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 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 the 725 taraval street, it has filed yet another lawsuit against the city. and the second lawsuit challenges the recent legislation regarding a new permitting process for wireless facilities in the city's public right of way that was passed by a vote of 11-0. the city should not award the take of prisoners attitude and behavior toward the residents of san francisco by agreeing to settle the lawsuit that the city stands a reasonable chance of winning in federal court.

neighborhoods like mine and others around the city rely on, you our selected officials to represent and protect us in these types of situations to the fullest extent possible under law to proceed with the litigation until it is revolved by a trial and please vote to deny this lawsuit. supervisor kim: thank you. any over speakers on this item? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i live right next to 725 taraval street and t-mobile try to install and i what i want to say and those speakers have said already and i have a sheet of paper and i like living in the

neighborhood because it's close to the supermarket, transportation, school, church, restaurant, everything, but except one thing. they try to install the antenna nd my hose areas. family and the neighbors. and i want you to stop me and install the antenna in this area. thank you so much. supervisor kim: thank you, mr. lee. and all members of the public that filled out speaker cards have spoken, please step up. if you have not filled out a speaker card, please step up now. >> thank you, honorable supervisors. i am martin fineman here to speak on behalf of the t-mobile west corporation and with me is two other members from t-mobile. the item on the agenda is the settlement and the resolution of the lawsuit.

i want to thank the city attorney's office for working with the federal district court and with us to achieve the beneficial comprise of the litigati litigation. and i want to thank the supervisor for sponsoring the ordinance that would authorize the settlement. the project, as you know s to install at this point four antennas that will be completely hidden on top of the building at 725 taraval street and considered contrary to what one of the other speakers mentioned. this is considered a preferred location under the 1996 wireless telecommunications guidelines. when i say this is a stealth facility, what i mean by that is it's designed to be completely blended into the environment to such an extent that it is nearly imperceptible. we have provide as part of the settlement photo simulations of what this would look like and virtually impossible to see the facilities.

and the area served like this and residents, visitors, and shoppers. and the main point is this is a settlement of court proceedings. and this is the result of the federal district judge ordering the parties to go visit with the united states magistrate judge bernard zimmerman and two sessions with judge zimmerman that resulted in the comprise which will be beneficial to all. first of all t result of it is that the number of antennas in keeping with the neighborhood's desire will be reduced from eight antennas as originally approved by the city planning commission down to four. secondly, t-mobile will be able to provide increased voice and data -- [bell ringing] >> which are desperately needed in the underserved area to the r residents, shopper, and visitors. third, it will involve the resolution of the lawsuit and prevent the loss of time,

expense, and delay that uncertainty that are necessarily the part of litigation. supervisor kim: thank you. i believe there is a question for you. >> not a question, just a comment. if you could pass on to your employer, your community relations is abysmal. you are ruining the entire industry. you are not just hurting t-mobile. you are hurting all your pierce and the manner in which t-mobile deals with the community is shockingly poor. and i would strongly, strongly suggest you find numerous ways to improve it. we will deal with the legal issues in closed session, but this is separate and apart from those legal issues, but i would strongly suggest moving forward t-mobile find ways to vastly improve the way they deal with their customers because you are not just hurting yourselves, you are hurting everyone.

>> i appreciate your comments and will definitely relay that. obviously this is a consumer company and we want to have good relations with the consumers and community and i take to heart your comments. >> and is there any other public comment at this time? please step up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have been working with residents in the 11 districts on this issue. first, let me point out that settlement discussions are part of the typical procedure for case like this. it is nothing unusual about the judge getting to a discuss for a settlement and our point is that we would like to have the city attorney not to settle the case. there was a 2005 u.s. supreme court decision and the city of rancho palace estates versus abrams that ruled in these types

of lawsuits, t-mobile is not permitted under law of obtaining any monetary damages from the city or any attorneys' fees from the city. and neighbors are willing to pay for the experteds and there are no compelling reason to settle the case and bill sanders can go on at length about the abrams case and there are no compelling policy reasons to settle. claudia wilkins is an intelligent, thoughtful judge with a track record and a willingness to stand up for very powerful vested interests. and perhaps most important of all, the neighbors who have shown up today are unanimous in not wanting the city to settle this case, and of course, you are ultimately the elected representative of these folks. thanks for your time. and please vote to deny these settlement. thank you.

supervisor kim: is there any other public comment? we had a motion to convene into closed session and we can do that without opposition. we are asking all members of the public to exit the room at this time. thank you so much for being here. we appreciate being here in the middle of the afternoon on this issue. >> madam chair, we met in closed session to diskuz cuss pending claims and i upper air disturbance the committee wants to move items 8-14 forward to the board with recommendation to the report. >> there is the motion to move 8-14 and there is no opposition to that motion.

and madam clerk, are there any other disclosures? i'm sorry. and we have a motion to not disclose and we wanted to do that without opposition. thank you, supervisor. and madam clerk, is there anything else on the agenda? >> no, madam chair. meeting adjourned. >> that is right.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> it's seems like we have plenty of people to the back of the room. you may notice that i am not -- mayor lee. i have been filling in for him a lot this year. i have been filling in for his former position. my name is amy brown.

the mayor since his regrets. he has a very busy schedule, as i am sure that you understand. welcome, everyone. mostly i want to just express to you that we do know in city government how important this industry is. we know it is important for our tourism visitors and our economy, the jobs that it directly and indirectly creates. most of all it is important because it is part of what makes san francisco san francisco. a vibrant nightlife is part of why tourists come here. the kinds of people that are creative and entrepreneurial, that come here and live here, creating jobs in high-tech industries, it is part of why they want to be here. becauf