state it's unfortunate that the city attorney representative deputy attorney has been litigating those issues for 10 years. the u.s. supreme court decision vs. abrams in 2005 if you were to deny a permit for at at today and if at&t were to file a lawsuit and a win at&t is prohibited from getting attorney's fees or monetary damages. by contrast if you file a law enforcement and the planning code the inmrablt of the article 7 in violation that takes place if you approve it if we prevail

we will be able to obtain attorney fees from the city. so you're going to - let's talk money. if at&t you deny a permit and at&t goes to court and if they win they get nothing from the city if the resident go to court they get the taxpayers' money on something that should never have happened because the department and d b i were doing their jobs. this is a soft story building. it's about safety of the people in the building. it needs a service upgrade that's the bottom line here. i'm on the ravaged mr. blackman says he's got a building permit to put it in the ground floor

and that's supposed to be the final approval of the application and their signing open o off on 0 permit? i've handed you appellants exhibit no. 10 which is the first application for a digital system. the next is the lower box on the lower left hand coroner. they installed the ostend was at pat. not a single word from mr. blackman why they didn't explore the distributed system on light poles and its not the burden of

the city planning it's at&t. in the negligent sixth court of appeals decision the burden is on at&t to discuss all alternatives to the proposed site and explain why it is not feasible. at&t failed to do that. the city must then point out alternatives and give at&t an opportunity to respond and anyone of you may do that by a simple interrogation. and while members of this community are under no legal obligation to tell at&t where they can put their antennas but i'm sure which of us would like

to do so >> colleagues any final questions inform the parties. at this point this matter is in the hands of the board. colleagues >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu i want to thank all the members of the public to district 1 and 2 as closest to the site it's technically in district 2. i want to thank the planning department. you know, over the past few weeks i've received calls for or against this site. the comments to echo the jazz comments those are about the fears of the wireless facilities

and not necessarily the fear we've heard today. i want to be very clear i would never allow an installation of a wireless system in my district if i thought for a minute there was a true safety issue or damage the welfare of folks in my district. my office has met with the planning departments and other and you read all the materials and obviously i wanted to come in today and listen to the discussion. there are other systems like this in california. in terms of the fears that were discussed i've spoken with the fire prevention inspection and they've not noted an incident

including back up batteries. the fire department conducts inspectors as was mentioned on a routine base. i've been consistent with the appeals. first is the cad. and i quote the discussion is whether to possible have an impact on the environment. with all due respect i think this is a note an argument that's reasonable at all. the service issues are covered under d b i. i know that d b i has to continue to issue the permits with the service issues.

and they have to have construction maps and i don't think it's relevant to our sequa discussion at all. a lot of the comment were focused on flooding issues. we have conflicting opinions from those who do the work at the building and some of the neighbors who talked about the flooding. first of all, this prior flooding happened in 2006. and let's be clear there were corrective actions taken. there's not at the same set of circumstances whether it was 18 inches or one half inches and at&t will raise it up to 18 inches and we'll hold you to it

if this gets approved. but the characterization that this area is a massive flood zone is somewhat cease. you, you know, we have a lot of wet seasons here in san francisco but this is not unusual compared san francisco. in the not some extraordinary circumstances so have the board of supervisors overturn this due to flooding. yes, it could happen but it could happen anywhere in san francisco. we might as well have everything raised up if we're going to worry about that in every single neighborhood. so in my opinion the flooding issue while i appreciate the

concerned from my opinion bans the people and the experts as well i don't think that flooding is a concern here especially from the improvements in 2007. and at&t is going to be raising the heights of the batteries. the second part is the c u whether it's necessary or capable with the neighborhood and community. contrary to other debates we've had on wierlsz antennas there's no debate on how necessary it is in the coverage of the area. i'm driving with my children all the time and the report says why we need additional coverage. but we're talking about c u here we know that cell phone uses but

data capacity use is swavrm our system and the cell phones is going to make it worse. so lastly in terms of the design it's still being worked out. i've look at the designs and i'm not a architectureal consultant but i think this is one of the circumstances if you oops this project you'll oops everything about it. but at the same time we have a requirement to look at the circumstances. there maybe other comments by first with the sequa i'm going

to affirm the exemption from the environmental review >> any second? colleagues any further discussion? why don't we take a roll call vote on the motion (calling names) increase 10 i's >> the motion passes and supervisor farrell i have another motion. >> i'm going to make a motion

to table item 60 and 61. >> supervisor farrell has asked to table 61 and 62. colleagues shall we take another roll call on that? (calling names) >> that motion is approved as well. colleagues why don't we go back

to the consent agenda >> item 15 is improving the contribution rates for calendar year 2014. >> can we take a roll call vote on item 15? (calling names) there are leveling i's and the ordinance finally passes. >> item 16 is to not allow planes to have banners

overconcern areas. >> why don't we take a roll call (calling names). >> the ordinance is fbl passed. >> item 17. >> it's an ordinance with the zoning during this time to facilitate the development of the 406 street the mexican museum and making the requisite findings. >> take a roll call

(calling names). >> the ordinance has finally passed. >> item 18 is an ordinance of the lawsuit filed against the city it was filed on 2010 in san francisco supreme court. >> can i have a motion to ask his supervisor yee. supervisor yee will be excused and can i have a motion to excuse supervisor kim >> supervisor kim is excused and if we could take a roll call

on item 18 (calling names). >> the ordinance finally passed. >> item 19. >> item 19 is an ordinance authorizing the lawsuit against the city for 75 thousand that lawsuit was filed in u.s. northern district of california. >> colleagues can i ask for a motion to excuse supervisor breed. without objection supervisor breed will be excused and annoy asking can i have a motion to

excuse cowen >> supervisor cowen is excused roll call vote on item 19. >> on item 19 (calling names). >> the ordinance is finally passed. and with that colleagues why don't we recall our special 3:00 p.m. order to bring back to the i staff and if staff could inform us to your conversations that would be helpful >> thank you, president chiu we

have identified units on this report housing codes and inspectors units and i have a statute of summaries here. we would like to read them into the record >> sir, you've identified the individual addresses so we can dispense with this item and a right. and i don't believe they are we'll remove them from the table and i have a list of 7 >> why don't you read those into the record. >> first address t is 822 arkansas street and beulah street. next one is 51 linda street.

next one is 48 majestic avenue. the other one is 581 mall especially e he will street. another one is 172 raymond avenue and the last is 379 bee street >> thank you, colleagues would we have a motion to accept the report without objection it will be amended. i want to recognize the deputy city attorney. >> so the d b i staff has indicated if there's additional properties on top of the 7 they would remove those from the list. i have drafted some language to get that read into the record >> why don't you read that into

the record. >> so you'd be adding a resolve clause that the department review the code in the office of the board of supervisors file number to be filed my to remove any units without permit. and the building inspectors should provided a report and it's the intent of the board the city will not impose liens added without comment. is there a motion to amend the resolution we have a motion and a second. can we take that without objection. unless there's any further discussion what we take a roll call vote on item 53 to adopt

this motion as amended (calling names) >> many resolution is adopted as amended. >> thank you very much supervisors. >> why don't we go back to the recommendations from the budget committee item 20. improving with american airlines to increase the land rent. colleagues can we take this same house, same call >> item 21 is a resolution

chaufl the china airlines recently in a term ending in 8 years and 2 months. same house, same call >> item 22 is a resolution approving retroactively airports and with l i l with a city with a term of 3 years. >> same house, same call. >> a lease all the time with pelicano amendments to reduce rentals. >> this resolution is adopted. >> resolution to approve retroactively the community

health services to provide services in an amount not to exceed 29 million. >> same house, same call this resolution is adopted. >> item 25 is a resolution to approve the district attorney's office to accept an expend amount for the purpose of implementing a legal educational advocate program. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted >> item 26 a resolution approving the public utilities commission with a contract not to exceed approximately 5 hundred and 21 thousand. >> same house, same call this resolution is adopted. >> item 27 is a resolution authorizing the general manager the public utilities manager to

enter into a contract with a tenant at completion through the junior 20022. >> same house, same call. >> and this is in connection with the public safety building under the earthquake safety bond program increasing the amount by 2015. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted >> item 19 is resolution to accept a grant from the california coast concerto from the crane and remove of the work on pier 84 important the period of august 2013 through 14. same house, same call >> and this is a resolution

pursuant to the contract of the owners of 201 and the city authorizing the property historical contract. >> same house, same call. >> item 31 is the resolution for the sheriff's department to enter into a contract with the city for inmate males for a 5 year period for an amount not to exceed 52 million and a same house, same call. >> 30 years the office of economic and workforce development to accept an in kind gift for the development of the web based hiring tax application. >> same house, same call. >> item 33 is the resolution to have the department of public

health to operate in a program tb program and waving the indirect costs. >> same house, same call this resolution is adopted and a item 34 is a resolution authorizing the department of public health to extend from the at the present time, of public health for the terminal child and health development and a same house, same call this resolution is adopted. >> item 35 is a resolution authorizing the director to having authorize a proposal for the term of september 31st and a same house, same call. this resolution is a adopted >> item 36 is a resolution authorizing the director of the

risk management direct to authorize a broke management services all the time inform to exceed the value for 19.5 million. >> same house, same call. this resolution is amended if we could call 37 and 38 >> it's the delivery of certifies of participation if oneor more series in an agency gait principle and item 38 provided a grant for the fund and putting them on the refers for the participants in one or more series and a same house, same call the resolution is adopted item 39.

>> it's a resolution to 30 years certain rental payment under the city at the port of san francisco. >> same house, same call. this is resolution is adopted >> item 40 is the adoption of the port for administrative services financing. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adapted >> item 41 is a resolution retroactively between two permits thereto city through the transportation authority for the island rents project for a total of 81.7 million through 2013. >> same house, same call. item 42 is a resolution for the

mayors of housing to the redevelopment agency to enter into a 99 year lease with is hundred excuse me. 1100 ocean avenue for the development of affordable housing on real property >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted >> item 43 is a resolution to allow the office of public works to have fund award through the period of 2016. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted. next item >> item 44 and had 5 are together. 44 is a 5 year lease at 1744 chavez street with a monthly cost of 21 thousand through

september 2018 >> same house, same call without objection this resolution is adopted. >> the next ordinance is for transportation and for vendor mandatory services to provide supplies for an additional counteracting amount not to exceed approximately 39.1 million through july 31st, 2014. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted >> item 46 is an ordinance to establish a height food retailer promising program. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, president chiu. alongside with my co- sponsor cowen i'd like to urge you