i have to tell you that is the wrong standard. once you start doing that analysis, measuring the impact, they have jumped ahead of the process. they have done all of the ceqa analysis. they cannot use the function as a factual manner. also, the guidelines set the threshold, and the threshold is very different under ceqa. in the ceqa guidelines, it would be whether the project would involve a generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local joel plan. that is why i mention the general plan to you earlier. it shows we have a real conflict of evidence here, and then finally, is substantial

temporary or periodic increase in the indian ways. these are the things that the plan the department should be weighing. if nothing else, what we saw here today was a real conflict of evidence that must be analyzed in disclosed. thank you very much. president chiu: colleagues, in the final questions to any of the parties here? items 20 to 22 r in the hands of the board. supervisor farrell: you guys have been great owners on union street, and i think we all want to see union street succeed

here, the appellants, as well. thank you for your hard work. i had his gun to know a little bit more recently. also, the planning commission, for your hard work. first, let me say i knowledge some of the concerns of some of the neighbors that have come here today. despite living close to or on union street, which is an inherently noisy areas, and get the fat you are concerned about noise. i get it. what i want to make sure is that we are evaluating a very narrow issue. this is why it is more than just a categorical exemption from ceqa. we're not here to review the dr hearing.

i received a number of calls to overturn the d.r.. i know it goes to the board of appeals to review that. we do not have the authority to look at whether or not it was in bad faith that the patio is removed. that is behind us korea our decision is very, very narrow, and i take that commitment very seriously to review what is before us in a very narrow manner, and i understand there is a bit of a debate here, but my understanding is that the language according to ceqa is whether the project will cause a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise in the vicinity of the project. and as much as i share an understanding neighbor concerns, and i do not know if everyone has a copy of this, i have extra copies, but there was a test that was conducted when the property was close to capacity,

and all of the doors were open, so not just what was required according to the planning commission, but all fire doors were opened. i do not feel i am in the position to overturn the planning department and inspectors who have been out two times now that a determined the sustained permanent noise. in addition, we have to keep in mind that the patio is one to close at 10:00 p.m.. the owners are going to install a noise dampening awning. and last weekend's test, again, with all of the doors open at capacity " -- on union street and 4 union street, the and the noise, it did not come close to imposing a noise ordinance violations. i do want to propose that we uphold the categorical

exemption korea however, as they said, i do understand the neighbors' concerns. i move that we uphold the categorical invention. moving forward, i understand their frustrations over time that they are the ones responsible for contacting the police department, and nothing is done about it. i am empathetic to wit, and i commit the office resources i have to make sure that is not a burden on individuals, so what i'm going to do today is front- runner the issue for people. i will send a letter to entertainment commission and our police department asking them that once the patio is open and constructive that they can conduct 3 random tests during the first month of operation and report back to my office, which i will share. if there are noise ordinance violations at that time, i am happy to support and make sure that the neighbors voices are heard and that the owners are

held accountable korea everyone has my commitment on that. however, today, i do not believe we are in a position to require a full eir on the project, so i'm going to move item 20 and tables item number 21 and 22. president chiu: supervisor farrell. he has a motion. seconded by supervisor elsbernd. >> i do not think that ceqa is implicated here. a lot of times, people mistakenly believe that felo goes well beyond where it actually goes. i just do not think it is implicated here. with that said, coming from a district where part of my district is in the castro, and

we have a number of these situations korea we had one bar that had something revoked recently and another one that made it in the "the new york times" a few weeks ago because of a problem. we as a city need to do a better job of regulating some relationships between neighborhood and neighborhood -- and establishments. we tend to sometimes not do what is appropriate. we do not do a good job in a lot of instances. enforcing the noise ordinance. there are other times when we way over riyadh, -- over react, like a few months ago, which was an extreme overreaction by 1 unreasonable neighbor, so we have not done a good job of getting it right. it is not in forestall

sometimes, and sometimes it is way, way over in force. i would like to see consistent enforcement so that bars and restaurants as well as neighbors know what is ok and what is not ok and be confident that enforcement is appropriate and not overreacting. in terms of this case in this narrow seek what issue, i agree with the motion and will be supporting it. president chiu: supervisor c ohen? supervisor cohen: i will also be supporting this, and i would like to say to the business owners here today, you will probably hear from neighbors, so i does want to say to check out

the third district court were were allied is live and open for business. that fee. -- thank you. president chiu: any of the discussion? ok, colleagues, a roll call vote on supervisor farrell's motion. secretary: on the motion from supervisor farrell -- [reading roll] supervisor kim. kim, aye. supervisor mar. mar, aye. supervisor mirkarimi. mirkarimi, aye. president chiu: the motion is

approved. why do we not know go to general public comment? secretary: public comment includes items but not those being -- a member of the public would like a document to be displayed on the overhead projector, the states such and remove the document when the cup -- returned to the live coverage of the meeting. president chiu: can we hear from the first speaker? what [speaking foreign language]

-- >> [speaking foreign language] mr. president, my supervisors. edgy know, my name -- -- as you know.

to put a nice smile on our face. ladies and gentlemen, today is may 24, 2011. today, this lovely lady here, after 25 years, she gives buildings for the poor people need, building a school of the children need to study -- what they did before. that lady, she is never, never going to be lost. in the day, i used to support our president, barack obama.

i wish she had a chance to come back with me and you to support a second time. car supervisors, tell me the truth. did any of you have courage? kim, ross, let me tell my grandchildren that i knew somebody who did that. i remember every one of you, and i would like to think you to give me a chance week after week to talk to you. god bless you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. stop the rape of the public library.

there are constant opportunities to see of the public is controlled and our democracy is undercut by the ability to destroy truth when it serves the corporate interests. the park merced bridge reopened this week and after being remodeled. were you there? if there was ever an example of the joni mitchell song to put a parking lot, this is it. the politicians and gathered for this opening said it was our tax dollars at work. we should not be too hard on our politicians. at the opening, the public was told by a politician that the branch remodeling was on schedule and under budget. i do not have to tell you how egregiously wrong that is. this branch was one of the branches whose remodeling was canceled unless the public voted for revenue bonds to support the funding.

as it is, the bridge was scheduled to be one of the last branches in the program and is only $1.20 million over budget and only 16 months behind schedule, but this conceals what everyone knows, which is the entire program was promised to be completed. there are only half of the bridges that have been completed, and the budget that was projected has doubled. but the librarian administration will free me tell you that. why tell them the truth? but, of course, this branch, like all of the other branches, has plenty. that is why the lies cost more than the money. [bell] president chiu: next speaker.

>> and this is the writing that was written, and this is the interpretation. this is defined in easy deal chapter 45 as being 20 shekels plus 25 shekels plus 20 shekels -- defined in ezekiel. i just read that wrong. it equals one man hour. 60 shekels. it did not say anything about that and my bible. it is interesting that this definition of -- being 60 shekels is in silver. nebuchadnezzar was the king of babylon. we want to use gold -- which is

50 shekels. it says here that there shall be 20 -- it is interesting that this handwriting on the wall has on equivalency of 2000 -- we have 2520.

>> next speaker. >> members of the board of supervisors, i come to you today to talk to you directly but also to the voters were watching on sfgtv. last thursday, an amendment was put an, an initiative, which would allow the board of supervisors after three years to change all initiatives including voter initiative the- initiatives. it was after seven years which would allow them to appeal those initiatives. is this an attempt to gather signatures from our fellow citizens and or an accident at

-- or organizing and putting something on the ballot and i think that this is really kind of a slap at all of the people over the 20 or 30 or 50 years that initiatives have been available where they went out, organize, and made an effort to change something. public comments were made which i thought was disingenuous. one was that this would be for minor technical changes. this is not preclude them from getting certain things like enforcement provisions that would basically change or make a lot on workable. also, the person who put this forward said, well, i don't have any particular thing that i am looking at but i have a hard time thinking that a supervisor would have the time, effort, energy to change these things if there is not something in the

sides and there are two in particular, historic preservation and the sunshine ordinance. do not pass this. come next june 2nd, oppose this. course i would like to take -- talk about the at&t deployment of uverse. i'm a strong supporter of the plane as many as possible. the times are changing. in the spirit of supervisor wiener's statement, anything can happen in this great city of san francisco. i have a suggestion to help you to ensure that the deployment of the terminals.

>> there is no public comment because we already had public comment on that day meeting, if you would like to talk about anything else. >> i thought this was public comment. >> there are specific rules -- >> when can i provide comment on that? >> the rules are quite clear. this is laid out and our calendar. if you want to e-mail us, you can do that. "can i send you my suggestions? >> you sure can. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. i operate the historical taurus -- tours.

i was here to address the issue of the police officers driving down the heavily crime corners. i was upset that the police department was proposing to put in a $1 million mobile command center in terms of -- in front of neiman-marcus. the six st. look like pacific heights. it has been down here two or three days.

i am here on two points. i make career taxi driver. i am also a customer. as an african-american in the city of san francisco, i cannot get a taxi cab. many people here know what this is about. i cannot give stuck on a taxicab. before you start increasing this, please understand that we have not -- proper taxicab service. i am a taxi driver. thank you. >> that afternoon, board of supervisors. i came prepared to speak about

at&t. >> any topic we have recovered for public comment had public comment at a prior meeting. you're not allowed to talk about that. if you would like to talk about anything other than part merced or at&t. >> thank you all for being here. >> the reason is to ensure the orderly transmission of people's views to us. if we did not have these rules, we would have repeated public comment every single meeting. i bet no one in this room thought that last week the chairman of the international monetary fund would no longer be the chairmen of the fund. this just goes to show you that

the universe is capable of changing very rapidly and something of a bailout of a nation like greece could actually be postponed or even cancel. i am here to talk about glass- stiegel. i think that this board is capable and should put together a resolution immediately to endorse the house resolution 1489. we have had a number of the members of the congress passed -- sign on to this bill but we have not had nancy pelosi or techie spears sign on. this is something that needs to be done, san francisco is a

globally important city. if you consider the fact that every state and city will see further and further cuts and if ben bernanke has his way, hyperinflation. if you would have anything more you would like to talk to me about, i'm willing to meet with any of you. >> i am with the political action committee. i wanted to comment on this dominique strauss-kahn thing. this is proof that the imf does

exist to screw people from the third world. the only solution that is viable is the policy of glass- stiegel, and and national policy of glass stickle. glass-stiegel needs to be put on the table now. i think that this board of supervisors should have a responsibility and that in order to protect their citizens, their constituents, they should be pushing for an and -- for nancy

pelosi to be endorsing this legislation. barbara boxer and dianne feinstein should be pushing this legislation on the senate side of the congress. we cannot take this anymore. people will be held responsible for the deaths of people. we should help the people of our nation more, start becoming a productive nation again. thank you.

>> supervisors. the overhead projector please. we have graffiti.