uphold the permit. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i want to make mine short. i live in san francisco. i have a cell phone. i also constructed the small antennas. that was not a sulfone power. they are 4 feet high. the tallest building in the area is the kaiser building. thank you. >> hello.

i support the intent of because currently i run a news websites -- the antenna, because currently a run a news websites. in order to get a story out as quickly as possible, in as informed a way as possible, i need to make sure that whatever connection i have in the community, whether on the west side or the east side, i can get a good signal on my cell phone reception. i have a letter from paul chin, which serves the senior citizens of japan town. this letter is in support of the verizon antennas to be located

on geary. i write both as a former fire marshal for the city and county of san francisco, and in my capacity for kimochi. as a former fire marshal, i know these applications are reviewed not only by the planning department, but also by the health department and the fire department, and to protect the public these agencies ensure the safety of all antennas. the rf report must be included on all plan submitted -- plans submitted, signed by a professional engineer with expertise in the technology. as an officer of kimochi, it is important to me that we have

connectivity. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. i support construction of more antennas on geary boulevard. it is absolutely silly to be concerned about a location that is so far away. this is over 1,000 feet away from the street. it is important for us to have capacity right now. families need to stay in contact with children and grandchildren.

we are unable to get a good signal. service is going to be terrible. we need to add more antennas. the city health department has reviewed them. please approve this project. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. everybody has a cell phone. the younger generation -- everyone has one.

everyone carries one for the internet. i would say it is really important. the radiation is very, very low. [unintelligible] thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> my name is nathan williams. i am a local resident. i support the antennas. i use my cell phone a lot in business and school. not only are they safe by federal standards, but that are vital for medical personnel to use to communicate in emergencies. the police station across the street will tell you the good connections are important for public safety. i experienced crop calls a lot. it causes problems when i am talking to prospective clients.

anytime we call someone from verizon, service in the richmond district gets worse. it will be awful and less so coverage is approved. thank you. -- unless some phone coverage is approved. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening. i have authored several of the attachments to this presentation. i am here to answer any technical questions you may have. i would like to speak on a couple of things. you were shown a picture of a smoking power. this happened in texas about six years ago. the tower is not owned by verizon. it is owned by american tower. verizon had nothing to do with the cause of that fire, nor did

our equipment. someone else talked about a fire in san francisco at 15th and valencia. the fire department had not come up with an answer for this, they said. but the chronicle put it out the fire marshal reported it was due to someone falling asleep in a chair while smoking. that was started in an apartment two floors above our equipment, not started by our equipment. the rise and wireless in my 17 years with them -- verizon wireless in my 17 years with them has never had a fire. our equipment is made in the united states. some of it comes from sweden as well. other things i wanted to stress is the capacity need. ourself on site at st. mary's

hospital, the other day when we had a small earthquake, it went into overcapacity mode. we turned away 4% of the calls. this will get worse as we get closer to the first of the year. with that, i am here to answer any questions you may have. supervisor mar: let me try to be really brief. thank you, mr. bentsen, for your work on behalf of verizon. there were questions from the public. they claim you have not met your burden of showing that there is a lack of capacity or necessity. i think they raised some questions about the calls to monitor in the last week of august. we have a number of graphs. the number of successful calls, the number of dropped or blocked calls -- what were the reasons for the drops, and how do you know this? could it have been faulty

batteries, other interference, or software on phones? there were questions raised about the burden of proof you have to show a lack of capacity. is there a necessity? i wanted you to respond to what people said. >> the data we provided came directly from our switches. we used to have a switch at granite street in san francisco. we moved that 2 fairfield. this data was taken in the last couple of weeks of august. supervisor mar: when was the data taken? i think somebody said it was the last week of august. when was it taken? >> during the last two weeks of august, during the busy hour, which for us is between 5:00 and 6:00 in the evening. dropped calls are mainly due to

people either driving out of coverage areas, or in this case we are looking at ineffective attempts. that is people's attempts to get on to the system, not dropped calls. these numbers are based on ineffective attempts, people trying to get a line and unable to get into the system. these numbers are taken right off our switches. they are right there. you might want to repeat your second part. you cannot know if there is interference without a sticking test equipment and determining

that, but we normally test drive these areas and interference shows up in our test drives. we have not had a recent test drives in this part of san francisco. anything else? president chiu: colleagues, any additional questions? thank you very much. >> if i may add, we are willing to provide much of the type of information you are talking about, but it is proprietary. we are willing to do that to third party engineers on a case by case basis. president chiu: unless there are other comments from the project sponsor, why don't we hear the rebuttal from the appellants? >> in the past 10 years, this board has voted in favor of 14

conditional use appeals in cases like the one of verizon is proposing. one resulted in the landmark ninth court of appeals decision in 2005. it affirmed your authority to deny a permit on the same grounds appellant has provided you today. he has neglected to inform you that when the ninth circuit remanded the few remaining issues to the district course -- court to judge hamilton, metro pcs lost the case. judge hamilton decided there was a significant gap in service, but metro had not proved it was the least intrusive means for filling the gap. verizon has not discussed the alternative of using the already-existing utility pole mounted network operated by

third parties, which can handle multiple providers. unless verizon has approached those companies and been turned down, the have not explored those alternatives. they would lose in court for the same reason metro pcs lost before judge hamilton. verizon has not met its burden of proof that these are necessary and compatible with the community. unless verizon opens all the books on all its adjoining cell sites, it cannot prove it has a capacity problem. he also reported on a recent t- mobile supplement, where the city won the first half of the case. there was not even a trial on the significant gap issue. there was a proposed settlement reached before it went to trial. that is a complete mischaracterization of what happened at about lawsuit.

-- at that lawsuit. t-mobile did provide data. it showed that in a given to week -- two weeks, only 1198 calls were dropped, 0.25% of the total. that was the judge ruling in favor of you for denying the permit to t-mobile last year. how many calls went through in the two hours when 50 were dropped? 500? 5000? 50,000? verizon has not told you. unless you have that information, they cannot prove their case. listen to the neighbors. people who live in the neighborhood want you to deny this permit. there is plenty of precedent, 14 cases like this. the city prevailed at all of them in federal court.

president chiu: final questions to either side of this appeal? seeing none, at this hearing is closed. these matters are in the hands of the board. i understand the house has changed. supervisor mar: i count nine of us in the room. actually, there are 10 of us. i would like us to continue this for one week, until next tuesday, hoping both sides can get together and discuss some of the offers from verizon for an independent third-party analysis of the gap and the necessity, and also to allow our colleague, ross mirkarimi, to vote on this issue as well. president chiu: that motion is seconded by supervisor avalos.

can we do that without objection? this is continued to november 1. is that right? >> at 4:00 p.m. president chiu: thank you, ladies and gentlemen. at this time, why don't we go to our adoption without committee reference calendar? >> these items will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless a member requests discussion of a matter. president chiu: 24. i will also sever item 26. roll-call vote on the balance? >> items 21, 22, and 23? supervisor mar: aye. supervisor weiner: aye.

supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. >> there are 10 ayes. president chiu: those resolutions are adopted. >> item 24 urges the city to give preference to certified organic food vendors, and to urge the federal government to label and test genetically engineered foods, as well as to assign liability to the commercial developers of genetically engineered technology. supervisor mar: i want to thank the california biosafety alliance and food access advocates. i know it is already a policy of the city throughout former mayor newsom's administration, and

supported by our food systems with in the city. i urge support from my colleagues. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd requests this be referred to committee. >> item 26 cancels the board meetings of january 3, january 17, february 21, may 29, october 9, november 13, and november 27, and cancelling all board and committee meetings through summer and winter breaks from august 1 through august 31 and december 12 through december 31. supervisor avalos: colleagues, i would like to motion to cancel the july 3 board meeting, which

is the day before july 4, which they have in england as well. i might be away somewhere on vacation with my family that week. it could be in england. i would like to cancel that meeting. president chiu: supervisor avalos has proposed we add july 3 to the list of tuesday's we do not meet, seconded by supervisor cohen. generally, we do not meet in the first week in july, in part because of budget negotiations and in part because july 4 falls in a week. the initial draft did not include july 3 as a date we canceled the meeting, but given that we already have four meeting scheduled in july 2012, that is appropriate.

without objection, but shall be the case. with the underlying emotion, to be approved as amended, can we do that without objection? that shall be the case. madam clerk, can you please read the in memoriam? >> on behalf of supervisor elsbernd, for ina gavin. president chiu: is there more business in front of this body? >> no further business for today. president chiu: without objection, we are adjourned.

♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is and who is elected using this voting method. we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting.

so, what is ranked joyce voting? in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate in the first column on the ballot and deborah second and third choice candidates in the second and third columns resect to do -- respectively. this makes it possible to elect local officials with the majority of votes. more than 50% without the need for a second runoff election. in san francisco, ranked choice of voting is for the election of members of the board of supervisors, the mayor, sharon, just -- district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, this is a recorder, and public defender. ranked joyce voting does not apply to elections for local

school and community college board members. number the election of state or federal officials. ranked choice of voting does not affect the adoption ballot measures. when voters received their ballot, either at a polling place or an absentee ballot in the mail, it will consist of multiple cards. voters will receive cards with contests for federal and state offices, as well as for state propositions and local ballot measures. for ranked choice voting contest, voters will receive a separate ranked choice ballot card. it will have instructions to rank three choices, which is new. the ranked choice ballot is designed in the side by side column format that lists the names of all candidates in each of the three columns. when marking the ranked choice ballot, voters elect their first choice in the first column by

completing the aero pointing to their choice. for their second choice, voters selected different wind by completing the arab pointing to their choice in the second column. for their third choice, voters elect a different candidate by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. voters wishing to vote for qualified write-in candidate can write it in on the line provided. and they must complete the arrow pointing to their choice. keep in mind, it voters should select a different candidate for each of the three columns of the ranked choice ballot card. if the voters elect the same candidate in more than one column, his or her vote for that candidate will count only once. also, a voter's second choice will be counted only if his or her first choice candidate has been eliminated. and a voter's third choice will be counted only if both his or

her first and second choice candidates have been eliminated. we have talked about how to mark the ranked choice ballot. now let's look at how ranked choice of voting works. initially, every first choice vote is a candidate. any candidate that receives a majority, more than 50% of the first choice to vote, is determined to be the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins. first, the candidate who received the fewest numbers of first choice votes is eliminated from the race. second, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their vote to transfer to their second choice. there, all the votes are recounted. fourth, if any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, he/she is declared the winner.

if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning majority. now let's look at an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. in this example, we have three candidates. candidate a, b, and c. after all the first choice votes are counted, none of the three candidates has received more than 50%, or a majority of the first choice vote cast. candidate a g-205% ofb the votes% received 40%. and c received 35% of the boats. because no candidate received a majority, the candidate who received the fewest number of first choice votes, a candidate a, is eliminated from the race. voters to pick a candidate a as

their first choice candidate will have their but transferred to their second choice. and the voters to pick and a, 15% chose candidate b as their second choice, and 10% chose c as their second choice. these votes are then applied to b and c, and the votes are recounted. candidate b now has 55% of the votes. candidate c as 45%. candidate b has more than 50% of the votes and is determined as the winner. >> thank you for watching. we hope you have ranked choice learned ranked choice of voting and was elected. you have seen the ballot, learned how to market, and learned how the voting process works. if you have any further questions about ranked choice voting, please contact us at department of elections, city hall, room 48, 1 dr. carlton be

good lit place, sentences go, california, 94102. or 415-554-4375. visit our website, www.sfelections.org. >> hello. 9 judge terri l. jackson. the court is now recruiting prospective civil grand jurors. our goal is to develop a pool of candidates that is inclusive of all segments of our city's population. >> the jury conducts investigations and publishes findings and recommendations. these reports them become a key part of the civic dialog on how we can make san francisco a better place to live and work. >> i want to encourage anyone that is on the fence, is considering participating as a grand jury member, to do so. >> so if you are interested in our local city government and

would like to work with 18 other enthusiastic citizens committed to improving its operations, i encourage you to consider applying for service on the civil grand jury. >> for more information, visit the civil grand jury website at sfgov.org/courts or call