and if someone is denied services immediately out of a shelter after 5:00, we will give them a token also. we have to strategically plan how we get tokens and when we get tokens. we would love to see everyone get a token, but it's not feasible and we would like to see shelter beds for all homeless clients but we know because of funding issues that it's not possible. supervisor kim: have you examined the policy in santa fe that was recently -- in san jose

that was recently instituteed? >> no, i have not, and was not aware of it. >> they provide stickers so they can ride for free up to two months and then renew it. >> all right. and what i did -- supervisor kim: it happened this year. >> oh, okay. i'll look into that, but what i did provide you is the offices of the shelter monitoring committee is what we call a lifeline. it's for individuals who are below poverty and have a certain level of income where instead of paying $70 for the muni fast pass, they pay $35. so i did provide them with that informing and our shelters are aware of it. supervisor kim: and i imagine many of the homeless individual cans not afford a $35 and is not very popular. >> or those homeless individuals in the shelters who are receiving f.s.i., you know, so

where they can get the senior pass or disabled pass. supervisor kim: all right. >> training, when we fete with the offices of the shelter monitoring committee, we did agree to load our information of providing sheltd ers into a database and this is an information request for many years from the shelter monitoring committee that we provide them with the informing of all the trainings and be it standard after care or trainings that are mandatory because you work in a shelter. it had never gone anywhere. we provide the information and turn around the next quarter and they ask for the same thing. so we're developing a database where they will be able to track better all of the training that the shelters are providing to

them. supervisor kim: okay. thank you. are there any questions for h.s.a.? ms. crumb, thank you so much for being here. i'm sorry, i didn't realize you were here and i would have called you before public comment. >> no problem. supervisor kim: i want to thank the shelter partners and the shelter monitoring committee for your report and great they are coming in on time and early even when we don't have enough members on the committee and will work quickly to appoint the last two seat. just want to recognize glide and united methodist and of course, episcopal services for being here today. thank you so much for responding directly to some of these concerns. and i look forward to working with you over the next couple of years. we really want to continue to improve on our shelter system and also see how the city can be a better partner. it is a very difficult and challenging job and we recognize that and thank you so much for

all that you do and thank you for your presentation. if i may, can we continue this item to the call of the chair? and we will continue this item to the call of the chair. thank you madam clerk, can you call item 6? >> ordinance amending the election code through part of the director of elections through a process to allow voters to receive the voter information packet and associated materials by electronic means instead of by paper mail. supervisor kim: thank you. the primary sponsor of the ordinance has requested we continue the matter to a special meeting on july 28. which we can do that, but before that, i will open up again for public comment on this item. if there is public comment, please step up. seeing none, public comment is now closed. so this, we will continue this to our meeting next week on thursday, july 28, without opposition. madam clerk, please call item 7.

>> ordinance amending the code to allow the city to put to use time limit and pay administrative and employees under circumstances. supervisor kim: thank you. and i had martin grant, but mary howard is here. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. and mary howard from the department of human resource. you have a prose pod ordinance to amend the administrative code to provide for a paid administrative leave to allow the city to remove the employees from the work place in certain circumstances. right now no such creature exists in our legislation, so this would give the city and the department flex tobflexibility remove employees when there are concerns and drug and alcohol testing and brimming the gap between when the employee puts the employer out for a duty exam and the completion of the exam. supervisor kim: okay.

thank you very much. are there any questions? at this time we will open up for public comment. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. all right. so we will -- we have a motion to move this item forward to the full board with recommendation and we can do that without opposition. at this time i am going to call a two-minute break because we only have two members out of three and if one of us leaves we lose quorum and there is a need for a bathroom break. my apologist and we will take -- my apologies and we will take a two-minute break and come back in.

supervisor kim: we are back and thank you to the members for your patience. again, it is hard when we have exactly the number of members we need for quorum to continue on the meetings. and madam clerk, please call item eight through 14. >> madam chair, 8 through 14 are items regarding litigation. would you like to adopt the motion to convene in closed session? supervisor kim: yes, but before we have the motion to convene, we have several members of the public who would like to comment

on these items. so why don't we move first to public comment. if you would like to speak on items 8-14, step up to the mic. two minutes. >> i am speak on item number 9, proposed settlement with t-mobile west. i am bob carson and i was the appellant in this case. as the original appeal was approved 11-0 by the board of supervisors, that gave rise to the litigation and i request that the rules committee vote against the proposed settlement

of the federal lawsuit filed by t-mobile. and the lawsuit is simply down to one seemingly simple issue which is there a signal gap, is that a significant signal gap, and even if those conditions are met, is that the at least intrusive in the t-mobile proposed site, the least intrusive one? and there's no compelling financial reason which i'll explain to the city to not go ahead with the second face of the lawsuit and the city one of the first days of the lawsuit. and to retain an expert to assist the city at the trial.

we have identified a ph.d. in electrical engineering what was a practicing lawyer in this area and eee member and licensed and qualified to perform the tests and he is willing to present evidence and testimony at trial based on precise state-of-the-art instrumentat n instrumentation, upholding that t-mobile does not have a significant gap in this area. [bell ringing] supervisor kim: you have a little more? >> two sentences. >> yes. i will quote from judge claudia wilkins' decision in the first phase n sum, the written record contained evidence that there was an adequate signal in the neighborhood. few calls were dropped. a t-mobile customer was satisfied and no members of the public expressed support of t-mobile's application. unreasonable minds would accept that as adequate to support a

conclusion that the neighborhood surrounding 725 terreville did not need the proposed facility. page 9 of the transcript. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am amy o'hare and i have lived in san francisco for 26 years and the past 12 years we have owned a home in sunnyside. s ski you to vote against settlement of t-mobile's lawsuit against the city. the city's 1996 wireless telecommunications services facility siting guidelines which continue to be in effect with residential districts as least preferred or unfavorable location for antennas and there are numerous incidents where wireless carriers are seeking to install antennas on residential buildings or neighborhoods and where the city has made clear through the guidance it that does not want them and voting to

settle this lawsuit will send the wrong message to t-mobile and other wireless carriers seeking to install the fail fails on or near residential buildings in neighborhoods where they do not belong and if you file a lawsuit, you will eventually get what you want. and we need you to stand up for the city's residents in the face of the types of intrusive installations and that wireless carriers and that the wireless carriers pursue in the face of city policy that asks them not to do so. please vote to deny settlement of this lawsuit. supervisor kim: thank you, ms. o'hare. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am alan mitchell. my wife and i have live d for

about 40 years in the area of 725 terraville street and support bob carson's appeal done last may and our group has an expert whose opinion is that t-mobile does not have a significant gap in their coverage in the 725 area. this matter really is just all about politics with t-mobile trying to inkrecrease its cell e and increase the value to at&t who just recently bought them. and so in conclusion, please deny settlement of the lawsuit. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you, mr. mitchell. next speaker.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is richard deluce and i live around the corner from 725 taraval and i have live there had for system 10 years now. i ask you today to vote against the settlement of t-mobile's lawsuit against the city. voting to set thl lawsuit will set a bad precedent for future instances where wireless carriers seek to install these types of intrusive, industrial, commercial facilities on or near residential buildings in neighbors where they do not belong. and in supervisor farrel's district alone, there are currently four such case where is a proposed wireless facilities requiring a conditional use permit are meeting with widespread organized resident opposition. by caving into the well heeled corporate it will g it will gators, they will be -- to the li litigators, they will be voting against the residential areas

who voted you into office. and since 2001 there have been 17 conditional use appeals decided by the board of supervisors involving cell sites like the one on 725 taraval. just last year there were two and the appeal that is a subject of t-mobile's lawsuit and the appeal of the clear wire facility. both were unanimous 11-0 votes in favor of the residents and against the wireless carriers. all told, of the 17 appeals during the past 10 year, 14 have been decided in favor of residents. and resulted in federal lawsuits filed against the city. the city prevailed in all three of the cases and in the t-mobile lawsuit before you today.

in fact, the lawsuit -- [bell ringing] >> in the ninth circuit court of appeal decision on the issue of the local government authority to deny the permits of a wireless carriers and metro p.c.s. versus -- supervisor kim: please wrap up your comments. >> which was handed down in 2005. supervisor kim: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am chris houston and i appreciate you giving time to bring this issue up before you. i have something to put on the overhead. is that available? and i live in the area where t-mobile installed two cell phone antennas and one above the bedroom and one above the dining room and because they were allowed to submit the op i willcation as an accessory use application and constitute an

accessory use to a residential apartment complex i was not as i would have been with a c.u.p. conditional use permit allowed to appeal to the boe where 14 of the last 17 appeals very decided in favor of the citizenry, people like myself. and the city is under no obligation to settle with t-mobile, especially considering public and boe opposition to the air grab in the city and the recent judgment at the federal level where a judge decided in favor of the b.o.e.'s decision and the legislation that we have in place to protect our citizenry and it's important they vote to settle the lawsuit and tells the constituents that no matter how much time and effort they put into the residential neighborhoods, in the end it will permit them. and you can see they have 240 existing cell sites and is proposing 9d 4 more.

and proposing 68 cell sites in the process of purchasing t-mobile. and when all is said and done, a good number of cell sites will be redundant. and this lawsuit should be allowed -- should not be -- should be allowed to continue and not settled while at&t's purchase of t-mobile works through the regulatory process. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i live around the 725 taraval street for about b 40 year. i am also one of the neighbors who supports bob carson's appeal back in may 2010 as bob has already informed the board of supervisors. and the residents are willing to

pay for the retention of an extra witness in the next phase of the trial. we have already hired an expert who has revealed the same material and at the appeal hearing and reviewed by the federal district judge who is in favor of the city in the first phase of the trial this last february. and it is our expert opinion and has significant gaps in the coverage and 725 taraval street. and the conduct for the t-mobile claim and trial that is diskuzed here. there are many reasons why t-mobile wants to do more cell connections and that is speculative regarding their business with at&t. so i respect you would vote to

deny. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you, ms. mitchell. >> good afternoon, supervisorses. i am a member of supervisor harini's district and i am speaking against the settlement of t-mobile's lawsuit against the city. my neighborhood is one of many parts of san francisco that has organized against t-mobile's atecht to in-- attempt to install wireless fail fails on our residential -- wires refacilities on our residential buildings. they have the greatest number of existing cell sites in san francisco at 241. and that is 73 more cell sites than at&t t carrier with the second highest number of wireless facility. at the same time that t-mobile is asking the board to settle the litigation, and it initiated against the city regarding th