the communities they are in. whether you just want to learn more about so thank you very much. we very much appreciate it. and i'll see some of you tomorrow night. thanks. [applause] president chiu: congratulations, kate. and i also want to add to speier -- to -- what you're doing in san francisco, hopefully someday will be the envy of the nation. but certainly we love your products. and i love carrying around one of our san francisco manufactured bike messen jer bags myself. i am honored to present the next four commendations. if i could ask rafael powell,

lorraine perry, livan chung and gia polly if you could step up to the microphone. it's coming to the end of the school year. and at a time when we are celebraterring the graduation of many students, i wanted to help recognize four incredible educators who are retiring after a combined 126 years of service. we are truly honored to count you among our neighbors and friends. and these are four educators who have educated thousands of students within my district and within the northeast part of the city. let me start with rafael powell. following his graduate studies rafael taught at an all girls christian school in hong kong. in 1991, rafael emigrated to the u.s., settled in san francisco, and for the next 20 years, he dedicated himself to teaching students. in addition to marina middle school where he is retiring from, rafael also taught at

horace mann and her better hoover middle schools. -- herbert hoover middle schools. and spent much of his time teaching as a bilingual teacher. students remember rafael as a teacher who not only takes his teaching very seriously but apparently never runs out of funny jokes. lorraine perry is a third generation san franciscan. lorraine, her parents, and her grandparents all attended public schools in san francisco. in the fall of 1985, lorraine was hired to teach science at james middle school where she worked for three years. and then she transferred to marina middle school where she has taught math and science for the past 23 years. as well as being part of the gender academy under the leadership of john michaelson. livan chung in 1970 started her teaching career in san francisco. she was hired by the women's junior league to coordinate a tutorial and saturday program for immigrant students.

from 1970 through 2000, livan taught at the chinese education center, washington irving elementary, rafael wheel and elementary, and benjamin franklin middle school and marina middle school. in 2000 evon was awarded the award for excellence in math and science and was at george washington high school and now retiring from her post as the principal of yuqual school in the heart of my district. last and certainly not least, judy polly, in the 42 years she has been with the district she has served in a wide range of roles in our elementary and middle schools. she's been a counselor, a dean of students, program director, and an assistant principal at marina middle and for the past five years judy has served as the principal at francisco middle school. over this past year, in

recognition of her tremendous contributions, judy has received many educational awards. school master of the year by the california school masters club, administrator of the year by the association of california school administrators, and mayor's principal of the year presented by the city and county of san francisco. i have to say by the way, i cannot believe that the four of you have 126 years of educating history. on behalf of not just all the parents, all the families, the elected officials, but thank you for generations of thousands and thousands of students that you have helped to educate to make san francisco the amazing city that we all live in and with the amazingly educated students that you have helped to mentor. congratulations. [applause] and actually, before you leave, we would love each of you if

you want to say 30 seconds or a minute of any final advice you would give to the board of supervisors and the public and your students as you retire. >> i'm not sure about advice, but i have to say as a lifelong san francisco resident, it's been such an honor to serve in this way. i'm going to miss the students and the relationships i've built. and i guess maybe one suggestion i could make is that building relationships is what it's about in terms of education. we must build relationships first. and then we educate. and i would just recommend that that be something we all continue to do. thank you. [applause] >> ivan, rafael or lorraine. or i will just give you your certificates.

[applause] if we can go back to the rest of our meeting. i understand supervisor wiener would like to call up the at&t items before the 4:00 special order. so colleagues, if we could do that without objection. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you, plment.

-- mr. president. so -- president chiu: exciting day today. supervisor wiener: exactly. one of those days. so with respect to items six, seven and eight, the at&t appeal, you know, this has been i know for a lot of us a difficult issue. there are many, many people who would like to see this technology come into san francisco. but without damaging our public rights of way. and the ceqa issue, there's definitely a lot of arguments on both sides. and it is frankly a close call. i have very serious concerns about the impact of these boxes. i want to see the technology come into san francisco and

want comcast to have competition. at&t has requested a continuance to present an altered and scaled back project. and i would like to give them the opportunity to do that. and so -- and it's my hope that they will think outside of the box literally and figuratively. and come back with something that we can live with. so i am -- i'm going -- i do move to continue item six, seven and eight for five weeks to june 28. president chiu: colleagues, advisor wiener has made a moked to continue seconded by supervisor campos k we take that without objection or a roll call vote? ok. if we can continue this item to five weeks, without objection, that should be the case. why don't we now move to our

4:00 special order. items 19 through 22. >> item 19 is a public hearing of persons interested in the objection to the decision of the planning department dated january 20, 2011, that a project roketted at 1787 union street is exempt from environmental review under categorical exemption class one, item 20 is a motion affirming the planning department's determination that the union street project is exempt from environmental review. item 21, motion reverserring the planning department's determination that the union street project is exempt. and item 22 is a motion directing the preparation of findings. president chiu: colleagues, we have in front of us the appeal of the environmental review exemption for the proposed project at 1787 union street. for this hearing, we'll hear and consider the adequacy, accuracy, sufficiency and completeness of the planning

department's determination that this project is cat gorkly exempt from environmental review. we'll first hear from the appellants who will have 10 minutes to describe the grounds for the appeal. and then take public comment from folks, individuals that wish to speak on behalf of the appellants. each speaker shall have two minutes. we'll then hear from the planning department. we'll have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds of their determination. that this project is exempt from environmental review. following planning, we'll hear from the real party in interest who will have up to 10 minutes to present. and we'll hear from persons speaking on behalf of the real party in interest, each speaker shall have up to two minutes to present. finally, the appellants will have three minutes for a rebuttal. colleagues, any objections to proceeding in this way? supervisor farrell, as the district supervisor in which the project is located, do you have any opening remarks? ok. why don't we then proceed and hear from the appellant. you have up to 10 minutes. >> thank you very much. my name is gloria smith.

i'm an attorney for appellants. and appellant megan would like to speak for about three minutes on the impacts of this project and then i will get back here and talk to you about ceqa. >> my name is megan shael and i live 07 feetaway, directly across the street from the brickyard at 1792 union street. i've lived there for 22 years, maybe going on 23 now. and during that time, there's always been a bar across the street at the same location that the brickyard is in now. we've -- at least i've never had a problem with noise there previously. but unfortunately, the way that the project is proposed to be constituted right now for the brickyard -- ok. can you hear me better? sorry about that. do i need to repeat? or am i ok? so anyway, the way the project is proposed right now at the brickyard is they have taken off the front of the building which was the front wall of the

building. it was a glass wall. and are creating an elevated deck which is about i think 5 1/2 to six feet above ground level. and you'll see in pictures, i think, that seminar community will be presenting that this is configured in an auditorium-like fashion. again, raised, so it has corresponding noise effects of an auditorium, projects the noise upward and outward. i know the entertainment commission came out and did a sound reading. and i think that is a report that planning is relying on to say that there isn't a sound problem or a noise issue. which is really the reason that we're here. unfortunately, that entertainment commission report does not -- was not taken to -- or measure the true characteristics of the project. it was taken with the door completely closed. but the entrance doors at the bottom as well as the front

wall of the doors that now constitute the front of the building and the deck was unoccupied. the reading was also taken on street level. excuse me. so the point here is that that's not reflective of the project as is. and quite frankly, prior to the brickyard being told by the permit officer of northern station to keep the door shut because of the noise, that was emanating from that, we had severe problems. and it got so bad at one point that i actually went out and bought a sound meter. and i'll show you a picture. that was the declaration that i filed in your packet. and this picture was taken on saturday, june 26, at approximately i think 11:15 a.m. from my third floor bedroom window. so you can see here if you look carefully, i know it's probably not clear on your package, that here the bifold doors and the

elevated deck and this was taken actually with only one of the doors open. and i know they're proposing to have three of these doors open at this time. so clearly, you know, like i said, i'm not an expert. this is reflective of the level of noise that i was experiencing. and i just want to play for you the recording that i took from my third floor window of that event. [playing of recording] and that's just the noise coming, 57 feet away from this place. so i have many other recordings that were taken on other days at other times, not just sporting events. but this -- and all reflect a

similar level of noise. and basically this is the reason that we're asking planning to do a full environmental review. because this project does have major impacts on the residents. and it has not been fully evaluated. so thank you. >> my name is gloria smith on behalf of appellant. thank you, president chiu, and board members. appellants are not here today because they want to shut down a small neighborhood business in their community. they're here today because they need planning department's help on finding resolution between the tremendous noise that's coming from the big brickyard and their ability to live harmoniously on their street and in their homes. unfortunately, there is an existing process that we have that would allow the community, the city, and the brickyard to come together and resolve these problems, and that process is ceqa.

but for whatever reason, the planning department has decided to sidestep ceqa and has chosen not to investigate the -- chose not to invoke ceqa and is exempted this project from environmental review. ceqa does allow agencies to exempt certain projects. when they can show conclusively that there's no possibility of environmental impact flowing from the project. and specifically here, planning department has recommended a class one exemption which covers minor modifications to existing structures. the course of -- it narrowly construes the agency's use of an exemption and outlawed the use of mitigated exemptions which is exactly what's happening here. and for 30 years, courts have ruled numerous times the mitigated categorical exemptions are illegal. this is because once an agency determines that a project presents impacts the required mitigation, the agency can no longer assert a categorical exemption. at that point, it must conduct

environmental review, describe the project, get the impact, propose measures and alternatives that would mitigate those impacts, and then circulate that document to the public. ceqa covers 18 different types of environmental impacts. one of which is noise. and it specifically describes the types of noise that trigger environmental review. and the san francisco general plan identifies noise as a serious environmental pollutant that must be managed and mitigate the planning and development process. the city can only invoke a class one exemption here if it can show that it has investigated and determined conclusively that the brickyard can operate with a panel door open and the deck with no possibility of noise impacts to the surrounding community. clearly, that's not the case here. according to the planning department's own documents, on july 13, in its d.r. analysis, on page six, it says there are

potential noise impacts on the neighborhood. therefore, mitigation measures have been developed to address the neighbors' concerns related to noise. mitigation measures will be imple implemented as conditions of approval. a d.r. action memo says the project proposed could have potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood. we do credit the planning -- the planning department with recognizing the project has significant impacts and requires mitigation. but the measures the planning commission adopted won't work in this indication. for example, closing the padio doors by 10:00 p.m. will do nothing to mitigate the tremendous noise that was just spoken of. what's happened is 10:00 or 11:00 in the morning on the weekends, busloads of people are showing up and lining up out in front of the brickyard so they can come in and once those doors are open, all that noise will be projected out into the street. you will hear the planning department say the proposed

conditions are not mitigation measures under ceqa. and yet the identified noise impacts are not ceqa impacts. i'm here to tell you that no court is going to believe that argument. permitting agencies don't talk about environmental impacts and mitigation measures in both ceqa context and in a nonceqa ways. these words do not have different meanings at different times. it doesn't pass a straight test that they are engaged in ceqa talk at one time and nonceqa talk at another. in an exemption case in marin county the county found adverse impacts for a construction of a new home near a stream. but the county said it eliminated those mitigation -- those impacts by adopting conditions of approval just as planning recommends here. the court did not buy that. the court struck down the exemption because mitigated exemptions are prohibited. not only has the planning department been -- the project has noise impact, but you will see for members of the

community who have presented photographs, letters, and recordings of the tremendous impacts caused by the brickyard. and under ceqa, relevant personal observations by residents constitute substantial evidence of environmental impacts. here the burden is purely on the city to show that there are no adverse impacts. given the brickyard's crowds, there's no question that once those doors are open, the windows are operational, and there are people out on the decks, this will project out into the union street community. because the city has admitted the project will impact the neighborhood, and has even proposed measures to mitigate the impacts, you must return this project back to the planning department to prepare a ceqa document that analyzes the impacts and circulate that for public review. thank you very much. and i am available for questions if anybody on the board or president has any questions. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to the appellant?

ok. at this time, thank you. we will hear from members of the public that support the appellants. ma'am, first speaker. >> in the years since and entertainment permits and planning department hearings, i also learned that the process is not done on an even playing field.

>> especially in this economy. this is painfully clear to me at the january 20 planning commission hearing regarding brickyard. while neighbors hand delivered 100 letters and petitions from residents who live within a two-block radius, the brickyard offered only a list of names. probably a sign -- still the commissioners unanimously approved the permit for an elevated deck and five folding doors. with unenforceable conditions that are naive if not disingenuous. like a formula for how many of the folding doors can be open at different times of the day. it was an insult to the neighbors.

so i'm here to ask you to uphold the union street controls. they're designed to protect the adjacent residents' livability. the noise generated by patrons on an elevated deck into a large -- with opening doors onto a large bar, restaurant area, is unprecedented. and it needs to be measured. to determine its impact on the surrounding businesses and residents. if the planning commissioners and their staff had done their job, we wouldn't be taking your time today. president chiu: thank you very much. are there other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? please step up. if you can all please line up in the center aisle. >> hello. my name is sky vamber and i live directly across the brickyard at 1782 union street. i'm very disturbed that planning has not done a full environmental analysis to determine proven and

enforceable measures to address the severe noise issues that this project presents. planning is instead relying on noise studies by the entertainment commission as -- at the project sponsor's request to hypothesize that there will be no serious noise impacts on residents. this report is insufficient and erroneous. in its facts because number one, such a report is not recognized by ceqa as adequate to determine proper analysis of an environmental impact. number two, this agency is often under fire for conflict of interest concerning residents and these type of establishments and has difficulty in monitoring the associated problems. number three, the reading did not measure the true nature of the project. it was taken once. a week before christmas at street level with all of the doors shut and the deck unoccupied. note, in the report it was noted that when an entrance door opened for people going in and out, the noise spiked. in summary, the noise problem

is not when the doors are shut, and not only on street level. we have pictures also. but they're not being shown. the conditions measured by the e.c., the environmental -- i'm sorry, by the entertainment commission are actually the ones that we've lived harmoniously with for over 30 years with previous bars at this location. the serious noise impact occurs when the bifold doors are open. this allows the noise from a 3,600 square foot sports bar which is elevated to blast and ricochet extensively out into our homes and our community. the true conditions of this project have never been investigated by the city. our committee has testified at the planning commission -- president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

i'm bob bardel, president of golden gate valley neighborhood association. i just want it read out of section seven of 3.2, uses permitted to neighborhood commercial districts under the subparagraph nonpermitted uses, subparagraph, sub-subparagraph b. no use, even though listed as a permitted use, shall be permitted in a neighborhood commercial district which by reason of its nature or manner of operation creates conditions that are hazardous, noxious or offensive through the emission of odor, fumes, smoke, sinneders, dust, gas, vibrations, glare, refuse, water carried waste, or excessive noise. now, the question before us, i think, ultimately, is what excessive noise be emitted from the brickyard with the under the mitigated plan proposed by the planning department? and all i would like to say is that we have no idea. as sky vember just testified,

the entertainment commission's study doesn't really tell us anything we don't know, the baseline of the restaurant that when it's completely sealed. there is anecdotal evidence when the door is opened and crowded it's a horrible situation. but with three doors open, with -- if indeed -- can be prohibited from using the deck, how loud will it be? we don't know. now, how do we get an answer to this? i can see a sound engineer doing an a-priori analytical study, that might be good enough if both parties could agree on a sound engineer. but i will testify after working with them for over a year trying to forge a compromise, i doubt that they're going to agree on a sound engineer. the only other thing would be to have some kind of a trial period which of course might inflict consecutive noise on the -- excessive noise on the neighborhood as they're all predicting. but i believe this is the key issue that needs to be addressed and somehow we've got to come to a solution. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm serena bardel. long-time member and board member of golden gate valley neighborhood association. i would like to tell you that in all the years over 20 that i've served, there has never been a problem brought to us by any of the other tenants including margaritaville and bay side at that location. and these -- some of these same people have lived across the street or down the street from this location. so they have not been whiners or complainers in what -- but also in all this time, the place was closed in the front. a lot of this wouldn't be happening if there had been open communication. we made enormous efforts to reach the owner of the property and the holder of the license to try to work out differences,

to act as honest brokers between the people being affected who live there and the people who are having a good time inside the brickyard. our efforts failed miserably. we've spent more time on this issue in the last year than on any issue i can ever remember. trying to work things out. and we failed time and time again. so i don't think we can depend on the good will of these folks. there have been -- there's been no good will. we've reached out and reached out to no avail. and i hope that the fix isn't in. i hope that you're really being tenantive -- attentive to what we're seeing. thank you for your patience. >> excuse me. can we get this projector to work? we have some photos. president chiu: yes. if you just lay whatever you want to project, if you could put it on, it's actually showing right now.