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 guida

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 disc

i will quote from judge claudia wilkins' decision in the first phase n sum, the written record containedevidence 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.