We will be able to obtain Attorney Fees from the city. So youre going to lets 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. Its about safety of the people in the building. It needs a Service Upgrade thats the bottom line here. Im on the ravaged mr. Blackman says hes got a Building Permit to put it in the ground floor and thats supposed to be the final approval of the application and their signing open o off on 0 permit . Ive 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 didnt explore the distributed system on light poles and its not the burden of the city planning its 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 im 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 its technically in district 2. I want to thank the planning department. You know, over the past few weeks ive 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 weve 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 ive spoken with the Fire Prevention inspection and theyve not noted an incident including back up batteries. The Fire Department conducts inspectors as was mentioned on a routine base. Ive 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 thats 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 dont think its 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 lets be clear there were corrective actions taken. Theres 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 well 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 were 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 dont 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 its necessary or capable with the neighborhood and community. Contrary to other debates weve had on wierlsz antennas theres no debate on how necessary it is in the coverage of the area. Im driving with my children all the time and the report says why we need additional coverage. But were 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 its still being worked out. Ive look at the designs and im not a architectureal consultant but i think this is one of the circumstances if you oops this project youll 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 im going to affirm the exemption from the Environmental Review any second . Colleagues any further discussion . Why dont we take a roll call vote on the motion calling names increase 10 is the motion passes and supervisor farrell i have another motion. Im 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 dont 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 is and the ordinance finally passes. Item 16 is to not allow planes to have banners overconcern areas. Why dont we take a roll call calling names . The ordinance is fbl passed. Item 17. Its 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 dont 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, youve identified the individual addresses so we can dispense with this item and a right. And i dont believe they are well remove them from the table and i have a list of 7 why dont 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 theres 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 dont you read that into the record. So youd 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 its 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 theres 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 dont 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 Attorneys 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 Sheriffs 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 its 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. Its 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 id like to urge you