And we are going to call one through three, together. Item one, resolution approving the awards of Hotel Management, and approximately, 20 million relating to onAirport Hotel at the San Francisco International Airport item to, resolution approving the issuance of up to 243 million, aggregate Principal Amount of air force commission, capitol plan bonds and 225 million, and item four appropriate ating, 473 million, consisting of 243 million, from the proceeds of the airport capitol plan bonds and 450,000 from fund balance, and 230 million of proceeds from Hotel Special facility Revenue Bonds and other long term financing source to develop a hotel within the San Francisco International Airport. Okay. We want to recuse super visor farrell without objection. Do we have someone from the airport that would like to speak to the items 1 to three . Supervisors, airport director, sfo and i am very pleased to bring this item before you today. Something that i waited a long time to do to finally bu
Announcements . Silence all cell phones and Electronic Devices and speaker cards, should be submitted to the electricker, items acted upon tonight today will be sent to the board, on the 15th unless others stated. Thank you. Call an item. Which item is it . I tell you what, we been, and we are going to call one through three, together. Item one, resolution approving the awards of Hotel Management, and approximately, 20 million relating to onAirport Hotel at the San Francisco International Airport item to, resolution approving the issuance of up to 243 million, aggregate Principal Amount of air force commission, capitol plan bonds and 225 million, and item four appropriate ating, 473 million, consisting of 243 million, from the proceeds of the airport capitol plan bonds and 450,000 from fund balance, and 230 million of proceeds from Hotel Special facility Revenue Bonds and other long term financing source to develop a hotel within the San Francisco International Airport. Okay. We want t
Blue bottle coffee, oh, maybe heath would want to open up part of their door. That would be the purpose of the doors between the two. Also with regard to the sizing of the kiosks, i believe one. Conditions was the back nave wall remain 50 percent open. So looking at the size of the bay, also with this requirement having a 50 percent back wall opening is kind of where we ended up with the planning of the layout of the kiosks. Also as i mentioned the two seating areas, we directed that those be at the north and south end to create this kind of public openness. Commissioners, seeing no other ques, comments i will open up for Public Comment. Any member of the public wish to speak on this item . Hello, commissioners, this is Desiree Smith with the San Francisco heritage. Heritage did review the project at our issues Committee Meeting in september and provided some feedback to the project team in october and were happy that some of our recommendations were included and overall were very exci
Slocum down to mackavoy ranch its sort of continuing that bow art symmetry. These will be connected to those interior. There is that potential. If one of the interior shops would like to open up the doors, like heath ceramics, they have a partnership with blue bottle coffee, oh, maybe heath would want to open up part of their door. That would be the purpose of the doors between the two. Also with regard to the sizing of the kiosks, i believe one. Conditions was the back nave wall remain 50 percent open. So looking at the size of the bay, also with this requirement having a 50 percent back wall opening is kind of where we ended up with the planning of the layout of the kiosks. Also as i mentioned the two seating areas, we directed that those be at the north and south end to create this kind of public openness. Commissioners, seeing no other ques, comments i will open up for Public Comment. Any member of the public wish to speak on this item . Hello, commissioners, this is Desiree Smith
Because there were not looking for evidence of a legislative intent to create a right to judicial review. Your position is thats already there under the apa. Unless there is evidence of a judicial intent, of a congressional intention to preclude judicial review . Thats exactly right. Thats the presumption created by the apa. The way that your honor articulated it is the way the Supreme Court has articulated it time and again. Thats the governments burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that congress intended to preclude our claims, not our burden to demonstrate that congress intended to create them. If i may, ill move on to the merits of our statutory claim. As i said before, our first claim is that section 215 simply does not apply to call records. In the same statute that congress enacted section 215, in 2001, it added a provision to the stored Communications Act prohibiting the government from acquiring phone records. It created i exceptions to that prohibition. But section