environmental review process, especially in regards to the density along the transit corridors. this was a long the bart lines and light rail. you can see that it covers virtually the entire city. perhaps this increase is not necessary. perhaps you need an increase. not to the extent that is recommended for in the housing element.

this sense is that just came out reported the vacancy of over 31,000 units in san francisco. that does not mean that they are all available, part of it are homes for sale, apartments for rent. there are those that are considered recreational. that is not available until may. if you could extract late, that rate from the 2000 census to 2010, it would mean that the is almost 7000 units that are for recreational use. is that what we are building all of these market rate houses, for the enjoyment of others? i wonder if the planning

department knows how many units are secondary guinness, vacant units. i think those issues had to be asserted by the department when they consider how many units were necessary for san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? >> you should not certify this eir because as far as transportation goes, this is not addressed any medications that are outside the conference on from a department that is under the guise of regulatory capture. that means that nothing here will crossed the bounds of skin off of the developers. any time they have to pay a slight amount of money to

mitigate the transit impacts, the department stops short. of course, they are able to be mitigated but the threshold for identifying this is beyond the grasp of this department. we have seen language that talks about san franciscans as being those who don't want to except any change and that is a frame that is used to take a majority people who breathe life into the communities and turn us into the enemies of some abstract form of progress. what we want to see is a development that occurs marching forward with financing for affordable housing and transit. i think it document needs to address this in a way that is honest and not holding its punches. what it needs to be doing is say that for instance we will not allow any new development until

developers come to the table with the kennedys and identify funding sources. if you're serious about actually doing comprehensive community development and planning, you will bring everything to the table and not exclude things that are too difficult to play with. the developers have to meet us halfway and not have every single thing here benefit them. the matter of parking came up. this is three blocks away from the entrance ramp. this is coming forward in the -- district. why did they are proposing parking and that they considered less parking, the attorney said, why would we do that? most normal people drive and

most normal people want to park their cars in a parking space. my community has a parking ratio of about one parking space inside per 20 units. the planning code talks about maintaining the character. they have never voted on developer giveaways. every time we try to do this, that has been shot down. >> it is there additional public comment? costi wanted to thank the commin for the two years you have been working on this.

this is obviously taking the city as a whole and i appreciate you looking out for an overall plan. i wanted to mention the single- family neighborhoods like the one i live then as it relates to families because one of the stated policy goals is keeping families here and encouraging families and all of that. i want you to know that we moved from the sunset where people like to say it is the home of the six car family. we moved to this neighborhood so that our family could enjoy peace and space. we are contributing to that goal of keeping families in. like to rest of our neighborhood, we volunteer and we were to keep our family in a

good place. i want to mention the goal about increasing transportation usage which is what we need to do in the future. even though we live in this kind of neighborhood, my husband does walk to the part which you can transfer. there are many conscious people even as what you say in our neighborhoods. i wanted to to remind you about some of our people and keep us in mind. thank you. >> it is there additional public comment? cash public comment is closed. >> i have a few questions.

>> we are now at the considerations of findings and public actions. this is before you, case number 2007.127e. >> good evening. the item before you is certification of the final environmental impact report for the 2004 and 2009 housing element. turthe public hearing was held n august 5th, 2010. the public comment closed on

2010. this was published and distributed on march 9th, 2011. subsequent to the publication, additional comments were received from members of the public. these were forwarded to you and additional comments are provided to date. the letters are concerned regarding the availability of water supply and the impact to transit and the effect of the 2004-2009 housing element. because these were received after publications of the comments and responses document, we were unable to include them. however, these are adequately addressed in the comments and responses document and at this time i would like to correct statements made and provide detail as to how the eir addresses the concerns raised. these were incorrectly stated

that the housing element will enable the expansion of san francisco population. this assumes future household growth projections as provided by the planning department and are based on the association of bay area government. as discussed, the response to the comments on page 86, the housing elements did not propose any changes to development controls and will not enable greater residential density. the policies would not increase growth beyond that already assumed by regional growth projection. the conclusions as they relate to water supply are based upon the san francisco public utility

commission or the water supply assessment and not the urban water management plan. the water supplies as it was prepared in 2009 to provide updated information on the availability of water supplies in san francisco for their customers. taking into account proposed major projects, candlestick park, and park merced. the water supply assessment concludes that in years with average or above average precipitation, the puc has sufficient supplies to meet demands. even with slight adjustments for increased water release to improve conditions for downstream fish as analyzed in the final environmental impact report, only with prolonged

drought conditions with further steps identified by the puc become necessary. the transit impact is anticipated under the cumulative conditions. it is possible that housing element policies that encourage housing near transit could result in trips that exceed the capacity standards resulting in a cumulative impact. the first approach to mitigating the transit impact would be to implement transportation plans and programs including the transit affected this project. these projects are in the process of being implemented and it is i known whether implementation would occur and

if implemented, whether they would sufficiently decrease travel time. due to this uncertainty, this was determined to be significant and unavoidable. other comments received concern the protection of neighborhood character. neighborhood character is discussed under -- there were found to be less than significant. none of the comments received merit changes or that would alter the conclusion presented. therefore, we circulation pursuant to the california environmental quality act is not required. we heard speakers to raise concerns about the project. many comments were not addressing the of our mental issues. there were expressions of

support or opposition. public opinion regarding the project is not a concern for certification although you might wish to consider these in your deliberations on the project. some did address environmental issues including whether the eir had a reasonable range of alternatives. there was a reduced density alternative. the comments and responses document -- in response to comments. as discussed throughout the draft eir, the housing elements to not propose any changes to development controls and will not enable greater residential -- which could result in ongoing activities which are consistent with the planning code. the policies of the housing element are intended to maximize the city's ability to support new housing protection.

an alternative which would not meet this would not be in the eir. this would not comply with housing element law. a. no futures on an alternative was also addressed in the comments and responses. regarding the is on the baseline for transportation analysis, this considered to the existing condition and analyze future conditions under the cumulative conditions. it also analyzed 60 intersections throughout the city and found that the traffic impact as a result of the housing element policies would

be less than significant. regarding the changes, pages 266-267 discussed in detail the changes made to the housing element policies in the latest draft and concluded that those were not result in additional environmental impact beyond what was analyzed in the eir. having addressed these other matters, i would like to conclude my presentation regarding certification. the valuation of issues contained found that implementation of the 2004 or 2009 housing element would result in significant and avoidable impact to the transit network that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant. the commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding

consideration pursuant to seek what -- see ceq. the content of the report is adequate, accurate, and the procedures through which this was prepared and it complied with the provisions of the guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation on the matter unless the commission matters have any questions. thank you. >> i think that you answered a lot of my concerns and the made a clear delineation between the environmental concerns and those that might deal with the project itself. specifically, the water supply.

it does not have to be analyzed any differently. someone made a comment about there is no alternative where there is less density but i think where it talks about keeping the 1990 no project continuation which does not address our housing allotment does have an analysis of probably less density. the mitigation for traffic, he analyzed as well as you could have protected on the projections for traffic and what sort of medication might be possible in the future. we analyzed as much as could be mitigated there.

the only other things that i see that not part of the of our mental issue were the extension of the density to areas outside. that is something that we have to discuss. this is something that is not environmental. unless the other commissioners have concerns, i feel that we have addressed the burma to issues adequately. >> i would like to commend the staff. if the project has to take into consideration what the projections are, the sheer number alone would have an unavoidable impact.

we know the population growth is happening. we have seen that. we did grow. we cannot stop you from coming here. that is really important that you clarify that. we don't build anything at the planning department. this document doesn't change the process by which they would get to make the decisions. any project that comes before the department still has to go through the environmental review process.

from the standpoint of what the environmental document needed to analyze what they have, the issues with the language is more of the policy question but not necessary with the environmental aspect of the document. >> this document will it prevent us capture a mitigation.

the obvious kinds of things, they are proceeding but there is not certain to or in control of the planning department where the the resources what happened. in the case of transit, this is not really a matter of not identifying but would be down but about the projects that will happen. given the will and resources, the means to accommodate growth is there. we have actually had cutbacks, not enhancements of service. hopefully that turns around.

there are steps under way to improve the transit picture. as we stand here, there is not a certainty. this is to investigate the feasibility measures and not to pretend that they are feasible when there is not a certainty. >> there is nothing in this document that would prevent us in the future from capturing medications from development? >> absolutely not. >> i move to certify. >> second. >> the motion on the bonds on the floor is for the certification of the environmental impact report.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. you are now on items 19 a and b. case number 2007.1275 em. this is a daunting ceqa findings on approval of the 2009 housing element update of the general plan and consideration of adopting a resolution amending to the general plan.

>> good afternoon. i am here to present the last two items on your calendar. with great pleasure i am here tonight discussing the housing element update. there are a key actions before you. the first action would be t adopt ceqa findings related to the eir that you just certified. the second would be adopting the draft ordinance amending the general plan for the housing element. the case report that we circulated to you all last week has a few minor changes that we recommend for amendment. i think that sarah handed out a

few things that i will talk about in my presentation. first, i wanted to spend time talking about the planning process we have been up to today. i have done this presentation a couple of times. the project manager for this, myself, and art director, and others have been hosting some workshops. we have been working hard with community groups. this is a variety of public

objectives. we started with the community advisory committees. we had one from each district. after 13 meetings, we had a lot of information and a lot of work. we had two major suggestions that i want to call out. one was the consideration of the affordability of moderate income and extremely low income houses. that is a completely separate issue that we heard again and again. the second significant contribution was saying in addition to the report, we also want you to report on three

different policy issues. the first was maintaining a diverse neighborhood characters. the second was balancing housing development and the community infrastructure. the third was prioritizing sustainable development. in addition to all municipalities in the states developing the objectives, this covers these topic areas. we had 30 community meetings following that and produced two drafts previously to trying to get all the various community concerns inc. and community comments. we have continued to receive public comment up until today on all the traps. the third draft was published in

the fall of 2010. this was the subject of two hearings before you and our directing posted -- our director posted two workshops on the content as well. the draft before you has 13 objectives and 67 policies and by and large most of the comments we are receiving are on three or four of these policies. there are varying opinions, there is a lot of community support and concern. i wanted to spend a couple of time reviewing the comments we have received and what our thoughts are. the first is that we have noticed