is rated standards. the greens' standard started to focus initially, with leaves for homes and neighborhood development and all sorts. but still, green point rated is closest to what we would think of as a prescriptive check list of things a builder or developer might reasonably be able to incorporate into a small development without getting into the whole complex of analyzing the overall issues. we are trying to make it simple for the builder. >> in 2009, i got a product with the residents were your only requiring 25 points. the forms, 50.6, and there are a lot of different requirements. energy, 30, health, five, resource, 6, walker, nine,. is that being applied per, you know, 50%? how is that being done this year? >> this year, he simply need to show that you got 25 points. it is an educational point. people have to go through the checklist and see what you are doing, understand it. starting next year, in 2010, you have to be point -- and meet standards, and there is a minimum. >> any 25 will do this year,

anymore only supportive of the concept of standardization. everything else will happen at its time, whenever that is. >> correct. >> that is bringing executive park more to the table with a more mature statement where we can really more clearly support how the funds are being used. >> we have no control over the clock on this. >> that is correct. >> certainly here or at the board of supervisors. but i personally feel, inspite of my concerns regarding the overall legislation, that we should support the standardization as the department has put it together. >> so my motion would be a motion to continue with findings that we are supportive of the idea of standardization, and we want to see the supervisor work with all parties concerned to -- >> if i may, you are making -- in my concept, you are making a confusing motion, because it is a motion to continue, which would mean we take no action. >> right. >> but i think we should -- and then we have no control. we make no statement at all. >> commissioner, you could choose to continue with a comment

midsize, the standards are virtually the same as a small residential acceptance, up at 2011 instead of 2012. and for the high-rise building, we have been talking about the difference, and most high-rise residential buildings fit more reasonably in these larger complex buildings. so you get to choose. the standard is, in 2010, right now it is certified, a minimum of 50. plus special requirements, and in 2010, it is green point rated with 75 points. and special requirements are with production, storm water management, and reduction. so we tried to keep it as simple as we could, simple categories for residential. we have not seen it too many problems yet. we have had a whole lot come in, as you can imagine, providing paperwork. we will talk about paperwork in a second. we have new commercial, new residential, and one more category. it says a new large commercial interior or major alteration to existing buildings with b m and r occupancies with more than 25 a square feet. basically, we're saying, there are two things. either the first kind of improvements in a building, or some other kind

the standard for a rehearing with the manifest injustice. i suppose everyone that loses feels as though manifest injustice has taken place. i do not feel as though any evidence was presented to cause this commission to feel as though that had happened. the other standard has to do with new material that has arisen since the case that would affect the outcome. it was not knowable at the time of the original hearing. i was somewhat confused about the issue that was raised by one gentleman who spoke having to do with the fact that the variance has never been heard. i thought that was what the hearing was, to hear the issues to do with the variance. i do not feel anything was presented that would cause me to want to grant a rehearing. commissioner fung: the information that was presented related to the impact on the open space, both in terms of the you blockage and shuttling -- we did talk about that. -- both in terms of view blockage and shadowing -- we did talk about that. the easement was also discussed. even though i voted against the approp

the standardization that is suggested by the department should go forward. i have no question on that. however, the other questions and the push at this time concern me gately -- greatly. plus the fact that as we have had the reports, we have no idea what the legislation is at this point. there are amendments that have come in after our pact, and there is more amendments that will come in before the board of supervisors. we don't know what that legislation is. we would be recommending something on it where we -- or at least i -- wouldn't know what i was totally talking about. i can see our recommending the standardization. but as far as everything else is concerned, i could not deal with it because i don't know what it is. >> commissioners, i want to clarify one thing that may be confusing from public comment. there are actually no changes of the legislation other than what is before you. that is part of the reason you requested a continuance. the one omission which is not part of the ordinance is the change to the nexus study. the nexus study is a supportin

found in the astmf963 toy standard. this process should not be delegated to nongovernmental entities or be inaccessible to the public or stake hordes. moreover, the standards established should apply to all children's products and not just toys. the aap looks forward to engaging with the cpss throughout such a process in making our members expertise available to the agency. and finally, emerging products safety hazard. ensuring the saf

commissioner fung: why is that the standard? >> the only authority once the tender 15-day period has expired, which is set by law, that is based on case law, and there is one case that you're all familiar with, and that is the only standard that has been set that the city would be stopped from applying its own time limits when the city is somehow at fault. commissioner garcia: but we have latitude in that. if we feel someone was not properly advised to what their rights are, we have had jurisdiction in the past, based upon the idea that even though it rises to some legal level, it does. >> the example you just gave is where the city is the actor that did something that the board finds. i thought commissioner fung was referring to a non city actor causing the lateness. commissioner garcia: i am just stating that we have some latitude within this rule. >> as proposed. right. the other provision in that section though i want you to note, which is the times for filing an appeal after a request has been granted would be shortened. cur

that's not the standard under the constitution. now, the house says that the constitution is silent on when conduct has to occur in order for it to be the basis for the removal of a federal judge. in fact, i thought i heard the house say that the framers chose not to put in a statement in the constitution when it would occur. like many in this room, i've spent a lot of time with those debates, probably more than i should. i don't remember ever seeing that. in my understanding, the framers never addressed this issue. but they did address it in the constitution. they just didn't put it in the impeachment clause. but when they defined "life tenure," they said you have life tenure during good behavior. during good behavior in what? it wasn't good benaifer life -- it wasn't good behavior in life. they said good behavior in office. it was in reference to the office that they held because they wanted to make sure that people would not abuse their federal office. the life tenure guarantee under article 3 of the constitution was to guarante

that is the standard when we review something by the zoning administrator. the authority of this board goes way beyond the same considerations of the planning commission. they are not necessarily the same considerations this board would have. we can apply different standards in rendering decisions. >> i understand. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> any other questions from the board? before a turn it over, the other thing that i will make a point to clarify is that this evening we did not want a repeat of the planning commission hearing. the planning commission hearing lasted well into 3:00 in the morning. we would like to do this evening -- we want to truncate our presentation and only bring the members directly related to the area compassion health networks to the board. we did not request or supporters to come here and address the board for the convenience of the board as well as the fact that we feel that the community support was adequately reflected during the actual initial hearing. thank you. president peterson: thank you. >> greg? >> good evening.

the impeachment standard speaks to all judges. you don't have the option of saying well, it's close enough for jazz and just remove a judge on innuendo and conflicted five. the house case is going to be exposed in this room for the first time to a fully adversarial process. please give us a chance. what remains after all the half-truths and distortions melts away will dictate not just the future of this judge, but the future standard for all judges. we ask only that you, like her predecessors, mind the constitutional mind. my colleagues and i are now ready to address these allegations and we are now ready to present the case in defense of the united states district court judge, g thomas porteous junior. thank you very much. >> thank >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> proceedings from the senate impeachment trial committee's hearing of judge thomas porteous of louisiana from september of this year. today the full senate will take up

most build buildings that won't collapse, which is what the building standard is. won't collapse and they can be repair side whed is what we reasonably expect. >> potentially repaired. >> that is not what the public may think. earthquake proof. >> earthquake resistant. >> exactly. a lot of streets fill up with a lot of debris. the cornice, signs, glass, all that falls off the building. we have seen that in other earthquakes. the question is will we see that from new buildings as well? actually new buildings are designed so the buildings can sway or drift and there is enough so the glass doesn't pop out. >> my best advice don't run out the door. if it is big enough you can't stand up. probably the best place to be is the building you're in, stay put. >> do not run outside. the most hazardous place is right outside the building where all the stuff might fall down. i was in japan at the time of the big earthquake. i was a few miles away. i went and looked at it. the sidewalks were filled. filled all the debris from the front of the building. stay in the building. we a

the board shall establish standards, and houses in the business. a full reading of the statute implies a judgment that price setting will be pro competitive, more useful to the industry with clear rules. can you help those things through the choice on standards? >> we decided to not propose an issue were specific standard but put some actual standard. to avoid negative economic incentive to minimize administrative burden. the standard for the interchange fee that is the same as costs for authorizing clearing and settling transaction. it would not provide incentives for issuers for efficient operations and control their costs. perry high-cost operation to recruit those costs from the interchange fees but if they implement efficiency improvement and reduce their costs, it was down substantially. that gave us some pause. and safe harbor works and first alternative, and in the second alternative, has positive incentives for issuers, to reduce costs below the state farber they could reap the difference between their actual costs and safe harbor amounts

are you calling in the national transportation highway board? there will be a standard at which you absolutely have to call them in. the question will be, if you're short of that standard, do you still want to call them in to get them involved - so that you've got-- - it's always better to tell them. --so you have a third party involved, the n.t.s.b., your engineers, looking at the problem? don't you think that trial attorney has already let them know that he thinks there's a problem? maybe not because he doesn't want it to leak around some other trial attorney's got on the case. but it's always better to go to the regulators early. i agree with you. it's better to come forward early and let them know you're investigating it, what your process is, what your diligence is going to be. - minow: invite them in. - don't try and hide. - bill? - i just want to ask the counsel: what sort of liability do we have now, if we don't do anything for the next three weeks? i mean, if we just-- what do we have to do now? i wouldn't ship, because you don't want them incurring the cost of

the secretary of state set? >> she had not set one. not only was there not a standardut there was a change two or three times during the course of this process. >> mr. boise we will hear from you. >> bret: david boise began by defending the courts it ruling. >> i think this court and the supreme court best interpreter at that opinion. >> and all the florida supreme court did was to say the count -- you have to complete your job. you can't have your job interrupted bay riot. you can't have your job interrupted because katharine harris shuts the window. >> why isn't the standard the one that voters were instructed to follow. >> bret: the justices continued to be concerned about the standards. >> there must be a uni form standard. i think there is a uniform standard. the question is whether it is too general or not. >> i think that vascularries from county -- varies from county to county. >> i think it can vary from individual to individual. >> even in one county can vary from table to table in counting the ballots. >> there was a statewide standard. it was objective on w

the first major aspect of the proposed rule is the interchange fees standards. e statute requires that the amount of any interchange fee in issuer receives feet reasonable and proportional to the issuer's cost. the board has required standards for assessing whether the interchange fee meets the requirement. restrictions do not apply to issuers that have assets of less than $10 billion. the restrictions do not apply to debit cards used in several government administered payment programs and certain reloadable general use cards. to implement this portion of the statue, we determined which should be allowable and how best to measure the costs. we looked to the two considerations congress included in the statute for the interchange fee standard. first, the functional similarity between debit card transactions and checks. the second is the issuers incremental cost to authorized clearance, and not to consider costs not specific to a particular transaction. the approach includes only the cost specifically mentioned in the statute. we consider limiting the allowable cost

that's not the standard under the constitution. now, the house says that the constitution is silent on when conduct has to occur in order for it to be the basis for removal of the federal judge. in fact, i thought i heard the house say that the framers chose not to put in a statement in the dyings when it -- constitution when it would occur. like many in the room i've spent a lot of time at those debates, probably more than i should. i don't remember ever seeing that. my understanding, the framers never addressed this issue, but they did address it in the constitution. they just didn't put it in the impeachment clause, but when they defined life tenure they said you have life tenure during good behavior, during good behavior? what? it wasn't good behavior in life. they said good behavior in office. it was a reference to the office that they held because nay wanted to -- they wanted to make sure people would not abuse their federal office. the life tenure guarantee in article iii of the constitution was to guarantee an independent j

the judge set the right standard during the hearing. he understood exactly what was required of him. that's what makes it so egregious. he set out the standard, if you read that transcript, perfectly. he said if anything should come up during the trial that should require me to take myself off the case, i will let you know and give you that taoufpblt so what happens -- opportunity. what happens? the case is under submission. counsel points out it's under submission for three years. and during that period does something happen that would cause an objective person to question his impartiality? yes. he hits him up for $2,000 and they give it to them. does he do what he said he would do during that recusal hearing and give the parties a chance to ask him to get off the case? of course not. no, instead counsel paints porteous as a victim of this conspiracy is to go through judge after judge in this hospital case. but, no, he's a hero. he's going to stay in there. he will not recuse himself. he won't let those parties manipulate the system. t

the judge set the right standard during the hearing. he understood exactly what was required of him. that's what makes it so egregious. he set out the standard, if you read that transcript, perfectly. he said if anything should come up during the trial that should require me to take myself off the case, i will let you know and give you that taoufpblt so what happens -- opportunity. what happens? the case is under submission. counsel points out it's under submission for three years. and during that period does something happen that would cause an objective person to question his impartiality? yes. he hits him up for $2,000 and they give it to them. does he do what he said he would do during that recusal hearing and give the parties a chance to ask him to get off the case? of course not. no, instead counsel paints porteous as a victim of this conspiracy is to go through judge after judge in this hospital case. but, no, he's a hero. he's going to stay in there. he will not recuse himself. he won't let those parties manipulate the system. t

standards. constituent review and comment are important parts of the process that will produce high quality standards that investors need. for example, they were driving force behind the board's decision to modify and reprioritize the standards being developed under joint agenda. the resulting staggered schedule for issuing the boards exposure draft will allow for greater input by stakeholders. and this will create an enhanced ability to consider whether the standards result in a consistent, high quality, globally accepted accounting standards and solutions we all seek. hopefully, many of you that a chance to read the progress report by the sec staff that we posted in october. as you will hear later, the staff is highlighted several preliminary observations based upon their work to date, including observations on important implications related to different methods of corporations, the iasb funding model, and observations regarding the important role that could be played by fasb if the commission were to mandate ifrs for domestic companies. i am pleased with progress to date, and i remain optimistic a

the standard missle-3 block-2 bravo is rumored to be considered for development and deployment, but we cannot be defended by a missle that does not yet exist and has not yet been deployed. what has happened is that the mention has canceled plans to -- the administration has canceled plans to deploy the g.b.i. system to poland which would have defended us and would have been deployed. we withdraw a real defense system for a planned one. a real deployment for a hoped-for one. it should be the policy of the united states to defend us

standards. constituent review and comment are important parts of the process that will produce hh quality standards that investo need. for example, they were driving force behind the board's decision to modify and reprioritize the standards being developed under joint agenda. the resulting staggered schedule for issuing the boards exposure draft will allow for greater input by stakeholders. and this will create an enhanced ability to consider whether the standards result in a consistent, high quality, globally accepted accounting standards and solutions we all seek. hopefully, many of you that a chance to read the progress report by the sec staff that we posted in october. as you will hear later, the staff is highlighted several preliminary observations based upon their work to date, including observations on important implications related to different methods of corporations, the iasb funding model, and observations regarding the important role that could be playd by fasb if the commission were to mandate ifrs for domestic companies. i am pleased with progress to date, and i remain optimistic abou

reductions will impact the living standards. but the fact is the social welfare are still high in this country and much hundred in the nearest neighbor. budget 2011 continues the task of bringing our public service back to levels that can be sustained by the economy. i do not propose today the spending reductions that have already been of land in the national recovery plan and set out again in the estimates published today. the one area of which decisions have not yet been detailed in social welfare. first i want to confirm that the government has decided that there will be no reduction in the state pensions this year. we are significantly increased the state pension in the last ten years and it is the government you this harakat eclectic should be preserved. in the case of working age payments there will be a reduction of about 4%. the government has maintained the payments which exceed total inflation since 1997. the 2011 basic payment will be almost 117% more than it was in 1997. cumulative inflation at the same period is 40%.

the e.u. unfortunately that is subject to produce strict standards. but the same situation and say kenya doesn't apply, so you take off from the small airport in kenya and you go to nairobi. and you depart -- nairobi is not a good example because we don't have direct flights, but those airports that have direct service to the united states, as mr. heyman explained, they are monitored by my inspectors. because at least one of your to look at air carrier inspection activity and we do an airport assessment at least every one to three years to see they are complying with standards when they are not fully compliant, take actions with government or even at the airport to revise additional training. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator rockefeller. >> first come a quick with senator johanns on the public adjusting to more security. there really isn't any choice. and it's been -- you know, the pat downs which only affect about 3% of the people who go on to airports and airplanes and they have to fill another test to get to. you know, it is sensationalized makes

the gold standard and gold it had nothing to do with the great depression depressions are not caused by something like gold or it's not caused by a free market it's not caused by consumers and producers every depression and world history was caused by systematic blunders by the government so for me i'd love to be able to sit down with these people who have these misconceived notions about what gold does no gold adds you know responsibility to the realm of money of currency creation if you can limit that then you would limit a lot of the things that in the causing it look i was born in a communist country and in one thousand. slavia and i left when i was four years old and the a communism is a close and you got all permanent oppression and permanent oppression and in one thousand nine hundred nine they decided to do their own stimulus in one thousand nine hundred nine they start to print up trillions of dinar and what they do caused one of history's worst hyperinflation zz and so the thing is you know if they had if they had the gold standard they would have had a part. and that hyper

and secondly, who sets the standard on information? do we have the best way off -- in the united states of delineating information? i wouldn't think that would be necessarily the case because i think the german -- the germanys and the angolan, amsterdam etc, might feel more threatened because they have a higher at risk so to speak population. but anyway, can you enlighten me on that? >> happy too, senator. the european parliament did not vote down our p.m. argument. we have a bilateral agreement with the united states and the european union for the sharing of passenger name records, dnr. these are the records travelers provide to their travel agents when they purchase a ticket and they are forwarded a number of discrete fields, names and -- >> so it's not secure? >> the purposes of that information we get that information -- the information is then sent forward 72 hours before the departure of a flight to the united states. having that information 72 hours advance allows us to check against our watch lists and do the kind of screening w

on the advice of attorneys, they removed tier 3 necessity standard. the fcc occupies the entire field. the public-works department cannot second-guess the fcc. [chime] those dimensions have been submitted the staff. t-mobile disagrees because the city would be giving an advantage to a competitor. there are some other issues related to discrimination that i am sure the other carriers will touch upon. supervisor maxwell: please come right on up, we have allowed to do. we distribute -- >> we distributed antenna systems. we are a competitive local carrier. our biggest request is what we provided with you, in quality. legislation that is motivated towards a certain type of technology violates both state and federal law. if knowledge is the city's right to legislate and to manage the right of way, reasonable control shall be applied to all entities in equivalent manner. the federal telecom after says that local governments may ms. the public right-of-way for use of the public right of way on a nondiscriminatory basis. if sx is the concern of the board, which

what is the notion of the enforcement of standards, as you see it? what should we believe exists out there with respect to the enforcement of standards? >> in talking to airport leaders all over the world, there is not a single one of them who wants an insecure airport. they all want the best security they can possibly have. in many cases, they lack the resources or maybe the training in some cases to do that. so they are certainly looking for that. there are plenty of places around the world in europe and elsewhere where the standards are as good as what we have here. i think the main thing, the main point i want to make about this is that this part of homeland security's impulse to harmonize and work with other countries is exactly the right way to go. early on when we were responding in the middle of the decade to liquids and gels, people were just frustrated, and now they are part of it. there is a genuine desire around the world to meet the high standards they can possibly meet. you have boeing and airbus building planes that can now go point to

. >> in addition to the standard 26 weeks of when implanted provided by the state for more than two years the federal government has provided an additional 73 weeks for a total of 99 weeks of when inclement. without the extension of benefits is pared back to the regular 26 weeks. >> federal unemployment is given out for tears every couple of months people have to come to imply what offices like this one in san francisco and reapply to move to the next year. the deadline is already past for many of those and people are already being frozen out. >> it's tragic, really tragic but there might be a lot of people that are living off of this state and dole that should make crack what and do anything they can. people >> pull up by the bootstraps it's quite a bit rough nobody said it's going to be easy but, you know what, tough times call for tough decisions. >> reporting in san francisco kate thompson kron 4 news. >> >> stocks ended lower as worries over the european deck continue to when the market the dow lost 46 points today the nasdaq lost 27 points. home prices are falling fast the nation's

their main job is to improve the quality of life of people, standard of living. are optimizing the system even today. many regions of this country without leaving your house you can electronically file for pensions, amount that has already been accumulated to conduct technical session for one's a vehicle to obtain a driver's license. part of the new rule is already in effect. i will not hide it because people are writing to me but the way the system works is something people have a lot of problems with. it has to be made to work better. the remainder of the rules becoming effective this year. the most important of them is the principal of the window. people don't have to run around establishments and gather pieces of paper. and people have to take advantage of measures of support for their children provided for. is necessary to legislatively make individuals or officials responsible for violating periods of time where they're expected to provide government services and provide such proposals within four weeks. modernizing the system of government, special attenti

they had to balance the standards and the leases standards, at times, conflicting requirements. it speaks to their capacity in performing renovations on projects. one of the other projects they have worked on in the past, probably known as the oldest house in the united states, it was a property built in 1610, made of adobe mud. they undertook a renovation of that property. these are the qualifications we were soliciting, pursuant to the commission's direction in issuing the rfq. commissioner harrison: one other question. when this started, commission asked for an inspection of the building. a general structural, and if there was a seismic necessity, repair necessity. what happened? >> our team went out to look a the building and performance evaluation of the building. they found the building was in generally sound condition. some buildings were in need of upgrade. the work was outlined as necessary. that is reflected in the ortega a proposal, upgrades to the hvac system. they found the building in generally sound condition. commissioner bonilla: just for clarity, and for the pur

the judge set the right standard during the hearing. he understood exactly what was required of him. that's what makes it so egregious. he set out the standard, if you read that transcript, perfectly. he said if anything should come up during the trial that should require me to take myself off the case, i will let you know and give you that taoufpblt so what happens -- opportunity. what happens? the case is under submission. counsel points out it's under submission for three years. and during that period does something happen that would cause an objective person to question his impartiality? yes. he hits him up for $2,000 and they give it to them. does he do what he said he would do during that recusal hearing and give the parties a chance to ask him to get off the case? of course not. no, instead counsel paints porteous as a victim of this conspiracy is to go through judge after judge in this hospital case. but, no, he's a hero. he's going to stay in there. he will not recuse himself. he won't let those parties manipulate the system. t

i look at the number being considered on these projects. 95% of them are below the standards of the goals that were set forth in this project. i feel a lot of these goals are not attainable for sbe's because of the size of some of these packages. instead of their just being a good faith effort -- there just being a good faith effort as stipulated in the contract, there should be an independent panel or somebody to evaluate these good faith efforts so that small and local business can become a part of these bigger projects, and not a smaller portion of the projects going on in the city. chairman ford: thank you. are there any other public commenters? it appears we have one more. good morning. >> good morning, chairman, directors. my name is jim stevens. i represent the small business community of san francisco. my company is a construction company. we are certified in san francisco. i tend to mirror the comments of my colleagues. i must commend the people that spoke before with regard to the sbe, dbe's. it sounds nice, however, i would mirror chairman ford's comments about the difference b