utilities. i think you need a task force to get the job finished. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> peter warfield, executive director of libraries users association and i note that many supervisors seem busy making notes or at their computers or writing or in the case of president chiu or supervisor wiener chatting upfront, while the public, which only has two minutes out of the whole week makes its public comment for the whole week. i think that is an exceptional rude and inappropriate for supervisors who after all are serving the public. there is a concept generally speaking called "the punishment

should fit the crime." and my question for the supervisors is should a $10 debt to the library permanently and in some cases permanently and for life bar a library user from borrowing books? well, that is the aft effect of the library fines policy, certainly on some people and most affecting some of the poorest people in this city. it is well known that fines will end the borrowing career. and fines also deter usage by the poorest people, particularly because they know that they can't get into a situation where they just don't

have the cash to pay. the library is coming up to you as a board, with a new fines schedule. the direction is good. dollar fines for dvds are going to $0.10 generally, but it should go to $0.00 and if not, at least as a backup plan, allow patrons to work on in some fashion the fines. i would concur with the previous speaker that friends' finances are a scandal and it should be front page news in the papers here. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i have a question for the supervisors and all the people present here, you all heard of the emancipation proclamation?

it was a time if i had the means and the desire -- by the way,, where is my supervisor? where all of the supervisors, especially my supervisor. where are you? >> if i could remind members of the public to be silent and we have a rule that we ask the members of the public to applaud. thank you, ma'am. >> if i had the time and desire, i could own slaves. i could own you, usually the black people, i could own them. yes, i could. you belong to me. when it became illegal, everyone said oh, how horrendous, how terrible. how inhumane. how today, is it legal to kill

babies in their mother's womb? when will you take action, so we can all say how horrible is this? it's murder. it's killing. when will you take that action? how can you take the action you have taken? excuse me, it's so much worse. so what i am asking you, supervisor, you said it's a blessing. when is it going to be a blessing to welcome life? when it is going to be a blessing -- whatever you said over there -- -- anyway, i want you to think very hard on this. think hard, what you are allowing. your action is causing women to be -- by the way,, you said it's going to be a blessing to -- oh, san francisco -- the other supervisor said it. the san francisco has taken the -- is protecting the rights of women, but i guess it

doesn't include women babies because they are killed. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is maryanne schwab and long time volunteer in san francisco and i have grave concern about the ordinance that restricts or expanding the bubble zone. >> excuse me. mr. president, supervisor campos, i just want to be clear that the rules that we have do not allow individuals who have had an opportunity to provide public comment to provide public comment on something that we already voted on. you know, there is a different side to this story and if the people who have the other perspective had known that, they would be given the opportunity that would have stayed here, but they are following the rules. so it's not far to them. >> so if i could just reiterate what i have stated a

couple of times today. for those who have come to speak on the ordinance that has already passed, we do have a board rule that does not allow you to provide public comment on what we have passed. if you wish to discuss the common topic, but please not to speak specifically to the ordinance that we already passed. >> i am concerned that many women have post abortion [tkpw-eults/] and have really nothing to do with this affiliation. it's the symptoms that take this form and for that reason many organizations over the country have formed support services for such women. one in oakland is supported by

planned parenthood. it's important that women know there are alternatives, so they do not have to experience this guilt, if they are so inclined to. and the people most inclined to experience are those ambivalent in the first place and those are the ones that respondto services ahead of time services for themselves and their babies. it's a disease-prevention kind of program, that prevents the psychiatric problems in the future. i thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> today i would like to set the record straight.

>> excuse me, sir, please keep your comments directed to the full board on this topic. >> well, this is directed at campos for the certain reason he said things that were untrue and unfounded. all i'm trying to do is clarify. >> you are going through a debate on a measure that we have already discussed. >> i understand. also at the last meeting -- >> excuse me, you are doing that again. i need to ask you to please keep your comments directed to the general subject as opposed to issues around the debate we already had. >> this gentleman has been intimidating women at the clinic and i want to have the rules followed. >> sir, you can discuss your activities at the clinic.

sir, if you do not make references -- if you could please keep your comments specific to the topic -- to the general topic, but not specific to the legislation that we have already considered. >> these are the things that he said. now let's start with the mean spirited statements [speaker not understood] >> first i would like to know mr. campos' interception of "intimidation." when i tell patients on abortion day not to kill their babies, when they enter the clinic? isn't that what they intend to do? >> mr. president, i have a question. i think this is out of order and i would like to get some

guidance whether or not there is compliance with our rules here. mr. deputy city attorney, if you could please answer supervisor campos' question. >> john givner, deputy city attorney. ultimately the board's rules are for the board to interpret and enforce. the board rules, as the president has suggested, the board rules do prohibit members of the public from speaking on any item that the board has considered on today's agenda already. and the board rules also prohibit public commenters from directing their comments at particular members of the board. >> so sir, you have on several occasions already violated that and i simply asked you to keep your comments general from you want to talk about our issues from a pro-life point of view, that is fine. sir, direct your comments to colleagues, that is in violation of the board rules.

>> what they intend to do -- isn't this what they intend to do? isn't this considered intimidation for saying the truth? as far as i know i always thought it was free speech. here we go again. i think mr. campos >> excuse me, sir. >> i know. >> mr. deputy sheriff. >> okay. >> could you please assist this gentleman? sir, thank you very much. next speaker. >> any name is eugene gordon

jr.. dictatorial democracy, all of those balloting over two century legislation, we the people have redressed so many times -- [speaker not understood] political economy, education schooling, work, is based upon the capital currency, class ranked divide, imperialist, racialists, surrounding planet earth sovereign nation with military bases defending its interest. with the 1776 victory so many african-american slave-owners the execution of independence, the amendmentions for the forfication of the nation [speaker not understood]

1776, 2013, celebrates democracy, dictatorship -- george washington and thomas jeffreerson. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon president chiu and speakers. i have graphics and i noticed

last week -- opener -- >> sfgovtv, thank you very much. >> opener at woodstock, richie he sang for us in the front row and he sang at the san francisco bay blues and he was also the opener at woodstock back in 1969, richie havens, my friend, and good singer. i have a picture of me and al green. i just happen to have it with me. and supervisors, i can make this city's gray skies bluer. i can make it rain whenever i want it to. i can build a bay bridge from a single grain of sand. i can make america's cup sail on dry land. but one thing i can't do, i

can't get close to the abortion item. i can't get close to to you city. i can't get close to you. i can fly high like a bird in the sky. i can turn the city -- make the music higher -- and i'm going to be the city town crier. and there is one thing that i can't do, city. i can't get close to you. and your abortion item, too. thank you and welcome back, supervisors, and president chiu to the city. >> thank you walter. next speaker. >> thank you.

i am ron conpacki and i'm here to comment on the inconsistency that has been displayed by this board. recently, you passed a resolution declaring 2013 to be the year of the child. and i thought that was a very od thing. in the course of that, you inadvertently discovered that san francisco has the lowest percentage of children of any city in the country. i would like to suggest that instead of promoting abortion, you might consider promoting adoption >> there are 18,000 abortions in san francisco every year. that an average of 50 abortions everyday. if we could just turn half of

those into adoptions, we could increase the number of children in the city by 9,000 per year. perhaps this is something to consider. that is we try to do at planned parenthood and we have been trying to help the women. instead of being accused of intimidating and instead of accused of harassing, we're here to help these women. we help them before-and-after their abortions. and one man is doing some things out there that are untasteful, but he is one man, and we're losing our rights of hundreds of other people that are there peacefully and prayerfully to help these women. please consider this and perhaps you ought to reconsider your stance against the prolife people.

we are not anti-abortion protesters. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> hello to the board of supervisors, my name is nora dockerty and i do sidewalk counseling at abortion clinicks in san francisco. last time i was here, david campos and everybody who has here, i showed a beautiful picture of children saved from abortion, because somebody was able to speak to their mothers. i have another picture here. this little boy is doing great. the restrictions that you are putting on our free speech. >> excuse me, ma'am, as i said before, if you could please discuss the general topic, but not the specific legislation that we passed today. thank you. >> we're going to be continue to we on the sidewalk. i wish you supervisors would come and see what we do and how we talk to the women. nobody is forced to take

anything from us and i would like to leave information from us to the supervisors so you can see what some of the effect on these drugs are on these women and the environment. it happens to be the grandchild of a company which was started in nazi germany to kill christians, jews and gay people and anybody that the nazis didn't seem to look at the time and women are not told at this in the clinics. we really wish you would come and see us. we wish you would come over to planned parenthood and see what we do. the mother and this child and his mother would have been here today, except his parents got married recently and they are expecting their second child. she is not feeling too well today. this is his picture and please come out and see what we do, because it's very effective and we don't harass anybody. >> thank you very much.

>> it's now 4:00 p.m. and we have a special order at 4:00 p.m. and i will go to that order and madame clerk could you call items 19-22. item 19 is a hearing of persons interested in orb objecting to the planning commission's decision datesed march 21, item 20 is a meigs affirming the certification. item 21 is a motion reversing the certification. >> item 22 is the motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings reversing the certification. >> to the audience, we will continue public meeting. because we have a special item and many individuals from the public who have come here for, that we will take up that

hearing. with that, as we have done with other appeals of final environmental impact report we will consider the adequacy, accuracy sufficientry and completeness of the final environmental impact report of which you all have copies. today's hearing will proceed as follows: we'll hear from the appellants and i understand there are two groups of appellants and collectively they have up to 20 minutes in total to describe the grounds for appeal. if the appellants want to use their time, ten minutes apiece or divide their time up as you see fit. we'll then take public comment from individuals that wish to speak behalf of the appellant and them we'll hear from the planning department that has up to ten minute their grounds for the certification of the final environmental impact report and then 20 minutes to present and hear from persons speaking on behalf of the real parting interest and finally appellants

have six minutes for a rebuttal. sorry, a total of 20 minutes for the two appellants and total of 20 minutes if the planning department chooses to use that time for presentation. a total of 20 minutes for the project sponsor and of course, you don't have to use the full 20 minutes, but we want to give everyone equal time and finally 6 minute rebuttal by the apellants. colleagues, unless there are questions, i will ask supervisor for opening statement >> thank you. i won't speak to the details of the project, which i'm sure the planning department will go over as well. this is the 706 mission site in one of our highly growing residential mixed-use neighborhoods here in the south of market. it is is 47-story, 215 residential units building along with four floors of museum space, also known as the

mexican museum, which this project is also referred to as. we do have both apellant attorneys today. and we'll have a number of questions for both appellants and planning department. we will move forward with the proceeding. >> thank you, supervisor kim with that i will ask representatives of one of the two appellants to step up and again, you have up to 20 minutes, mr. lippe, will you use ten minutes? >> ten minutes for my client and ten minutes for the other. >> why don't you proceed. >> thank you, board of supervisors my name is top lippe. and i am here for a group of appellants including the 765 residential owners association, the friends ever yerba buena and five individuals, paul

wornick, matthew schoenberg, joe fang and margaret collins. i have written quite a bit of material on the appeal and i'm not going to try to summarize all of that within this limited time. i will try to hit high points and crystalize what i think are the critical issues for the board in thinking about the problem with the eir and its function to disclose to the project the environmental impacts to the public and those that are significant and those less that significant and for those that are circumstance to identify mitigation efforts that would substantially reduce the impacts. this eir does not do that in a number of areas and i want to start with historic preservation. and beforid get into that, i want to deliver to the board one more piece of paper. i received a supplemental response from the planning department yesterday. and a brief from the applicant this morning. and i have tried to pin a few

responses to that in a letter and i have 13 -- 12 copies of that and then i have 12 copies of a letter from catherine petrin, one more, excuse me, miss clerk. she is the architectural historian i retained and she has responded to the reports attached to the applicant's brief, which we received this morning at about 8:15 in a very quick and summary fashion. but at bottom this eir fails to deal with the historical president impacts of the eir in a fundamental way, which the planning department and the applicant have now conceded the basis of. when this appeal started i pointed out that the historic preservation staff/planning department staff had made a

legal error by assuming that the tower portion of this project is not within the historical preservation commission's permitting jurisdiction. both the planning department and the applicant have now agreed that that was a mistake. and have morphed to correct it. well, that has ramifications. one of ramifications is that it's now clear why the eir does notice actually assess the impact of this very large and hightower on the conservation district. because it wasn't part of the regulatory setting and project description. the eir starts with what the project is going to do and the regulatory setting in which it's going to occur. the ceqa guidelines are clear that the eir has to include a discussion of the extent to which a project is inconsistent with a governing land use plan and article 11 of the planning code is such a governing land

use plan and here we have a 47-story building attached to a much smaller building which will increase the height of that resulting one building by 40 stories, 39 stories, actually. the article 11 says you can't do that with a significant building. you can only go up one more story. so it's a very flagrant violation of article 11 ignored by the eir. the applicant says that is the zoning code stuff and it's not ceqa stuff. well, it is ceqa stuff. it's ceqa stuff because ceqa requires the eir to look at inconsistencies with governing land use plans, such as article 11ed. it's also ceqa stuff because the inconsistencies

with article 11 are germane to the impact. these are not zoning provisions that are about something other than environmental impact. these are about environmental impact. the historic resources of this district and of this building are environmental resources of the city of for san francisco and its residents and this building is completely out of scale. the consultants for the applicants to jump through the hoop and the planning department says what the irsaid eir said about the scale of the tower, it's in line with the district. the applicant talks about the fact there are other tall buildings within the district, as if that somehow makes it

okay to add another one and it does, in fact, show the sensitivity of the resource. appendix f of article 11 defines 3-8 stories, not 47 stories, note 40 stories, et cetera. so it's very much about ceqa article 11 violations are very much about ceqa. i have four minutes left and i want to crystalize the topic of shadow impacts, shifting gears to planning code 295 and shadow impacts on union square. there this case, part of the project description is to raise

the cumulative shadow limit that the planning commission and rec and park commission adopted in 1989 and recently modified for the transbay project to increase the cumulative shadow limit and now they are going back to that well again to increase the cumulative shadow limit again. that is part of this project. so this eir those look at the environmental effect of doing that before the planning department and the rec and park department can raise the cumulative shadow limit to accommodate the shadow this project will cost on union square. this does not look at problem of a moving base line. every time you add more shadow, even in the early morning, which is what this project is going to do and even at limited times of the year, you are going to cause people to change their patterns of usage. now the eir says well this particular increment is not significant. but it stays. so people stop going at those times.