, while this legislation extends the existing film rebate program in its current form for another two years, and adds

another $2 million to draw from, we have spent a lot of time in my office speaking with different members of the film industry -- from companies, producers. suzanne robinson has been evangelizing san francisco in los angeles recently. how can we make the film program better, to attract the next generation of films and television shows in our city? i am interested in making this more attractive down the road. my only requirement was that we do it in a cost-effective and responsible manner. those discussions are continuing. although today we are introducing a continuation of our existing program, my hope is in the not so distant future we can amend the legislation to make this even better into the future, and take our film industry to the next step here in san francisco. the rest, i submit. >> supervisor kim?

supervisor weiner? president chiu: colleagues, today i am introducing in legislation that would establish an urban agriculture program to oversee and coordinate all of our urban agriculture activities, and to adopt goals for the city related to urban agriculture. we right now are in the middle of a new movement in cities around the country to reflect a new interest in healthy and sustainable living through urban agriculture. since 2008, over two dozen urban gardens have been created in san francisco. with many, there are significant weight lists of residents who want to garden, in many cases over two years long. this would allow for the production and sale of things that are grown to urban agriculture. at this time, we need to take the next step. i want to take a moment to think -- thank spur, which looked

recently in two ways to expand public and private land for agriculture in san francisco. the highlighted the fact that we have seven different agencies that run different aspects of urban agriculture, 11 different agencies that manage land. yet we do not have coordination among these agencies. at this time, in recent years, the budget spent in total for urban agriculture programs is less than was spent in the 1990's. we also do not have a full staff to look at the city wide system. this legislation would introduce a city-wide centralized urban agriculture program. it would propose that this program focuses on creating a one-stop shop for information and programs related to urban agriculture. it would also move forward the creation of urban resource gardens, into partnerships with community organizations, looked

into incentives for how we convert private lands, as well as streamlining the application process. i want to thank spur and the agriculture community, who have been working hard to think about how san francisco will move forward our agenda around urban agriculture. i look forward to this conversation with all of you. supervisor campos: submit. supervisor mar: colleagues, today i am introducing with mayor mayor lee legislation that will help our parents and parent-teacher organizations support their local schools by exempting parking lot fundraisers from being taxed by the city. i want to think co-sponsors supervisor kim, olague, avalos, chu, and farrell for joining me.

i want to thank our treasurer and jason elliott from the mayor's office. this important legislation is the product of about three months of work in conjunction with michelle parker. and parents from the middle schools. we have all crafted legislation that we think will allow such parking lot fund-raiser events to flourish, and to protect the meager dollars raised by parents in these schools and schools throughout the city from being taxed. it helps parents in the school fund-raising. we are looking at other schools, to be working with them for event fundraisers like parking lots. parent teacher organizations hold special parking events on local school parking lots to raise supplemental revenues for

their school. currently, san francisco business and tax regulations code requires these events be taxed at 25%. this creates an unfair burden on the volunteer organizers of these events, parents staging them for the sole goal of enriching their schools. this will help allow more of these events at schools. it also allows volunteer parent organizers to reap the full benefit of their efforts. the school of san francisco should do everything possible to help our families and children remain in the city. this legislation is helpful to parents going above and beyond to ensure their schools are adequately meeting their children's needs. i'm not to think the treasurer for joining me in this important legislation. i am introducing a resolution today that, along with the